Stephen Hawking: There is no god

Author: Stronn

Posts

Total: 52
#31
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Stronn
There is also no reason to not call that process a creator, whether it is understood as naturalist or otherwise.

But refusal to do so serves no other purpose than to gender unnecessary strife. 

There is, after all, thousands of years of historical precedent along with billions of people alive today who consent to the understanding that God, who is universally recognized in educated theological society as THE ULTIMATE REALITY, created everything.


Atheistic thought by necessity is contingent on bad language. That is really what I am saying. The theism that atheists believe is not sound theology. If it's not sound theology, that means that the God atheists believe is actually a god or a strawman. 

The Ultimate Reality is God, and this God creates everything. Seeing that is a simple matter of accepting that God is what God is.


#32
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Grugore
The 4 forces of nature came about as a result of a breaking of symmetry right after the moment of the Big Bang, the entire universe was an ocean of electromagnetic energy, which cooled over time and began to form matter.
You can't explain the universe without a Creator.
Yes you can explain the universe without a Creator, but what you can't explain is the Creator itself.
#33
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Grugore
Nothing physical can create itself. It violates the law of causality.
Please explain and provide an example.


#34
Grugore
Grugore's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 167
0
1
3
Grugore's avatar
Grugore
0
1
3
-->
@Goldtop
Explain what these four forces are and where they came from.
#35
Grugore
Grugore's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 167
0
1
3
Grugore's avatar
Grugore
0
1
3
-->
@Goldtop
It is a scientific fact. Nothing happens without something causing it to happen. It's the law of causality Look it up. It is the foundation of modern science.
#36
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Grugore
You can't explain the universe with a creator.
Why is the universe so vast?
What was the universe created from?
How many planets contain life forms?
What is the distance to the farthest point in the universe from earth?
#37
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stronn
There is no God -- that's the conclusion of the celebrated physicist Stephen Hawking, whose final book is published Tuesday.

The book, which was completed by his family after his death, presents answers to the questions that Hawking said he received most during his time on Earth.



Well how about this? Stephen Hawking is dead. And we are still debating the existence of God. I guess that means God = 1 and Hawking = dead. 

For the record, why do we need to die? 

#38
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
because we are alive, really simple.
#39
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@disgusted

because we are alive, really simple.
Well that does not make sense. True only living things can die. But why do we need to die? What is the evolutionary point behind death? Natural selection cannot lead us there unless there is a controlling force or mind behind nature, which we told there is not. 

So why do we die? What is the purpose behind this - when we are always being led to believe the "life will find a way". Death, I think proves evolution false. Death is the antithesis to life. Evolution is about life. So why die? Why not live forever? 

It makes no sense. 
Topic's author
#40
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Tradesecret
It's not so much that there is an evolutionary advantage to dying, but that what happens to older members of a population is unimportant from an evolutionary standpoint.

That is because most organisms die long before they reach old age. The have accidents, or get eaten, or contract some non-genetic disease. Because older organisms comprise a smaller and smaller fraction of the population, their survival has less and less effect on the survival of the species as a whole. Deleterious mutations that affect the old don't get filtered out by natural selection because there is no evolutionary advantage to doing so.
#41
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Hawking does admit that the universe had a start.



#42
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
What is the evolutionary point behind death?
Evolution is about change, hence a living organism passes on it's genes and then dies. If organisms never died, there would be no change, no evolution of species. Evolution does not make living things die, it is a result of the organisms death once it passes on its genes.

#43
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Death, I think proves evolution false. Death is the antithesis to life. Evolution is about life. So why die? Why not live forever? 
Death occurs because living things are essentially mechanisms and mechanisms eventually wear out and break down.   Living things are mechines that make copies of themselves, which they do with high but not perfect accuracy. Those variants that are good self-copiers thrive, those that do not copy themselves well soon disappear.   Note that 'thrive' applies to the variant form, not any individual. A variant that copied itself rapidly in short time and dies young is often more successful than a variant that may or may not copy itself before its inevitable demise.

 


#44
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Goldtop
Because he was smarter than all of us put together.
I don't think he was much of a philosopher so there are some here that have deeper thoughts than i think he did. Plus, i am pretty sure i know more than he does in certain things like music, games, etc. I don't know him, so who knows. But... he most def. was a science genius. However, i think to be as good as he was at what he did... by design, he wasn't very good at other things like philosophizing about spirituality. I doubt he thought of it as much as someone obsessed about the subject as he was about science. With that said, you should have said smarter than all the religious theists combined. Bc i think he knew their religion better than they do. 

#45
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stronn
It's not so much that there is an evolutionary advantage to dying, but that what happens to older members of a population is unimportant from an evolutionary standpoint.

That is not much of an answer. It sounds more like a convenient statement. Given that the human body seems to have a particularly resilient means to harm and has an amazing self healing mechanism, it seems more likely that humans are meant to live for a long time rather than die. 

That is because most organisms die long before they reach old age. The have accidents, or get eaten, or contract some non-genetic disease. Because older organisms comprise a smaller and smaller fraction of the population, their survival has less and less effect on the survival of the species as a whole. Deleterious mutations that affect the old don't get filtered out by natural selection because there is no evolutionary advantage to doing so.
Yes, you are correct organisms die long before they reach old age, whatever that is supposed to be. You still have not answered why living things must die. 
#46
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Well how about this? Stephen Hawking is dead. And we are still debating the existence of God. I guess that means God = 1 and Hawking = dead. 

And man and his sciences will be discussing and debating Stephen Hawking's work till the end of time.


For the record, why do we need to die? 
 Nothing to do with the thread really is it. Stop trying to divert. I am sick you doing this. Start a thread of the question and question your own god on the subject. I am sure I can find a reason given by your own god!!!

Here in case you purposely missed it is the op from stronn:

 There is no God -- that's the conclusion of the celebrated physicist Stephen Hawking, whose final book is published Tuesday.

The book, which was completed by his family after his death, presents answers to the questions that Hawking said he received most during his time on Earth.


#47
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Goldtop

Evolution is about change, hence a living organism passes on it's genes and then dies. If organisms never died, there would be no change, no evolution of species. Evolution does not make living things die, it is a result of the organisms death once it passes on its genes.
That does not answer the question. just because evolution is changing and adapting to the things about it, does not mean that everything that comes before it has to die. Remember that the body has lots of parts - each part has a special thing to do which required it to adapt to get to that point - whether it being the ear or the eye or the leg. Surely you are not suggesting that every part of the body has to die in order for one extra part to evolve? I also think that if we take your answer seriously, there would no point to having any more than one species in existence. so the great variety of species that Darwin used to write his wonderful little book - on that delightful little island are pointless.

Why? 
#48
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
Death occurs because living things are essentially mechanisms and mechanisms eventually wear out and break down.   Living things are mechines that make copies of themselves, which they do with high but not perfect accuracy. Those variants that are good self-copiers thrive, those that do not copy themselves well soon disappear.   Note that 'thrive' applies to the variant form, not any individual. A variant that copied itself rapidly in short time and dies young is often more successful than a variant that may or may not copy itself before its inevitable demise.
It may be true that mechanisms and machines wear down. But the fact that they do is not an explanation of why they must. Surely a theory in principle is good or true. And must remain so irrespective of other issues. 

Again I am not finding a satisfactory answer.  Copies are copies - why cant copies be perfect copies and why do the originals need to die? 

#49
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
This is not your thread. I responded to Stron and Stron replied back. It is a topic which has naturally moved to discussing a topic - some might call that evolving according to those within it. 

And it has provided some new thoughts. If Stron wants me to stop I will. But your comments can lie as they fall. 


as for relevance - it has to do directly with God. and with death. so my comments are on line. Hawkings died. God is not dead. Hawking says God is dead - yet death proves evolution false. At least until someone can come up with some decent explanations.  So far there has been a scratching of the surface. conjectures - yes and perhaps some food for me to think about. Even Goldtop came up with some good material. Keithprosser always provides useful information and Stron even here enabled me to consider his position. You on the other hand - came in and proceeded to get all snotty. 


#50
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I'd hazard that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is the reason any system will eventually break down.

If we think of life (in general, not the life of an individual) as a self-sustaining process then it can be self-sustaining without begin optimal. 

The system we have now - parents reproduce then die - works fine for keeping the process ticking over.  A sub-optimal self-sustaining system is presumably easier to get up and running than an optimal one.  Perhaps we just have to wait for immortality to evolve... but it may be a long wait.


#51
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
it has to do directly with God. and with death.
 I agree that is according to the bible.  God makes that quite plain why we die. He altered our lifespan because he got fed up of HIS creation.
 
“Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years." That of course is if you believe the bible.
 
 But this is more than debatable as three quarters of the world’s population do not reach past 60 years.
 
 
And of course there is the scientific evidence that says why we die.
 
 It is the oxygen we inhale that has an effect on our telomeres.Oxygen has a decaying effect on human  telomeres . Some humans have longer telomeres than others which give them a longer life span.The people on my father’s side have had short life spans of around 50 -65. On My mother’s side they seems to be long livers reaching well into their 80's’ 90’s.
/ˈtiːlə(ʊ)mɪə,ˈtɛlə(ʊ)mɪə/
noun
GENETICS
plural noun: telomeres
1.  a compound structure at the end of a chromosome.

 God is not dead.
Opinion.

#52
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
That does not answer the question. just because evolution is changing and adapting to the things about it, does not mean that everything that comes before it has to die.
Yes it does answer the question. There would be no changes to species if organisms did not die.


Remember that the body has lots of parts - each part has a special thing to do which required it to adapt to get to that point - whether it being the ear or the eye or the leg.
If organisms didn't die, there would be no body parts, no humans. There would be only oceans of simple organisms that don't evolve.

I also think that if we take your answer seriously, there would no point to having any more than one species in existence
That makes no sense, that is opposite of how evolution would work. Are you sure you actually understand evolution, it does not seem so.