Hawking Says "There is no God. Heaven is a fairy tale."

[gmillerdrake]

It is a presupposition, which is in conflict with the scientific method. Love is testable in a lab environment and much of it can be explained, a creator cannot.

Human emotion Can not be tested or proven. That is false. If you are referring to some sort of brain activity or blood pressure rise/fall, those type of PHYSICAL reactions....they are not emotions. However we try to correlate them to emotions the fact of the matter is...it is impossible to detect/test/prove human emotion. Can't do it.
 

Ummm neurobiology would like to have a word with you.

Just because man can study the nueral substrates of mental process and we have developed an entire field of Psychiartry based on Clinical Neuroscience does not apply to being able to 'prove' love or any other emotion exists. What physical attributes my system produces when I 'feel' love or loved is completely different from the next man or woman. It is unpredicatable...therefore not reliable....it's an educated guess which is no different IMO from the faith that those who believe in God have. Emotions can not be bottled up and places under a microscope. There is no tangible evidence of love or hate or disbelief. 

[Bombardana]

Are you trying to get banned from P/R (or the boards in general)?  Because that sort of response is a quick ticket if that's where you're looking to go.

No, sorry Bosk

Easier to shoot down your opponents' arguments without ever really dealing with them if you first set up a false paradigm that their reasoning is inferior (or nonexistent).

Do you mean to imply that science is a false paradigm?

[Vivace]

Scientists claim to be open to speculation but only the scientific field. They will speculate on the universe, on specific areas of matter or whathaveyou, but the minute speculation turns to theology is the minute scientists shut the door. During early scholastism there was a movement to remove philosophy in the wake of theology. today there is a movement to remove theology in the wake of science. It has nothing to do with speculation or lack of evidence. It is removed from the discussion because it is theology. Then you have theologians who refuse to use reason and science. Thomas Aquinas made it a point to teach people that philosophy and science is necessary to complete theology but it cannot conquer theology. For if theology is based on truth it is impossible to conquer the truth but the truth must never be in conflict with science or else we can never know the truth. It is unfortunate that the anti-theology movement exists in the scientific world. It's only serves to limit our view.

[bosk1]

Easier to shoot down your opponents' arguments without ever really dealing with them if you first set up a false paradigm that their reasoning is inferior (or nonexistent).

Do you mean to imply that science is a false paradigm?

No, not at all.  Sorry if that's how it came across.  But the way some argue science (as well as how some argue religion, for that matter) is.

[senecadawg2]

Well now it's abundantly clear: God sent Hawking down to Earth to test our faith.

That's a good joke ... I hope

[William Wallace]

I don't see how that is much different then you being certain in your disbelief in 99% of the other religions that exist in the world.

It's very different. For one thing, I don't make claims about other religions that I can't backup, which is precisely what you did. And for another, arguing that one religion is correct over another is fundamentally different than arguing that science, a way of studying the natural world, is incompatible with religion. I think what you meant to say is that religion is incompatible with your naturalistic world view, and that I agree with.

[El JoNNo]

Nonsense. Christians are supposed to base their beliefs on reason.

1 Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.

Isaiah 1:18
Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD...

Explain how these verses fit into the dichotomy you have contrived.  Seriously, how anyone can believe critical thinking belongs only to one world view is beyond me.

"Always be prepared to give an answer" says nothing about critical thinking or evidence based logic. As for Isaiah, I'm kind of surprised that you took that completely out of context. That passage is referring to sin not any type of critical thinking. Beyond that it goes on to threaten you with the sword for not believing. Great examples of critical thinking you have there.

I have not claimed that critical thinking only belongs to science. Merely that critical thinking is a central tenet of science and that science and religion at there base philisophical elements are incompatible. All religion asserts what we at this point in time cannot know; science makes reasonble predictions on the natural world based on evidence. I'll put forth a hypothetical scenario ; lets say all evidence points to a god. That still give no justification for the claim of heaven, hell, the devil or any other claims of religion. Unless this god appears to everyone and confirms those assertions it is not valid.

If science one day leads to the conclusion that there is a god thats fine. That will be the day they are compatible to whatever extent.

Just because man can study the nueral substrates of mental process and we have developed an entire field of Psychiartry based on Clinical Neuroscience does not apply to being able to 'prove' love or any other emotion exists. What physical attributes my system produces when I 'feel' love or loved is completely different from the next man or woman. It is unpredicatable...therefore not reliable....it's an educated guess which is no different IMO from the faith that those who believe in God have. Emotions can not be bottled up and places under a microscope. There is no tangible evidence of love or hate or disbelief. 

Really? You’re going the "you can't really prove this exists" route? We can in fact measure love; we can measure brain activity to deduce that one is in love with someone. So yes we can prove it and yes we measure it and no your brain is not much different then anyone elses. Sorry to break it to you. They may not be 'bottled up" under a microscope but they are under a electroencephalogram.

For if theology is based on truth it is impossible to conquer the truth but the truth must never be in conflict with science or else we can never know the truth.

Here is the problem; right now most of religion is in conflict with science. From the evolution nay sayers to the creation myths. So I guess..Poor Thomas.

It's very different. For one thing, I don't make claims about other religions that I can't backup, which is precisely what you did. And for another, arguing that one religion is correct over another is fundamentally different than arguing that science, a way of studying the natural world, is incompatible with religion. I think what you meant to say is that religion is incompatible with your naturalistic world view, and that I agree with.

By take an asserted position you are making a claim about other religions.

[gmillerdrake]

Just because man can study the nueral substrates of mental process and we have developed an entire field of Psychiartry based on Clinical Neuroscience does not apply to being able to 'prove' love or any other emotion exists. What physical attributes my system produces when I 'feel' love or loved is completely different from the next man or woman. It is unpredicatable...therefore not reliable....it's an educated guess which is no different IMO from the faith that those who believe in God have. Emotions can not be bottled up and places under a microscope. There is no tangible evidence of love or hate or disbelief. 

Really? You’re going the "you can't really prove this exists" route? We can in fact measure love; we can measure brain activity to deduce that one is in love with someone. So yes we can prove it and yes we measure it and no your brain is not much different then anyone elses. Sorry to break it to you. They may not be 'bottled up" under a microscope but they are under a electroencephalogram.

Sure, when two people are madly in Love with another, we could measure their heart rate, perspiration levels, pupil dilation, how much time they spend together.

But these things aren’t actually Love. They’re something we could measure when Love is or isn’t present. They are the objective characteristics that may change in the presence of Love, but they are not the subjective experience of Love. There’s a difference between a direct experience of the actual thing and a measurement of the results that happen in the presence of that thing.
 

[El JoNNo]

Just because man can study the nueral substrates of mental process and we have developed an entire field of Psychiartry based on Clinical Neuroscience does not apply to being able to 'prove' love or any other emotion exists. What physical attributes my system produces when I 'feel' love or loved is completely different from the next man or woman. It is unpredicatable...therefore not reliable....it's an educated guess which is no different IMO from the faith that those who believe in God have. Emotions can not be bottled up and places under a microscope. There is no tangible evidence of love or hate or disbelief.  

Really? You’re going the "you can't really prove this exists" route? We can in fact measure love; we can measure brain activity to deduce that one is in love with someone. So yes we can prove it and yes we measure it and no your brain is not much different then anyone elses. Sorry to break it to you. They may not be 'bottled up" under a microscope but they are under a electroencephalogram.

Sure, when two people are madly in Love with another, we could measure their heart rate, perspiration levels, pupil dilation, how much time they spend together.

But these things aren’t actually Love. They’re something we could measure when Love is or isn’t present. They are the objective characteristics that may change in the presence of Love, but they are not the subjective experience of Love. There’s a difference between a direct experience of the actual thing and a measurement of the results that happen in the presence of that thing.
  

Not sure what your point is then. You made the comparison between a creator and emotion, specifically love. We can test love, using brain patters. Yes people may feel love differently; most likely very much the same. God cannot be tested and the evidence is not in it's favour. Mere existence is not evidence of a creator.

[gmillerdrake]

Not sure what your point is then.

I have to be honest with you...at this point either do I!  I think the initial 'point' i was trying to make was just because you cannot prove scientifically that God exists doesn't mean he doesn't exisit. My opinion is that an entity and being as prolific as God..something that has 'created' everything from nothing would be first impossible for man to fully comprehend and understand, and second, most definately be a presence that wouldn't be detectable or explainable by the wisdom of man.
   
 

[El JoNNo]

Not sure what your point is then.

I have to be honest with you...at this point either do I!  I think the initial 'point' i was trying to make was just because you cannot prove scientifically that God exists doesn't mean he doesn't exisit. My opinion is that an entity and being as prolific as God..something that has 'created' everything from nothing would be first impossible for man to fully comprehend and understand, and second, most definately be a presence that wouldn't be detectable or explainable by the wisdom of man.
   
 

I was not arguing against God's existence. I was arguing about the opposing positions of religion and science. Why would you think that such a being would be incomprehensible? We have discovered so much, it would only a matter of time (nuggetz) before we would analyse and figure this being out as well.

[gmillerdrake]

I was not arguing against God's existence. I was arguing about the opposing positions of religion and science. Why would you think that such a being would be incomprehensible? We have discovered so much, it would only a matter of time (nuggetz) before we would analyse and figure this being out as well.

I happen to be a believer who has no issue understanding the significance of science. I would think that a being like God when creating something as grand as the Universe would have to have an underlying commonality like science/math/physics etc. to tie and hold it all together.
  But I do maintain that man rationalizes God in a way to make him understandable to our minds. Like when you sit and really try to grasp our universe...or God for that matter...it really is such an enormous concept to 'get' that I think man has to simplify it,.
  I'd agree that as we progress we may locate and find scientific nuggetz (IMO as God sees fit) that may 'prove' God's existance. Aren't scientists close to proving the theory of anti matter or black matter or something like that? But, the core and essential cog in religion is Faith...and if you have faith like God instructs us to have in him....you do not require any type of tangible proof he exists. I for one don't.

[El JoNNo]

I was not arguing against God's existence. I was arguing about the opposing positions of religion and science. Why would you think that such a being would be incomprehensible? We have discovered so much, it would only a matter of time (nuggetz) before we would analyse and figure this being out as well.

I happen to be a believer who has no issue understanding the significance of science. I would think that a being like God when creating something as grand as the Universe would have to have an underlying commonality like science/math/physics etc. to tie and hold it all together.
  But I do maintain that man rationalizes God in a way to make him understandable to our minds. Like when you sit and really try to grasp our universe...or God for that matter...it really is such an enormous concept to 'get' that I think man has to simplify it,.
  I'd agree that as we progress we may locate and find scientific nuggetz (IMO as God sees fit) that may 'prove' God's existance. Aren't scientists close to proving the theory of anti matter or black matter or something like that? But, the core and essential cog in religion is Faith...and if you have faith like God instructs us to have in him....you do not require any type of tangible proof he exists. I for one don't.

That is my point science requires proof, belief in a god does not. Also i said nuggetz because i said "only a matter of time", as in the eighth song on WDADU.

[gmillerdrake]

Also i said nuggetz because i said "only a matter of time", as in the eighth song on WDADU.

That's what I get for cutting the grass in 95 degree heat then coming in and trying to hold an adult conversation......can't even see a simple nugget like that.   

[Vivace]

I was not arguing against God's existence. I was arguing about the opposing positions of religion and science. Why would you think that such a being would be incomprehensible? We have discovered so much, it would only a matter of time (nuggetz) before we would analyse and figure this being out as well.

Why is it that human beings believe that knowledge and wisdom "end" with "us" or with human perception? Is it not possible that there might be wisdom beyond our understanding? Beyond human comprehension? Wisdom that we might never discover nor can ever discover? Granted how do we know of that which we can never see or hear, but in my opinion to hold to the idea that human perception must hold "all" knowledge is a bit arrogant.

[yeshaberto]

this reminds me of Job 38-42.  Job begins to get a little haughty until God approaches him with a tornado of questions.  Suddenly he (and those who read) get a glimpse of the wisdom that far exceeds ours

[El JoNNo]

I was not arguing against God's existence. I was arguing about the opposing positions of religion and science. Why would you think that such a being would be incomprehensible? We have discovered so much, it would only a matter of time (nuggetz) before we would analyse and figure this being out as well.

Why is it that human beings believe that knowledge and wisdom "end" with "us" or with human perception? Is it not possible that there might be wisdom beyond our understanding? Beyond human comprehension? Wisdom that we might never discover nor can ever discover? Granted how do we know of that which we can never see or hear, but in my opinion to hold to the idea that human perception must hold "all" knowledge is a bit arrogant.

Perhaps that is the case, but there is no reason to assume it off the bat.

[Vivace]

I was not arguing against God's existence. I was arguing about the opposing positions of religion and science. Why would you think that such a being would be incomprehensible? We have discovered so much, it would only a matter of time (nuggetz) before we would analyse and figure this being out as well.

Why is it that human beings believe that knowledge and wisdom "end" with "us" or with human perception? Is it not possible that there might be wisdom beyond our understanding? Beyond human comprehension? Wisdom that we might never discover nor can ever discover? Granted how do we know of that which we can never see or hear, but in my opinion to hold to the idea that human perception must hold "all" knowledge is a bit arrogant.

Perhaps that is the case, but there is no reason to assume it off the bat.

Why not? Is it easier to assume that all knowledge and wisdom can be learned and understood by the human race or that there exists knowledge and wisdom that cannot be known to mankind? To assume the former places humanity at the front of all knowledge in the entire universe. That's a rather large assumption to make. To assume the latter allows us to learn some but not all knowledge of the entire universe which seems a bit more realistic when it comes to how we understand ourselves. I dunno about anyone else but I have a feeling there is a lot more to our universe than what our human minds are able to perceive.

[El JoNNo]

I was not arguing against God's existence. I was arguing about the opposing positions of religion and science. Why would you think that such a being would be incomprehensible? We have discovered so much, it would only a matter of time (nuggetz) before we would analyse and figure this being out as well.

Why is it that human beings believe that knowledge and wisdom "end" with "us" or with human perception? Is it not possible that there might be wisdom beyond our understanding? Beyond human comprehension? Wisdom that we might never discover nor can ever discover? Granted how do we know of that which we can never see or hear, but in my opinion to hold to the idea that human perception must hold "all" knowledge is a bit arrogant.

Perhaps that is the case, but there is no reason to assume it off the bat.

Why not? Is it easier to assume that all knowledge and wisdom can be learned and understood by the human race or that there exists knowledge and wisdom that cannot be known to mankind? To assume the former places humanity at the front of all knowledge in the entire universe. That's a rather large assumption to make. To assume the latter allows us to learn some but not all knowledge of the entire universe which seems a bit more realistic when it comes to how we understand ourselves. I dunno about anyone else but I have a feeling there is a lot more to our universe than what our human minds are able to perceive.

No one made that assumption and I did not say we would know everything. I just see no reason to assume that a universe creator is incomprehensible.