And just to add fuel to the fire ,Larry king should of mainly asked if his head was about in the shape hawking would visualize outside life. that would of been interesting .
Larry king such a typical corny interviewer I mean I was literally embarrassed watching this seeing As I'm American and this is what's representing me. Shut up about god, and please ask some outside the box questions idiot. Stephen hawking my favorite genius
so, he interviews 2 scientists and could ask them a million interesting questions and eventually learn something, but all he wants to know is whether or not they believe in god, do i get it right?
There is no proof for God. Just a book written thousands of years ago. Christians will continue to deny hard evidence and substitute a magical being. What makes any religion more correct then the next. It's all a bunch of humans from different cultures trying to explain why we are here. None are right. There's no need for God anymore, we have science. If god creates the universe then he must play dice and throw some of the dice in places we
Can't see. There are stars that have been burnt out fo
I'm not a genius like Dr. SpeaknSpell, but it seems obvious he should answer that he would like to go forward in time, because they might have a cure for ALS instead of satiating his curiosity about M theory.
1.) Definition of theory: unproven set of ideas in an attempt to explain something. 2.) it takes alot of faith that something can come from nothing. 3.) cosmology is the understanding of how God did it all
if there are an infinite number of universes that encompass all possible scenarios and permutations of physical laws, wouldn't it logically follow that in some of these universes there would be a god and not in others?
Contingent causes cannot create themselves. All finite and caused things do not have within them the reason for their own existence. Therefore, the totality of all contingent causes require a transcendent first cause.
@StAugustine79@StAugustine79 Science may make assumptions but those assumptions are not absolute unlike the presumption of a higher being. Transcendence merely means something cannot be explained in real terms. Mathematics, unlike theology, is quantifiable.
Hawking - "Our collective free time needs to shift as much as possible to education. Whether you're a young student or finished school long ago, get out to the library whenever you can and work hard to learn everything you can about this world. Each individual and society will benefit from being able to solve more problems and make better decisions. Education is an amazing discovery process that repays you endlessly."
@lukose2007 William Lane Craig - Really? He just works on things we dont yet know in science or things we are trying to better understand and invokes his God. This is not a thinking man, this is a man who works within the gaps in science, granted he does try, but his gaps are getting smaller every year.
Also William Lane Craig cannot attribute one of his theories that only works with his God, all of his hypothesis can be attributed to any of the 3,500 Gods on offer today!
The Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during the Hajj pilgrimage (Abraham). YIN-YANG: energy-particle . CROSS (Christian) and SWASTIKA (Buddhism) are symbols for “Balance of Nature.”
There are tons of videos on Youtube that promote theism and not atheism. Besides, you can't convince someone of God's existence using evidence. Science doesn't deal in absolute truths. You can always be wrong about anything.
If you feel like you have some kind of deep inner knowing of the existence of God, that's fine. I don't, and neither do the people being interviewed in this video.
I TOTALLY LOVE how the Jesuit priest PWNED Leonard, coauthor. You don't play with a Jesuit priest with PhD and who knows his stuff. Do you suppose Larry King brought the Jesuit in because Larry made a mistake? I think NOT.
After the discussion
Youtube vid code --> QuvRbYR6odw
Brief bio of the Jesuit priest - the brief version he got his PhD Summa cum Laude, PEACHES!!!! lol
@DenActivist --what might become a spiritual leader. Dude, both Chopra AND Spitzer are educated. Spitzer has a PhD and Chopra's a doctor. Learn to make Google your Bitch and make that Bitch do tricks for you.
@AegeanKing --They ABSOLUTELY are. I remember them on MySpace as a blogger. Their world revolves around God more than that of believers. God is that "thing" they just can't kill. LMCOOOOO
Hawking is diluted, he violated the law of non contradiction, and he violates the law of cause and affect. .. He draws conclusions without any scientific basis or scientific fact. Hawking CAN NOT THINK OUT SIDE THE BOX. He is hung up on math and math lone, that limits him to going beyond the his limited tunnel vision. Many scientists strongly disagree with him and his theories and findings. The guy is out to lunch, and hasn't yet returned from his illusion.
@dennhk how does he violate the law of non contradiction? how does he violate causality? what conclusions have been made without any scientific basis? what scientists disagree, and what theories and findings do they disagree with? please explain and back up what you're stating.
@numb1010 --maybe you should start Hawking and friends should start by proving how you get nothing from nothing. NO scientist has been able to explain that one. No wait. Atheists will jump up and cry FALLACY-- absence of PROOF is not proof of absence!!!!! That is, when it comes to defending their position. God forbid a fundie uses the same logical fallacy. lol Get wisdom...it actually improves your arguments. ;-)
@DenActivist should i assume you meant to say "something from nothing"? "nothing from nothing" seems tautological :)
"Get wisdom...it actually improves your arguments" - seriously? i didn't make any arguments, i asked questions (i.e. "getting wisdom")... questions you obviously didn't like.. too bad :)
@numb1010 - Yeah...that something if that makes you feel better, but I actually meant to write nothing from nothing. WHY? Because NOTHING is exactly what you get. That went over the heads of those with black and white brain, eh? :P
@DenActivist well i did write tautological didn't i? i've answered your question, maybe you should try answering mine? and maybe you should question whether you can have causality without time.
did you see the bbc horizon documentary named "what happened before the big bang"? you'll find it on yt. seems there is a lot of ideas and debate on the subject, but let guess.. you have the answer, and it's "god did it"? black and white brain indeed, eh? :P
@numb1010 --OK. I'm back. What is your question? I KNOW you are not asking me about causality in terms of how the universe was created. Oh... You missed the memo. Atheists have REJECTED the Big Bang theory... Here's the gossip. They evaluated the theory, liked it, said it stands the scientific test, called it an ATHEIST theory--as if. And have now disowned it as an "atheist" theory. Why? Get this...a JESUIT PRIEST developed it. BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH! Same kind that PWNED Hawkings.lolol
@numb1010 --do a search on that. Some atheists reject the BBT because some Jesuit priest came up with it. It's really ignorant. And I know not all atheists are ignorant, just the "fundamentalist" atheists--those feel they should berate anyone and anything not up to their standard and reject the fact that science has not yet proven everything we need to know about this all started. Sorry I can't do it right now. Kinda busy. Have a nice wk.
@DenActivist rofl, seriously? atheists reject bbt because of georges lemaître? come on man... it's a scientific theory, not an atheistic one. in fact i'm not sure what an atheist theory is :)
i'm not sure what you are on about. i asked some questions, to someone (you?), hoping to get some answers. do you have anything to contribute?
@numb1010 --You are right. It isn't an atheist or a Christian theory. It's scientific theory proposed by a JESUIT, Cat'lick = Xtian. I'm not making this up. I will link you to the forum or article or sum'n close to what I saw if I can find it.
I've no reason to lie and I have no agenda. I call it like I see it. Lies have no leg to stand on.
I can't link here for some reason. Look for atheism.About.com /b/2006/06/08/atheists-reject-the-big-bang.htm
@numb1010 --OK. I think I have discussed this topic enough for a while. I'll be back. Time for fresh new ideas I've not discussed in a while. I will link you to all the 411 I have once I'm done with the research I'm working on.
@DenActivist yeah, and i dropped his name (georges lemaître) to let you know i am aware of the history. sure he was a jesuit priest and a professor of physics. what i fail to see is why you bring it up and how it relates to the questions i asked dennhk...
@numb1010 -- Dude, when I start understanding lateral thinking to the point that I am able to somersault that bitch in my head and break it all down to you I will let you know. But the truth be told, I have NO clue what made me say that. Consider me a dunce in that area. I'm just beginning to understand my own thinking process--for real. I can solve things most ppl can't when I'm focused. IDK what to tell you. Sorry.
@numb1010 - Yeah...that something if that makes you feel better, but I actually meant to write nothing from nothing. WHY? Because NOTHING is exactly what you get. That went over the heads of those with black and white brain, eh? :P
@numb1010 - Yeah...that something if that makes you feel better, but I actually meant to write nothing from nothing. WHY? Because NOTHING is exactly what you get. That went over the heads of those with black and white brain, eh? :P
@numb1010 - Yeah...that something if that makes you feel better, but I actually meant to write nothing from nothing. WHY? Because NOTHING is exactly what you get. That went over the heads of those with black and white brain, eh? :P
@dennhk "Hawking is diluted" So Hawking is a liquid solution made less concentrated by adding water or another solvent? The word you are looking for is deluded - fucking moron.
@elliotlee13 --Like... is that the best you have? Because according to your post, she or he was close enough for you to understand what she or he meant. ;-)
@dennhk Mathematics is the basis for theoretical work. Science uses mathematics and the mathematics can be confirmed from experiments. Science is not a conjuration. It is a process made possible by brilliant and diligent men. Your claims about a "god" is complete and utter bullshit. You're so retarded that it's not even funny!
Hawking is diluted, he violated the law of non contradiction, and he violates the law of cause and affect. .. He draws conclusions without any scientific basis or scientific fact. Hawking CAN NOT THINK OUT SIDE THE BOX. He is hung up on math and math lone, that limits him to going beyond the his limited tunnel vision. Many scientists strongly disagree with him and his theories and findings. The guy is out to lunch, and hasn't yet returned from his illusion.
@masoodrodman Hawking also says the universe(s) was created out of "nothing". Not only does that (and "spontaneous creation") not make any logical sense, it takes him off the hook in having to explain its origins. I'm not sure why Hawking is a leading figure/icon in the atheist community. His meaningless, unqualified terms and circular reasoning are devoured by uncritical atheists as pearls of wisdom...but why? Is it because he's great at math, or famous? Because he's certainly no philosopher.
@No1warp9 --Atheist are NOT known for their ability to reason. Most tend to engage in mental gymnastics like Fundies--Christian fundamentalist. They are the paranoid whose turn it is to bag the crap. No matter how well you sealed the bag and washed your hands, you still smell the sht. lol
Hawking said: "According to M-Theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-Theory predicts that a great many universes were CREATED out of NOTHING. Their CREATION does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or God. Rather, these multiple universes arise NATURALLY from PHYSICAL LAW. They are a prediction of SCIENCE."
Come on folks. This is a blatant example of circular reasoning. He might as well say "It must be true because scientists & scientific texts say it's true."
@masoodrodman Hawking uses the terms "naturally" and "physical law" to explain the origins of the universe(s). This is a show of ignorance of the true origins of the universe hidden behind non-descriptive, scientific-sounding unqualified terms. It's like saying the universe exists because it's "natural" and follows "physical laws". His "explanation" is meaningless, unqualified, and circular. It's no different than saying God must be real because the bible (which describes God) says its so.
@masoodrodman I'm no PhD or scientist, but I'm very logical and simple with my reasoning, and will spell out clearly what can be logically debated. Arguments by Hawking/athiests and theists cannot really be debated. One either accepts it or one does not.
For myself, I don't follow ID in the strict sense of the universe being created by an "entity". Rather, I view Creation and Creator as one and the same. Thus, the Self (Creation) exists ONLY by virtue of that which it gives existence to.
@masoodrodman Nope. I don't follow anyone...never have, never will...nor any religion or philosophy. My conclusions I arrived at on my own based on observation, logic, and evidence. To me, the Oneness of All is the inevitable, ineffable, undeniable conclusion to a serious, open-minded & un-indoctrinated search for truth. Chopra follows Eastern traditional beliefs, so it's no surprise that the "interconnectedness" of all things forms the basis of his beliefs.
@GluttonForSex In this cosmos, everything that is physically possible is bound to occur, and until we know all of physicality, we must not jump to conclusions. In this universe that we inhabit, incredible things occur that you discount as "mere conincidence", but are they? To recount one of thousands: a few days ago I met a bloke in a jacuzzi at the gym, who was on the same page as I, at the end of the second volume of the "Millinium" trilogy, only his copy was in Italian and mine was in English
@EntinludeX Denial of an entity you believe not to exist is the assertion of a belief nontheless. When there is no observeable proof one way or the other, the assertion of negative belief is an act of faith. In disbelieving in God, you are as much a believer as the Pope is.
@mc0558 "Denial of an entity you believe not to exist is the assertion of a belief nontheless. When there is no observeable proof one way or the other, the assertion of negative belief is an act of faith. In disbelieving in God, you are as much a believer as the Pope is."
Except of course, DISBELIEF is not a BELEIF and it takes NO FAITH do disbeleive what isn't observed to exist in the first place.
But don't let known reality stop you. ethereal dragons at the bottom of every mineshaft.
@mc0558 Except that atheism is not about denial at all, but simply about acknowledging chronic lack of evidence in a sober and honest way. Atheism is not a belief in the absence of gods, it is merely the absence of a belief in gods due to lack of evidence for them.
Are you a person who denies the existence of invisible monsters made of cheese, or is your lack of belief in the invisible monsters made of cheese simply a consequence of you having no reason to assume they are there to begin with?
@GluttonForSex But there is evidence, except that you choose to discount it. Hume said that the three degrees of evidence in terms of persuasiveness are: personal experience, the experience of others, and third party recounting the experience of others (as in a mongraph). There are millions of people who will tell you that they have had, totally uninvited and unexpected, mystical experiences. Do they occur without there being a God? Perhaps yes! Perhaps no! BUT YOU CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE!!!!!!!!
@mc0558 Evidence is that which can be systematically reproduced by independent observers. Subjective experience doesn't meet this criteria.
It's rather ironic to hear a person of faith emphasize that "you can't know for sure", when belief seems in fact to revolve around the illusion of "knowing for sure". But long ago, people "just knew" that the Earth was flat too. As it tends to turn out, nature's imagination is far greater than ours is. And religion seems very much part of human imagination.
Which definition of immaterial are you using? They are on wholly different philosophical plains.
As for your sojourn into logical positivism, which is new, the strictures apply to your agrument not mine. I have never once asserted anything transcendental; all I have done is speculate about reported human experience. It is you who have made the transcendent assertions about their negative validity. Thus, it is you who exceeded epistomological strictures pertaining to this world, not me!
@EntinludeX On these matters, there's nothing more than speculation. As for its inconsequentiality, I think I have more to complain about your contributions than you have about mine.
This is untrue. There are plenty of people who say that they were completely irreligious before their mystical experience. It came to them totally uninvited, unexpected and with no degree of faith, good-works or degree of worthiness. Out of the blue, so to speak. The contact between God and certain people is apparently all one way.
@mc0558 Nonsene. There are plenty of people who say alot of things. Some people claim they were abducted by aliens, plagued by ghosts, or hunt bugfoot. MOst delusionas & mental breakdowns ARE totally uninvited & unexpected. Are we calling hearsay and conjecture, factual truth, now? I think not. Thats just delusional nonsense from out of the blue. SO WHAT?
You'll have to prove supernatural contact EXISTS FIRST.... BEFORE you can assert it's directionality and origin. Good luck.
@EntinludeX 1. Of course there are cranks out there, but unless you ipso fact define all those who testify to religious experiences as cranks, what do you think the mathematical possibility that some of them aren't are? Moreover, remember "The Grand Design"--given the law of probability, everything that is physically possible will have occurred in one universe or another. Perhaps this universe has characteristics like synchronisity, etc. etc. 2. Proving God is impossible, as is disproving Him.
@mc0558 "define all those who testify to religious experiences as cranks, what do you think the mathematical possibility that some of them aren't are?" You REALLY want to play the supernatural odds? Hilarious.
"Proving God is impossible, as is disproving Him"
Why not them? Givcen the laws of probability, how is it exactly, that you've ruled out an ifninite panthon of lesser deities?
Whats the probability of a supernatural disembodied mind of any sort? Sucker.
@EntinludeX I am not playing anything. I asked a simple question which you avoid answering! As for an infinite pantheon of lesser deities. . . you're the one saying that this is impossible. That's not my position. In fact, my guess is that if M-theory is right there must be universes in which that is the reality. However, it is not my experience that it is true of this universe, which is not to say that it is impossible only that it seem improbable. As I said, "impossibility" is your argument.
@mc0558 Baseless supernatural speculation is all you've got. Letme know when you have a single supernatural fact. Untill then you're merely working in the art of sophestry.
@EntinludeX Well it's not quite baseless as there are millions of people, some of them quite sophisticated, who have testified to supernatural experience.Hume says that personal experience is the highest form of evidence. You may dispute those experiences,but what percentage of them can you refute? Moreover, why would it be important to you for you to do so? Fear? As for being a sophist, on the contrary--I have been giving you genuine arguments that I think rational and worthy of consideration.
@mc0558 "Hume says that personal experience is the highest form of evidence. You may dispute those experiences,but what percentage of them can you refute"
All of them. 100%. And I will of course, continue to do so, untill you've provided demonsterable evidence for the claims you make.
As i've told you, what is assertion without evidence is dismissed as easily.
You've given nothing to consider, you've offered nothing of geniune consequence.
@EntinludeX Law of probability. Earth= 1 of 8 planets in this solar system; this solar system= 1 of 200 to 400 billion systems in the Milky Way galaxy; this galaxy= 1 of over 500 billion in our universe. If the M-theorists are correct this universe= 1 in a number of parallel universes, making up the cosmos, which computes on the highest calculator as simply “infinity”. Add to this, that it is about 13.5 billion years since the big bang. Conclusion: everything physically possible exists.
@mc0558 Law of probability works only within known systems, You cannot make conclusions reguarding supernatural systems since nothing is known about them, let alone that supernatural is physically possible.
"Conclusion: everything physically possible exists"
Agreed. What does that have anything to do with gods or anything supernatural?
Is a supernatural god ...physical? What nonsense.
@mc0558 You are saying that millions of screaming fans cannot be wrong.
I am saying millions of screaming fans can infact be morons.
All you'vedone thus far is continue to live up to the low expectations I've come to expect from the pitchers of supernatural mysticism and incaporeal woo. As you claim intolerance of "impudent fools" I claim intollerance of credulous suckers.
Believe as you wish, but know wishing will not make it so.
@mc0558 Honestly, is it simply too difficult for you to grasp that in all likelyhood the immaterial 1: not consisting of matter : incorporeal is... immaterial 2: of no substantial consequence : unimportant?
What's on your mind? Doens't matter.
Whats the matter? Never mind.
But please continue to regale me with your less than hypothetical speculations on things about which nothing cannot properly or difinitivly be expressed or said. I find the nonsense quite entertaining.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -- Epicurus, 341-270 BCE
@mc0558 Sorry, but all supernatural claims are just incoherent nonsense. You've not only got not even 1/100th of 1% of a single demonstrable supernatural thing, so cannot demonstrate that the supernatural is a thing at all. You're essentially got little more than a paradoxical fruitless thought exercise attempting to explain little more than imagined 'nothings'.
Like Cryptozoology and Alchemy, Theology is a failed ancient attempt at science. While free to, u're off ur rocker to think otherwise.
@EntinludeX Supernatural claims are of two types: those that spring from "conviction" and those that come from personal experience. The latter are compelling and hard to explain away. You cannot tell someone who life was changed by "divine intervention" to forget about it because it didn't happen to me.
@mc0558 "Supernatural claims are of two types: those that spring from "conviction" and those that come from personal experience"
You see, this is exactly the unfounded duplicity I'm talking about.
One must of course be of "conviction" that ones "personal experiences" are valid for any given delusion as well. These are not two things; these are a description of the same thing. It has nothing to do with ones "personal experiences" actually mapping to reality, no matter how "convinced" one is.
@GluttonForSex I wonder if your concept of evil and that of Epicurus are the same. Because if they are not then your reason for posting this is mistaken. Epicurus found slavery a noble institution. Do you? If not then why are you quoting me Epicurus' dictum. And in appealing to God's judgment of good and evil, why are you citing Epicurus?
A remarkable element in all this is that, in discussion, the differences between fine physicists, philosophers, logicians and theologians are very small. They come down to what constitutes evidence. All would agree that all knowledge is good, but there will be disagreement on the application of knowledge. Einstein thought discovery of atomic energy was like putting a razor blade in the hands of a 3 year old. But apparently, the 3 year old recognized the danger and was prompted to grow up fast.
@EntinludeX Read Bradly and Wittgenstein. It is an argument I am not going to repeat here. As there is no observational evidence either way, denial of the existence of God is Belief that God does not exist. As Bradly put it, "An atheist is merely a theologian with a rival theory of his own." But trying to drive this simple epistomological fact into the head of an atheist is impossible. They know nothing about the issue involved, and that's the way they want to keep it.
@EntinludeX Denial of something you believe to be untrue is the assertion of a belief. And when there is no demonstrable proof, the assertion of a belief is an act of faith. You are as much a believer at the Pope!
@mc0558 To claim that disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing is itself a belief , let alone a system of belief, is to ignore antonyms at ones convenience. It shows the intellectual bankruptcy of your proposition.
@EntinludeX It isn't my position. It's Bradley's and Wittgenstein's. Have you read Tractatus or Bradley's Principles of Logic or Essays on Truth and Reality? Get in touch with once you have! Meanwhile, speak softly!
@mc0558 You clearly don't grasp that without evidence these essays have nothing whatsoever to DO with truth or reality. Theologians are merely professional liars. You, merely a credulous fool.
@EntinludeX You know the work of Bradley, then! Hum . . .
Look you are obviously too involved in the polemics of this discussion to spare thought for the subject at hand. It's time to back away. This is my last word to you on this topic, at least for a time. Anything you write will be for you benefit only.
@mc0558 I truly wish it were you last word, but I doubt that very much. Your absurd appeals to authority, without substantive appeals to demonstrable evidence only show you have nothing but your own hole to dig here.
@EntinludeX FYI, Bradley was only incidentaly a theologian. He was primarily a logician and philosopher. He held the Chair in Logic at Merton College, Oxfore. What are you credentials on the subject?
Excuse me, Hawking has NEVER denied the possibility of God's existence. He is much too philosophically knowledgeable to make that mistake. Unlike you, he know his Wittgenstein and Bradley. Hawking has speculated on the nature of God, should He exist. And if you have been objective enough to actually read what I have written, I have neither asserted nor excluded the existence of God either. You're the one with the monopoly on certainty.
@EntinludeX But God IS unnecessary to science, not only unnecessary but an incumbrance. Nobody denies that! God and morality only come into play with the implementation of science.
@mc0558 No, god Hawkings is explicit that a god is unnecessary for the formation of the universe or any of the processes contained therein. Again review the source material..
@mc0558 Hilarious. Deities of no sort are required for incumbent, nor for ethics, nor for scientific implementation. I deny that entirely. What baseless crap you're spewing.
@EntinludeX Where then do ethics and morality come from? Inherent in the evolution life? If so, what happened to the products of evolution who don't have them? They have the arms, the legs, etc., but they don't have the ethics and the morality. How is that?
@mc0558 Moral and ethical philosophy come from humans. We make them up and use what works.
Inherent to the evolution of life? Nope. life doesn't require or nessecitate ethics or moral behavior.
Mostly just inherent in group behavior adapted for the the long term survival of social animals. The more advanced the species, the more complex the ethical codex becomes.
@EntinludeX We have covered this ground before but you seem not to have understood it or you perversely refuse to accept it. "Perversely" because you do nothing to refute the scholarship behind it. The supernatural is a guess AND denial of the supernatural is a guess. Science reveals the mechanisms of nature in this universe. So far, it has revealed nothing beyond that and there is reason to suppose that, in the life of the human species, it may never do so.Thus science reveals nothing abt God.
@mc0558 "They have the arms, the legs, etc., but they don't have the ethics and the morality. How is that?"
WTF do you imagine arms and legs have anything to do with it?
Are you just not aware of our complex neurology and social grouping order as mammalian primates ...or...what? Is that honestly so confounding to you as a social mammal?
How has the obviousness of this escaped you? Oh right, because you indulge mysticism in leu of ignorance.
@EntinludeX I don't indulge in any specuatio that is not rooted in science, mathematics or logic. I am merely posing questions to a believer in atheism that might spur both of us to think. Your notion that the higher instincts of mankind are rooted in the mechanics of the body reminds me of d'Alembert's Prolegamenia to Diderot's Encyclopaedia. You seem to me an 18th century Enlightenment materialist and everything that has subsequently been done in philosophy seems to have escaped you.
@EntinludeX So, it IS all mechanical then? As I said, exactly what the philosophers of the Enlightenment said. That being your position, what is your take on Kant then?
@EntinludeX Kant beside the point? Have you read Der Kritik? It is very much too the point. Hume and Nietzsche are not. Nietzsche is one of your lot. Hume though is special. No the destroyers of the superficial Enlightenment were Kant and Hegel. I believe, however, that the transcendent genius of Hegel is yet to be fully appreciate. He was a nacient Quantum physicist a century before Quantum physics. The Enlightenment philosophers believed that appearances were true; they were completely wrong!
@EntinludeX I certainly do comprehend the number zero and do you realize that there are numbers in physical probability that even the most sophisticated computers of our time cannot calculate? The language does not contain enough combinations of sounds to distinguish them. We are in a vast cosmos in which everything physically possible is a certain probability.
@mc0558 Explain this language that cannot be communicated. Explain thy what you cannot phathom or distinguish should be entertained as anything other than poetic fancy.
@EntinludeX Have you read Der Kritik? It is very much too the point. Nietzsche was one of your lot-an atheist. Hume is special. But the greatest post-Enlightenment philosopher of time was Hegel, about whom even more is yet to be appreciate. The links between Hegel's examination of reality and Quantum physics are remarkable.
And just to add fuel to the fire ,Larry king should of mainly asked if his head was about in the shape hawking would visualize outside life. that would of been interesting .
zeRonster 1 day ago
Larry king such a typical corny interviewer I mean I was literally embarrassed watching this seeing As I'm American and this is what's representing me. Shut up about god, and please ask some outside the box questions idiot. Stephen hawking my favorite genius
zeRonster 1 day ago
Hawking is in a vegetative state and still 10x smarter than the religious people on YouTube commenting on his videos.
Here's the scale of intellect:
Genius
Average
Retarted
Creationist
uplandassault 1 month ago
so, he interviews 2 scientists and could ask them a million interesting questions and eventually learn something, but all he wants to know is whether or not they believe in god, do i get it right?
arnow77 1 month ago
There is no proof for God. Just a book written thousands of years ago. Christians will continue to deny hard evidence and substitute a magical being. What makes any religion more correct then the next. It's all a bunch of humans from different cultures trying to explain why we are here. None are right. There's no need for God anymore, we have science. If god creates the universe then he must play dice and throw some of the dice in places we
Can't see. There are stars that have been burnt out fo
Pfannenstiel1987 2 months ago
@Pfannenstiel1987 There is no proof for God <<
I have not gotten any proof either. However I cannot say definetly there is or is not God. I do think there is; purely by presumptive conjectures.
maginatorgia 2 weeks ago
The antiChrist wills squash Hawkins.... He should be scared.
Unbox4U 2 months ago
I'm not a genius like Dr. SpeaknSpell, but it seems obvious he should answer that he would like to go forward in time, because they might have a cure for ALS instead of satiating his curiosity about M theory.
Ashleynewyear 2 months ago
1.) Definition of theory: unproven set of ideas in an attempt to explain something. 2.) it takes alot of faith that something can come from nothing. 3.) cosmology is the understanding of how God did it all
Unbox4U 2 months ago
how does he get that content into his voice "box".?
KiKiTheTechie 2 months ago
Damn
randomruff81 2 months ago
Another mad scientist with wild theories of creation.
paulod27 3 months ago
@paulod27 and you're an idiot that did nothing in his life
FIGHTFANNERD3 2 months ago
if there are an infinite number of universes that encompass all possible scenarios and permutations of physical laws, wouldn't it logically follow that in some of these universes there would be a god and not in others?
playadominical 3 months ago
God IS real wether you like it or not believe it or not, admit it or not so GOD FTW!!!!!!
shaithinshoe 3 months ago
People should stop saying that his logic doesn't work, and actually read his book. Then you'll see that the logic is perfectly reasonable.
ohmysausages 3 months ago
Hawkings is god!
GurutechDK 3 months ago
Contingent causes cannot create themselves. All finite and caused things do not have within them the reason for their own existence. Therefore, the totality of all contingent causes require a transcendent first cause.
StAugustine79 4 months ago
@StAugustine79 @StAugustine79 Science may make assumptions but those assumptions are not absolute unlike the presumption of a higher being. Transcendence merely means something cannot be explained in real terms. Mathematics, unlike theology, is quantifiable.
flinchus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hawking - "Our collective free time needs to shift as much as possible to education. Whether you're a young student or finished school long ago, get out to the library whenever you can and work hard to learn everything you can about this world. Each individual and society will benefit from being able to solve more problems and make better decisions. Education is an amazing discovery process that repays you endlessly."
TheLogicalBrain 4 months ago
when the time comes that we can travel to other planets, only the rich can go there. the poor will stay here and get killed by the sun.
SteveDutchy 5 months ago
William Lane Craig has BETTER ARGUMENTS for the EXISTENCE OF GOD.
lukose2007 5 months ago
@lukose2007 William Lane Craig - Really? He just works on things we dont yet know in science or things we are trying to better understand and invokes his God. This is not a thinking man, this is a man who works within the gaps in science, granted he does try, but his gaps are getting smaller every year.
Also William Lane Craig cannot attribute one of his theories that only works with his God, all of his hypothesis can be attributed to any of the 3,500 Gods on offer today!
peterjricci 5 months ago 4
@peterjricci
QUOTE: "William Lane Craig... all of his hypothesis can be attributed to any of the 3,500 Gods on offer today!"
Craig's arguments do not apply to any corporeal theories of god. This immediately eliminates many of those 3,500 gods.
Peace-
philosophy7575 2 months ago
Jesus saves at city bank.
fucking shit /palm on face.
infinity2kx 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD - Philosophia Perennis and Science.
The Old Lady’s TORTOISE (Hinduism) and DRAGON (Taoism) are symbols for WAVE (energy), both are analog with MAGEN DAVID (Judaism). "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is the metaphor, and also similar with allegory of rituals Thawaf circling around the Ka'ba and Sa’i oscillating along “the sinus” Marwah-Shafa during the Hajj pilgrimage (Abraham). YIN-YANG: energy-particle . CROSS (Christian) and SWASTIKA (Buddhism) are symbols for “Balance of Nature.”
TatoSugiarto 6 months ago
@eliotlee13
The word you are looking for is solute, not solvent. Solutes are the things that are dissolved into solvents. You dumb fuck.
digital111x 6 months ago
What a low class attempt to promote athiesism. The Video cuts out Father Spitzer. What a bunch of cowards and losers
Theologyontap 6 months ago
@Theologyontap pretty sure hawking said that there may be a god. And pretty sure religion has had its fair share of advertising.
Dpesh7 6 months ago
@Theologyontap
There are tons of videos on Youtube that promote theism and not atheism. Besides, you can't convince someone of God's existence using evidence. Science doesn't deal in absolute truths. You can always be wrong about anything.
If you feel like you have some kind of deep inner knowing of the existence of God, that's fine. I don't, and neither do the people being interviewed in this video.
matt22mccarthy 6 months ago
I TOTALLY LOVE how the Jesuit priest PWNED Leonard, coauthor. You don't play with a Jesuit priest with PhD and who knows his stuff. Do you suppose Larry King brought the Jesuit in because Larry made a mistake? I think NOT.
After the discussion
Youtube vid code --> QuvRbYR6odw
Brief bio of the Jesuit priest - the brief version he got his PhD Summa cum Laude, PEACHES!!!! lol
DenActivist 7 months ago
@eevil123 --hmmm, maaaaaaaaaaaaaybe because he's a spiritual leader? Hmmm??? /Church Lady tone
DenActivist 7 months ago
@DenActivist --what might become a spiritual leader. Dude, both Chopra AND Spitzer are educated. Spitzer has a PhD and Chopra's a doctor. Learn to make Google your Bitch and make that Bitch do tricks for you.
DenActivist 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
every single comment are from atheists. Makes you wonder why atheists are so obsessed with God.
AegeanKing 7 months ago
@AegeanKing --They ABSOLUTELY are. I remember them on MySpace as a blogger. Their world revolves around God more than that of believers. God is that "thing" they just can't kill. LMCOOOOO
DenActivist 7 months ago
This guy focuses on to much impossiblities.
guerillachan20 8 months ago
damn i almost cried when he said i had two years
martystreets 8 months ago
a few hundred year?? that is inconceivable that human history can continue for a few hundred years, but interesting points.
magicalray93 8 months ago
He is such an interesting man! :D
DanOHearn 8 months ago
Stephen Hawking is one terse gangsta.
HelloStevenful 8 months ago
Keep it Simple • All u need is LoVe•
God Bless America!!!
Tenfeyoya 9 months ago
If you ask a man who has lost his body...
to whether want to go in future or in past ...what will be his answer?
and what did hawking answered???
That is sign of a person who is whole and sole dedicated to his profession..
tanmay91patil 9 months ago
Hawking is diluted, he violated the law of non contradiction, and he violates the law of cause and affect. .. He draws conclusions without any scientific basis or scientific fact. Hawking CAN NOT THINK OUT SIDE THE BOX. He is hung up on math and math lone, that limits him to going beyond the his limited tunnel vision. Many scientists strongly disagree with him and his theories and findings. The guy is out to lunch, and hasn't yet returned from his illusion.
dennhk 9 months ago
Comment removed
numb1010 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dennhk how does he violate the law of non contradiction? how does he violate causality? what conclusions have been made without any scientific basis? what scientists disagree, and what theories and findings do they disagree with? please explain and back up what you're stating.
numb1010 9 months ago
@numb1010 --maybe you should start Hawking and friends should start by proving how you get nothing from nothing. NO scientist has been able to explain that one. No wait. Atheists will jump up and cry FALLACY-- absence of PROOF is not proof of absence!!!!! That is, when it comes to defending their position. God forbid a fundie uses the same logical fallacy. lol Get wisdom...it actually improves your arguments. ;-)
DenActivist 7 months ago
@DenActivist should i assume you meant to say "something from nothing"? "nothing from nothing" seems tautological :)
"Get wisdom...it actually improves your arguments" - seriously? i didn't make any arguments, i asked questions (i.e. "getting wisdom")... questions you obviously didn't like.. too bad :)
numb1010 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@numb1010 - Yeah...that something if that makes you feel better, but I actually meant to write nothing from nothing. WHY? Because NOTHING is exactly what you get. That went over the heads of those with black and white brain, eh? :P
DenActivist 7 months ago
@DenActivist well i did write tautological didn't i? i've answered your question, maybe you should try answering mine? and maybe you should question whether you can have causality without time.
did you see the bbc horizon documentary named "what happened before the big bang"? you'll find it on yt. seems there is a lot of ideas and debate on the subject, but let guess.. you have the answer, and it's "god did it"? black and white brain indeed, eh? :P
why the attitude? inferiority complex? :D
numb1010 7 months ago
@numb1010 --I'll answer you soon. I don't log in everyday. I'm on my way out but I give you my word I will reply when I come back.
DenActivist 7 months ago
@numb1010 --OK. I'm back. What is your question? I KNOW you are not asking me about causality in terms of how the universe was created. Oh... You missed the memo. Atheists have REJECTED the Big Bang theory... Here's the gossip. They evaluated the theory, liked it, said it stands the scientific test, called it an ATHEIST theory--as if. And have now disowned it as an "atheist" theory. Why? Get this...a JESUIT PRIEST developed it. BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH! Same kind that PWNED Hawkings.lolol
DenActivist 7 months ago
@DenActivist atheist theory? what are you talking about?
numb1010 7 months ago
@numb1010 --do a search on that. Some atheists reject the BBT because some Jesuit priest came up with it. It's really ignorant. And I know not all atheists are ignorant, just the "fundamentalist" atheists--those feel they should berate anyone and anything not up to their standard and reject the fact that science has not yet proven everything we need to know about this all started. Sorry I can't do it right now. Kinda busy. Have a nice wk.
DenActivist 7 months ago
@DenActivist rofl, seriously? atheists reject bbt because of georges lemaître? come on man... it's a scientific theory, not an atheistic one. in fact i'm not sure what an atheist theory is :)
i'm not sure what you are on about. i asked some questions, to someone (you?), hoping to get some answers. do you have anything to contribute?
numb1010 7 months ago
@numb1010 --You are right. It isn't an atheist or a Christian theory. It's scientific theory proposed by a JESUIT, Cat'lick = Xtian. I'm not making this up. I will link you to the forum or article or sum'n close to what I saw if I can find it.
I've no reason to lie and I have no agenda. I call it like I see it. Lies have no leg to stand on.
I can't link here for some reason. Look for atheism.About.com /b/2006/06/08/atheists-reject-the-big-bang.htm
DenActivist 7 months ago
@numb1010 - infidels.org /library /modern/quentin_smith/cosmology.html
secularhumanism. org /library/fi/smith_18_2.html
DenActivist 7 months ago
@numb1010 -- atheistnexus. org /forum/topics/the-father-of-the-big-bang
DenActivist 7 months ago
@numb1010 --OK. I think I have discussed this topic enough for a while. I'll be back. Time for fresh new ideas I've not discussed in a while. I will link you to all the 411 I have once I'm done with the research I'm working on.
Peas and carrots
DenActivist 7 months ago
@DenActivist yeah, and i dropped his name (georges lemaître) to let you know i am aware of the history. sure he was a jesuit priest and a professor of physics. what i fail to see is why you bring it up and how it relates to the questions i asked dennhk...
numb1010 7 months ago
@numb1010 -- Dude, when I start understanding lateral thinking to the point that I am able to somersault that bitch in my head and break it all down to you I will let you know. But the truth be told, I have NO clue what made me say that. Consider me a dunce in that area. I'm just beginning to understand my own thinking process--for real. I can solve things most ppl can't when I'm focused. IDK what to tell you. Sorry.
DenActivist 6 months ago
Comment removed
DenActivist 7 months ago
@numb1010 - Yeah...that something if that makes you feel better, but I actually meant to write nothing from nothing. WHY? Because NOTHING is exactly what you get. That went over the heads of those with black and white brain, eh? :P
DenActivist 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@numb1010 - Yeah...that something if that makes you feel better, but I actually meant to write nothing from nothing. WHY? Because NOTHING is exactly what you get. That went over the heads of those with black and white brain, eh? :P
DenActivist 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@numb1010 - Yeah...that something if that makes you feel better, but I actually meant to write nothing from nothing. WHY? Because NOTHING is exactly what you get. That went over the heads of those with black and white brain, eh? :P
DenActivist 7 months ago
@dennhk "Hawking is diluted" So Hawking is a liquid solution made less concentrated by adding water or another solvent? The word you are looking for is deluded - fucking moron.
elliotlee13 8 months ago 23
@elliotlee13 --Like... is that the best you have? Because according to your post, she or he was close enough for you to understand what she or he meant. ;-)
DenActivist 7 months ago
@elliotlee13 Lol hilarious comment.
iMaxMao 3 months ago
@dennhk Mathematics is the basis for theoretical work. Science uses mathematics and the mathematics can be confirmed from experiments. Science is not a conjuration. It is a process made possible by brilliant and diligent men. Your claims about a "god" is complete and utter bullshit. You're so retarded that it's not even funny!
FallofDarkness55 8 months ago
Hawking is diluted, he violated the law of non contradiction, and he violates the law of cause and affect. .. He draws conclusions without any scientific basis or scientific fact. Hawking CAN NOT THINK OUT SIDE THE BOX. He is hung up on math and math lone, that limits him to going beyond the his limited tunnel vision. Many scientists strongly disagree with him and his theories and findings. The guy is out to lunch, and hasn't yet returned from his illusion.
dennhk 9 months ago
He is my hero!
S Hawking, I mean, not Larry XD
MADONNALILYazucena 9 months ago
@masoodrodman Hawking also says the universe(s) was created out of "nothing". Not only does that (and "spontaneous creation") not make any logical sense, it takes him off the hook in having to explain its origins. I'm not sure why Hawking is a leading figure/icon in the atheist community. His meaningless, unqualified terms and circular reasoning are devoured by uncritical atheists as pearls of wisdom...but why? Is it because he's great at math, or famous? Because he's certainly no philosopher.
No1warp9 9 months ago
@No1warp9 --Atheist are NOT known for their ability to reason. Most tend to engage in mental gymnastics like Fundies--Christian fundamentalist. They are the paranoid whose turn it is to bag the crap. No matter how well you sealed the bag and washed your hands, you still smell the sht. lol
DenActivist 7 months ago
Hawking said: "According to M-Theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-Theory predicts that a great many universes were CREATED out of NOTHING. Their CREATION does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or God. Rather, these multiple universes arise NATURALLY from PHYSICAL LAW. They are a prediction of SCIENCE."
Come on folks. This is a blatant example of circular reasoning. He might as well say "It must be true because scientists & scientific texts say it's true."
No1warp9 9 months ago
@No1warp9 how is that circular reasoning,.,.,.,do u even knw wat it means
masoodrodman 9 months ago
@masoodrodman Hawking uses the terms "naturally" and "physical law" to explain the origins of the universe(s). This is a show of ignorance of the true origins of the universe hidden behind non-descriptive, scientific-sounding unqualified terms. It's like saying the universe exists because it's "natural" and follows "physical laws". His "explanation" is meaningless, unqualified, and circular. It's no different than saying God must be real because the bible (which describes God) says its so.
No1warp9 9 months ago
@No1warp9 so wat is ur theory mr phd physicist or are u an intelligent design advocate like me
masoodrodman 9 months ago
@masoodrodman I'm no PhD or scientist, but I'm very logical and simple with my reasoning, and will spell out clearly what can be logically debated. Arguments by Hawking/athiests and theists cannot really be debated. One either accepts it or one does not.
For myself, I don't follow ID in the strict sense of the universe being created by an "entity". Rather, I view Creation and Creator as one and the same. Thus, the Self (Creation) exists ONLY by virtue of that which it gives existence to.
No1warp9 9 months ago
@No1warp9 simply put u follow deepak chopra
masoodrodman 9 months ago
@masoodrodman Nope. I don't follow anyone...never have, never will...nor any religion or philosophy. My conclusions I arrived at on my own based on observation, logic, and evidence. To me, the Oneness of All is the inevitable, ineffable, undeniable conclusion to a serious, open-minded & un-indoctrinated search for truth. Chopra follows Eastern traditional beliefs, so it's no surprise that the "interconnectedness" of all things forms the basis of his beliefs.
No1warp9 9 months ago
Why do I constantly get the feeling that physicists are stealing Eastern mysticism and replacing it with their own scientifically sounding terms?
No1warp9 9 months ago
Hawking doesn't waste time on bullshit. \m/
mdiem 11 months ago 44
@mdiem Yeah, man, I love it.
biokant 5 months ago
@mdiem
No, doesn't waste anytime. He straight on the the B.S.
SIUgirl1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mdiem
No, doesn't waste anytime. He get straight on to the the B.S.
SIUgirl1 3 months ago
kk
gilbtx 11 months ago
@GluttonForSex In this cosmos, everything that is physically possible is bound to occur, and until we know all of physicality, we must not jump to conclusions. In this universe that we inhabit, incredible things occur that you discount as "mere conincidence", but are they? To recount one of thousands: a few days ago I met a bloke in a jacuzzi at the gym, who was on the same page as I, at the end of the second volume of the "Millinium" trilogy, only his copy was in Italian and mine was in English
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 "you discount as "mere conincidence", but are they? "
Clearly it's the work of alien spirits from Lord Xenu. It's no coincidence.
Lets jump to the conclusion that best suits or fanciful subjective preferences, rather than the objective facts.
Unerwear Gnome Logic.
Step 1: Something happened.
Step 2: ???????
Step 3: Profit!!
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX Denial of an entity you believe not to exist is the assertion of a belief nontheless. When there is no observeable proof one way or the other, the assertion of negative belief is an act of faith. In disbelieving in God, you are as much a believer as the Pope is.
mc0558 1 year ago
Comment removed
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@mc0558 "Denial of an entity you believe not to exist is the assertion of a belief nontheless. When there is no observeable proof one way or the other, the assertion of negative belief is an act of faith. In disbelieving in God, you are as much a believer as the Pope is."
Except of course, DISBELIEF is not a BELEIF and it takes NO FAITH do disbeleive what isn't observed to exist in the first place.
But don't let known reality stop you. ethereal dragons at the bottom of every mineshaft.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@mc0558 Except that atheism is not about denial at all, but simply about acknowledging chronic lack of evidence in a sober and honest way. Atheism is not a belief in the absence of gods, it is merely the absence of a belief in gods due to lack of evidence for them.
Are you a person who denies the existence of invisible monsters made of cheese, or is your lack of belief in the invisible monsters made of cheese simply a consequence of you having no reason to assume they are there to begin with?
GluttonForSex 1 year ago
@GluttonForSex But there is evidence, except that you choose to discount it. Hume said that the three degrees of evidence in terms of persuasiveness are: personal experience, the experience of others, and third party recounting the experience of others (as in a mongraph). There are millions of people who will tell you that they have had, totally uninvited and unexpected, mystical experiences. Do they occur without there being a God? Perhaps yes! Perhaps no! BUT YOU CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE!!!!!!!!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Evidence is that which can be systematically reproduced by independent observers. Subjective experience doesn't meet this criteria.
It's rather ironic to hear a person of faith emphasize that "you can't know for sure", when belief seems in fact to revolve around the illusion of "knowing for sure". But long ago, people "just knew" that the Earth was flat too. As it tends to turn out, nature's imagination is far greater than ours is. And religion seems very much part of human imagination.
GluttonForSex 1 year ago
@mc0558 "But there is evidence, except that you choose to discount it"
"erhaps yes! Perhaps no! BUT YOU CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE!!!!!!!!"
Could be Leperchauins. Maybe yes. Maybe no. You can't know for sure.
But you can be reasonably certain.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
Which definition of immaterial are you using? They are on wholly different philosophical plains.
As for your sojourn into logical positivism, which is new, the strictures apply to your agrument not mine. I have never once asserted anything transcendental; all I have done is speculate about reported human experience. It is you who have made the transcendent assertions about their negative validity. Thus, it is you who exceeded epistomological strictures pertaining to this world, not me!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Yes, all you've done is speculate. Inconsequential speculation.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX On these matters, there's nothing more than speculation. As for its inconsequentiality, I think I have more to complain about your contributions than you have about mine.
mc0558 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mc0558 "On these matters, there's nothing more than speculation."
Then what which cannot be properly expressed or said is a thing about which one best remain silent, to avoid speaking nonsense. Yet you insist.
"I think I have more to complain about your contributions than you have about mine."
Blame is easier to give than recieve, no doubt.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
This is untrue. There are plenty of people who say that they were completely irreligious before their mystical experience. It came to them totally uninvited, unexpected and with no degree of faith, good-works or degree of worthiness. Out of the blue, so to speak. The contact between God and certain people is apparently all one way.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Nonsene. There are plenty of people who say alot of things. Some people claim they were abducted by aliens, plagued by ghosts, or hunt bugfoot. MOst delusionas & mental breakdowns ARE totally uninvited & unexpected. Are we calling hearsay and conjecture, factual truth, now? I think not. Thats just delusional nonsense from out of the blue. SO WHAT?
You'll have to prove supernatural contact EXISTS FIRST.... BEFORE you can assert it's directionality and origin. Good luck.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX 1. Of course there are cranks out there, but unless you ipso fact define all those who testify to religious experiences as cranks, what do you think the mathematical possibility that some of them aren't are? Moreover, remember "The Grand Design"--given the law of probability, everything that is physically possible will have occurred in one universe or another. Perhaps this universe has characteristics like synchronisity, etc. etc. 2. Proving God is impossible, as is disproving Him.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 "define all those who testify to religious experiences as cranks, what do you think the mathematical possibility that some of them aren't are?" You REALLY want to play the supernatural odds? Hilarious.
"Proving God is impossible, as is disproving Him"
Why not them? Givcen the laws of probability, how is it exactly, that you've ruled out an ifninite panthon of lesser deities?
Whats the probability of a supernatural disembodied mind of any sort? Sucker.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX I am not playing anything. I asked a simple question which you avoid answering! As for an infinite pantheon of lesser deities. . . you're the one saying that this is impossible. That's not my position. In fact, my guess is that if M-theory is right there must be universes in which that is the reality. However, it is not my experience that it is true of this universe, which is not to say that it is impossible only that it seem improbable. As I said, "impossibility" is your argument.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Baseless supernatural speculation is all you've got. Letme know when you have a single supernatural fact. Untill then you're merely working in the art of sophestry.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX Well it's not quite baseless as there are millions of people, some of them quite sophisticated, who have testified to supernatural experience.Hume says that personal experience is the highest form of evidence. You may dispute those experiences,but what percentage of them can you refute? Moreover, why would it be important to you for you to do so? Fear? As for being a sophist, on the contrary--I have been giving you genuine arguments that I think rational and worthy of consideration.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Millions of testimonies = 1 fact now? Very amusing.
Fear...of what? The immaterial?
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@mc0558 "Hume says that personal experience is the highest form of evidence. You may dispute those experiences,but what percentage of them can you refute"
All of them. 100%. And I will of course, continue to do so, untill you've provided demonsterable evidence for the claims you make.
As i've told you, what is assertion without evidence is dismissed as easily.
You've given nothing to consider, you've offered nothing of geniune consequence.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX Law of probability. Earth= 1 of 8 planets in this solar system; this solar system= 1 of 200 to 400 billion systems in the Milky Way galaxy; this galaxy= 1 of over 500 billion in our universe. If the M-theorists are correct this universe= 1 in a number of parallel universes, making up the cosmos, which computes on the highest calculator as simply “infinity”. Add to this, that it is about 13.5 billion years since the big bang. Conclusion: everything physically possible exists.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Law of probability works only within known systems, You cannot make conclusions reguarding supernatural systems since nothing is known about them, let alone that supernatural is physically possible.
"Conclusion: everything physically possible exists"
Agreed. What does that have anything to do with gods or anything supernatural?
Is a supernatural god ...physical? What nonsense.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@mc0558 You are saying that millions of screaming fans cannot be wrong.
I am saying millions of screaming fans can infact be morons.
All you'vedone thus far is continue to live up to the low expectations I've come to expect from the pitchers of supernatural mysticism and incaporeal woo. As you claim intolerance of "impudent fools" I claim intollerance of credulous suckers.
Believe as you wish, but know wishing will not make it so.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX You've called me a name again! I will read your next too submissions, and if they are of the calibre of the first two, it's adios!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 " if they are of the calibre of the first two, it's adios!"
Oh no!! How will I ever learn about things which are of no consequence!?
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@mc0558 Honestly, is it simply too difficult for you to grasp that in all likelyhood the immaterial 1: not consisting of matter : incorporeal is... immaterial 2: of no substantial consequence : unimportant?
What's on your mind? Doens't matter.
Whats the matter? Never mind.
But please continue to regale me with your less than hypothetical speculations on things about which nothing cannot properly or difinitivly be expressed or said. I find the nonsense quite entertaining.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
The Grand Design is a tough read (unless you are extremely educated in quantum physics) but sheds much light on why Hawking thinks the way he does.
Ateamcaptain 1 year ago
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -- Epicurus, 341-270 BCE
GluttonForSex 1 year ago 2
@GluttonForSex You know nothing about anything you are talking about. Sorry to say, it's just babble.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Sorry, but all supernatural claims are just incoherent nonsense. You've not only got not even 1/100th of 1% of a single demonstrable supernatural thing, so cannot demonstrate that the supernatural is a thing at all. You're essentially got little more than a paradoxical fruitless thought exercise attempting to explain little more than imagined 'nothings'.
Like Cryptozoology and Alchemy, Theology is a failed ancient attempt at science. While free to, u're off ur rocker to think otherwise.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX Supernatural claims are of two types: those that spring from "conviction" and those that come from personal experience. The latter are compelling and hard to explain away. You cannot tell someone who life was changed by "divine intervention" to forget about it because it didn't happen to me.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Personal experiences? Hilarious.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@mc0558 "Supernatural claims are of two types: those that spring from "conviction" and those that come from personal experience"
You see, this is exactly the unfounded duplicity I'm talking about.
One must of course be of "conviction" that ones "personal experiences" are valid for any given delusion as well. These are not two things; these are a description of the same thing. It has nothing to do with ones "personal experiences" actually mapping to reality, no matter how "convinced" one is.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mc0558 What profound irony.
You know nothing about anything you are talking about.
Infact nothing is what you profess to know anythinag about.
Supernatural immaterialism is a "study" of immaterial non-things.
literally much to do about nothing.
The immaterial is profoundly immaterial.
Theology quite literally does not matter. :D
(Outside of a mythology class, that is)
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@GluttonForSex I wonder if your concept of evil and that of Epicurus are the same. Because if they are not then your reason for posting this is mistaken. Epicurus found slavery a noble institution. Do you? If not then why are you quoting me Epicurus' dictum. And in appealing to God's judgment of good and evil, why are you citing Epicurus?
mc0558 1 year ago
A remarkable element in all this is that, in discussion, the differences between fine physicists, philosophers, logicians and theologians are very small. They come down to what constitutes evidence. All would agree that all knowledge is good, but there will be disagreement on the application of knowledge. Einstein thought discovery of atomic energy was like putting a razor blade in the hands of a 3 year old. But apparently, the 3 year old recognized the danger and was prompted to grow up fast.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 The differences between physicians and theologists is the differences between doctors and witchdoctors.
Razors are an actual danger, they exist.
The supernatural is not an actual danger, since it dos not exist.
There is no such thing as supernatural knowledge.
If you don't know what constitutes evidence you're clearly delusional.
You're no Einstein, thats for certain.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EntinludeX But you certainly are.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 "They come down to what constitutes evidence."
And naturally all supernaturalism is a fatal system of faith, not evidence.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX All denial of supernaturalism is also a system of faith. That is what YOU fail to understand. Read Bradly and Wittgenstein!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Nonsense DENIAL is DISBELIEF. DISBELIEF is not BELIEF, and hence not FAITH. Clearly you're struggling with antonyms here.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX Read Bradly and Wittgenstein. It is an argument I am not going to repeat here. As there is no observational evidence either way, denial of the existence of God is Belief that God does not exist. As Bradly put it, "An atheist is merely a theologian with a rival theory of his own." But trying to drive this simple epistomological fact into the head of an atheist is impossible. They know nothing about the issue involved, and that's the way they want to keep it.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 "As there is no observational evidence either way"
So again your failure is grasping that evidence is a one way street. You either have it..or you don't.
Atheism is not a theology, it is a rejection of theological claims.
Again you twist words and fail to grasp the meanings of words.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX Denial of something you believe to be untrue is the assertion of a belief. And when there is no demonstrable proof, the assertion of a belief is an act of faith. You are as much a believer at the Pope!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 To claim that disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing is itself a belief , let alone a system of belief, is to ignore antonyms at ones convenience. It shows the intellectual bankruptcy of your proposition.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX It isn't my position. It's Bradley's and Wittgenstein's. Have you read Tractatus or Bradley's Principles of Logic or Essays on Truth and Reality? Get in touch with once you have! Meanwhile, speak softly!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 You clearly don't grasp that without evidence these essays have nothing whatsoever to DO with truth or reality. Theologians are merely professional liars. You, merely a credulous fool.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX You know the work of Bradley, then! Hum . . .
Look you are obviously too involved in the polemics of this discussion to spare thought for the subject at hand. It's time to back away. This is my last word to you on this topic, at least for a time. Anything you write will be for you benefit only.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 I truly wish it were you last word, but I doubt that very much. Your absurd appeals to authority, without substantive appeals to demonstrable evidence only show you have nothing but your own hole to dig here.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX FYI, Bradley was only incidentaly a theologian. He was primarily a logician and philosopher. He held the Chair in Logic at Merton College, Oxfore. What are you credentials on the subject?
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Ah, appeals to accreditation with no substantive evidence. How banal. Fine, I appeal to Hawking. Checkmate. *snore*
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX
Excuse me, Hawking has NEVER denied the possibility of God's existence. He is much too philosophically knowledgeable to make that mistake. Unlike you, he know his Wittgenstein and Bradley. Hawking has speculated on the nature of God, should He exist. And if you have been objective enough to actually read what I have written, I have neither asserted nor excluded the existence of God either. You're the one with the monopoly on certainty.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 He in fact did say god is unnecessary.
Perhaps you should take stock again.
As such I have no need to unnecessary mythology.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX But God IS unnecessary to science, not only unnecessary but an incumbrance. Nobody denies that! God and morality only come into play with the implementation of science.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 No, god Hawkings is explicit that a god is unnecessary for the formation of the universe or any of the processes contained therein. Again review the source material..
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@mc0558 Hilarious. Deities of no sort are required for incumbent, nor for ethics, nor for scientific implementation. I deny that entirely. What baseless crap you're spewing.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX Where then do ethics and morality come from? Inherent in the evolution life? If so, what happened to the products of evolution who don't have them? They have the arms, the legs, etc., but they don't have the ethics and the morality. How is that?
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Moral and ethical philosophy come from humans. We make them up and use what works.
Inherent to the evolution of life? Nope. life doesn't require or nessecitate ethics or moral behavior.
Mostly just inherent in group behavior adapted for the the long term survival of social animals. The more advanced the species, the more complex the ethical codex becomes.
Look into it. It's not rocket science.
It's philosophy.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX Perhaps, but you are guessing and nothing more!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 No, the supernatural is a guess. Nature exists. Thats why science actually works.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX We have covered this ground before but you seem not to have understood it or you perversely refuse to accept it. "Perversely" because you do nothing to refute the scholarship behind it. The supernatural is a guess AND denial of the supernatural is a guess. Science reveals the mechanisms of nature in this universe. So far, it has revealed nothing beyond that and there is reason to suppose that, in the life of the human species, it may never do so.Thus science reveals nothing abt God.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 No, you've simply not answered the quesiton to an acceptable degree.
You've nothing to scholarly validate your claims.
"The supernatural is a guess AND denial of the supernatural is a guess."
Nonsense.That which is presented without evidence is dismissed without evidence.
"Thus science reveals nothing abt God."
Exactly. Or the infinite continuum of lesser gods. Or interdimentioanl smurfs
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@mc0558 "They have the arms, the legs, etc., but they don't have the ethics and the morality. How is that?"
WTF do you imagine arms and legs have anything to do with it?
Are you just not aware of our complex neurology and social grouping order as mammalian primates ...or...what? Is that honestly so confounding to you as a social mammal?
How has the obviousness of this escaped you? Oh right, because you indulge mysticism in leu of ignorance.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX I don't indulge in any specuatio that is not rooted in science, mathematics or logic. I am merely posing questions to a believer in atheism that might spur both of us to think. Your notion that the higher instincts of mankind are rooted in the mechanics of the body reminds me of d'Alembert's Prolegamenia to Diderot's Encyclopaedia. You seem to me an 18th century Enlightenment materialist and everything that has subsequently been done in philosophy seems to have escaped you.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Evolutionary cognative behavioral neurology is not rooted in science??
MEanwhile supernatural mysticism is?? Really? That is to laugh.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX So, it IS all mechanical then? As I said, exactly what the philosophers of the Enlightenment said. That being your position, what is your take on Kant then?
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Kant, Nietzche, Hume. Yes, but all of this is besides the point.
The point remains that nothing sorts the supernatural from the imaginary. So have at it, hoss.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX Kant beside the point? Have you read Der Kritik? It is very much too the point. Hume and Nietzsche are not. Nietzsche is one of your lot. Hume though is special. No the destroyers of the superficial Enlightenment were Kant and Hegel. I believe, however, that the transcendent genius of Hegel is yet to be fully appreciate. He was a nacient Quantum physicist a century before Quantum physics. The Enlightenment philosophers believed that appearances were true; they were completely wrong!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 So then you stil havn't a quantifiable shred of supernatural fact beyond your own duplicitous imagined mblings? Silly sucker.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EntinludeX I can see you want out. You got it!
mc0558 1 year ago
@EntinludeX Watch your language! Just stick to the issue at hand and forget personalities. It's unpersuasive of anything except your bad education.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 So you fial to comprehend the number zero. Got it.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX I certainly do comprehend the number zero and do you realize that there are numbers in physical probability that even the most sophisticated computers of our time cannot calculate? The language does not contain enough combinations of sounds to distinguish them. We are in a vast cosmos in which everything physically possible is a certain probability.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Explain this language that cannot be communicated. Explain thy what you cannot phathom or distinguish should be entertained as anything other than poetic fancy.
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX Have you read Der Kritik? It is very much too the point. Nietzsche was one of your lot-an atheist. Hume is special. But the greatest post-Enlightenment philosopher of time was Hegel, about whom even more is yet to be appreciate. The links between Hegel's examination of reality and Quantum physics are remarkable.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Ah of course, god's hiding in the Quantum enganglement. Silly me. :D
EntinludeX 1 year ago
@EntinludeX There is more involve in this cosmos than Quantum entanglements. But that's a starting point for your search.