Stephen Hawking: God NOT Needed For Creation

[Neverfly]

ok, this i find reasonable; however, there does still remain some uncertainty even with respect to stating whether a being is simply conscious or not conscious (or "somewhere in between"--not exactly, but... )--even with a continuously video- and eeg-monitored human subject.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
The natural world does not follow our desire to have defining clear lines. There is transition in everything. Even in simple physics, where most things are quite accurately defined, but not perfectly defined (Due to interactions on the quantum level.)

and that is why i brought up hughling jackson's distinction: with h.j. comes the first acknowledgment of neuro complications which either do not affect, partially impair, or fully render the patient unconscious--but, even with the assistance of modern diagnostic tools (eegs, etc.) a clear distinction cannot always be made.

This statement ALMOST seems to suggest that the distinctions can sometimes be made...

the patient's consciousness may or may not be affected not only during an epileptic event (or other neurological event), but also pre-ictal and inter-ictal.

Yes, and this is exactly one of those moments where the unknown factors (Interactions within the brain) are not well enough understood to nail down precision on when or when you are not conscious.
However, that does not detract from the general statement that we know where the definitions are, even if we cannot currently nail down the precise time or moment with accurate precision.
More knowledge is needed to attain that- But the Important part is understanding the basis. Without understanding it, you won't know where to go in your research to achieve the accurate results with study, testing and research later.

You make it sound as though I was claiming that any doctor can look at his watch and mark a precise time when someone is knocked out or something. I had thought what I was saying is obvious...(and perhaps this alludes to my statement above that no matter how hard I try, I'm not always as clear in my statements as I would like to be.) That we can currently differentiate between consciousness or self awareness scientifically. That is not the same thing as claiming that any doctor in the field, at our current technology can do it in extremely complex situations. We cannot do it with Evolution Discussion, either. Yet, that theory is very well supported and accepted.

with respect to neurologists specifically, you might be surprised to learn just how many actually incorporate "non-scientific" notions and concepts into their own understanding of mind and consciousness. whether they actually believe such, or rather are making use of such things as heuristics, is not entirely clear to me. the notion most frequently borrowed, from my experience, seems to be that of the sanskrit prana (breath, "life force," etc.)

I cannot vouch for any of what you are covering here... But personally, I would be hard pressed to place trust in my doctor if he approached his treatment of my brain while entertaining such primitive notions. I prefer actual science and medicine to be involved- Not spiritualism.

That said, you just completely supported my statements above in which I pointed out that a preconception that links Consciousness to mystical causes will inhibit an ability to simplify and describe consciousness... :shrug:
If all these doctors you talked to also entertain such notions, it is no surprise that they have difficulty in defining consciousness.

 

[arfa brane]

A hamster is falsifiable. God is not.

A hamster can be falsified? How do you falsify a hamster?

Hawking says in his book that God isn't needed for the creation of the universe. If this is true then the statement: "God created the universe" is a falsifiable statement.
However "God exists" is not. Let's say there is no evidence in the four dimensions we have access to. How can we possibly know that God isn't in a higher dimension?

 

[Neverfly]

A hamster can be falsified? How do you falsify a hamster?

"Falsifiability or refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated."

Ummmmm... I can See a Hamster. I can touch it. Smell it. Be bitten by it and I can bite it.

Hawking says in his book that God isn't needed for the creation of the universe. If this is true then the statement: "God created the universe" is a falsifiable statement.
However "God exists" is not. Let's say there is no evidence in the four dimensions we have access to. How can we possibly know that God isn't in a higher dimension?

God keeps getting bumped up the ladder of falsifiability. Whenever we find a new rung to examine and say, "Nope, no hint of a God here," believers bump him up to the next rung, just as you just did.
Deja vu...
Perhaps that satisfies you. But it is still an absurdity and I am perfectly allowed to point out that it is such.

Moreso- Hawking made his statement, but that's not the final authority. Also covered is that Cosmological evolution and biological evolution both demonstrate a requirement that no intellectual designer was involved.

This places the notion of the Creation of the Universe as Pre-Big Bang: Also non- falsifiable. The basic problem is that at that point "God" has been bumped up the rungs on the ladder so many times, that he does not resemble ANYTHING (even remotely) described in the Bible.
That complete lack of accuracy and extremely distant interaction of a Creator is very compelling...

 

[arfa brane]

"God" has been bumped up the rungs on the ladder so many times, that he does not resemble ANYTHING (even remotely) described in the Bible.

Does the "bumped-up" God resemble anything in any book? How about the I Ching, or the Upanishads? Maybe God is beyond any words in any book, or in anyone's mind?

Or does your statement only apply to the Bible, and why is that?

 

[Neverfly]

Does the "bumped-up" God resemble anything in any book? How about the I Ching, or the Upanishads? Maybe God is beyond any words in any book, or in anyone's mind?

Maybe that is because there isn't one.

Or does your statement only apply to the Bible, and why is that?

The point of that argument is that such a complete lack of accuracy repeatedly demonstrated about the beliefs born out of wild speculation is compelling. It demonstrates that you can wildly speculate as to what God is until you are blue in the face-- All you are really doing is clinging desperately to a BELIEF and hunting for any cherry picked evidence that you can find to lend credence to that belief.

The only thing you can really do at this point and save face is say, "I cannot prove God,nor can God be proven. But I believe that there is such a thing because it makes me feel better and I've always believed in it."
I can disagree with the kind of thinking that you are using, but still simply nod my head and say, "Well, you have every right to choose that for yourself. At least you are honest."

But if you rationalize your belief by trying to subjugate me with attacks on my character to make yourself feel better about your inability to demonstrate the existence of any Supreme or Divine being- I have no reason to respect that.
Have enough honor to admit that you hold a non-falsifiable belief and leave it at that.

 

[arfa brane]

"I cannot prove God,nor can God be proven. But I believe that there is such a thing because it makes me feel better and I've always believed in it."

That might be true of a God described in a book, like the Bible, but your statement is clearly falsifiable. I don't believe in a God because it makes me feel better. I experience God (as in, I see, hear, taste, and feel "something") directly. Believing that this happens is irrelevant, or coincidental. It's like believing in being able to draw a breath, or listen, etc. Clearly the statement "I can breathe" is falsifiable--I just have to stop breathing.

My claim that God is something directly experienced cannot be falsified, not by me, not by you, not by anyone. It happens to be true.

 

[Neverfly]

That might be true of a God described in a book, like the Bible, but your statement is clearly falsifiable. I don't believe in a God because it makes me feel better. I experience God (as in, I see, hear, taste, and feel "something") directly. Believing that this happens is irrelevant, or coincidental. It's like believing in being able to draw a breath, or listen, etc. Clearly the statement "I can breathe" is falsifiable--I just have to stop breathing.

My claim that God is something directly experienced cannot be falsified, not by me, not by you, not by anyone. It happens to be true.

Then provide evidence that what you say is true. Allow us all to examine this.
Let's test this thing that you claim you see, feel, taste that you say is God (Why are you tasting God?)
IF it is falsifiable- we should be able to examine it.

 

[arfa brane]

Then provide evidence that what you say is true. Allow us all to examine this.

I have provided evidence. I can breathe, I can taste, I can see and feel.
See if you can falsify this statement, starting with yourself.

Let's get scientific on it: suppose I also claim that the above is a direct result of evolution.

 

[Neverfly]

I have provided evidence. I can breathe, I can taste, I can see and feel.
See if you can falsify this statement, starting with yourself.

Ok, so you have demonstrated that you exist. I can accept that as the evidence supports it.

That's fine. Now demonstrate that GOD exists. All you did was demonstrate that YOU exist.

 

[arfa brane]

That's fine. Now demonstrate that GOD exists. All you did was demonstrate that YOU exist.

But as I have stated, my existence is a demonstration of the existence of God.
Perhaps if you adjusted your own personally-held paradigm?

You see, because I'm claiming that personal existence demonstrates the existence of God, and this claim can't be falsified, then all you need to do is realise that your own existence demonstrates the same thing. This realisation will have absolutely nothing to do with what you think about it.

 

[Neverfly]

But as I have stated, my existence is a demonstration of the existence of God.

COUGH!
Slightly Altered:

But as I have stated, my existence is a demonstration of the existence of Puff The Magic Dragon.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

One of the more obvious of the logical fallacies...

Perhaps if you adjusted your own personally-held paradigm?

Already did- and it resulted in me letting go of primitive belief.

You see, because I'm claiming that personal existence demonstrates the existence of God, and this claim can't be falsified, then all you need to do is realise that your own existence demonstrates the same thing. This realisation will have absolutely nothing to do with what you think about it.

Your claim is nonsense at the start. HOW (I asked this before) does your existence demonstrate the existence of God? Does my existence prove fairies? Spirits, souls, ghosts? Does it prove gnomes, goblins or dragons?
How does your existence affect the belief in Allah, Buddha or Vishnu?

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

The claim is non-falsifiable because there is No Way to test the nonexistent.

 

[arfa brane]

HOW (I asked this before) does your existence demonstrate the existence of God?

HOW does my existence, or yours, demonstrate the non-existence of God?

It's your paradigm. You can mix in fairies and goblins if you think it will help, but I can't personally see how.

there is No Way to test the nonexistent.

There is no way to test if you exist? I was pretty sure there are at least four ways to do this, listed above.

 

[Neverfly]

HOW does my existence, or yours, demonstrate the non-existence of God?

Because our development demonstrates a severe lack of intelligent design, it demonstrates the lack of a creator.

It's your paradigm. You can mix in fairies and goblins if you think it will help, but I can't personally see how.

I'm not surprised.

There is no way to test if you exist? I was pretty sure there are at least four ways to do this, listed above.

There is no way to test if God exists.

You keep confusing God with yourself. I wonder if there is a reason for that...

"Take from the church the miraculous, the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable, the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing

but a vacuum remains." - Robert G. Ingersoll

"If God created the world, then who created god? and who created whoever created god? So somewhere along the line something had to just be there. So why can’t we just skip the idea of god and go straight to earth?" - Ryan Hanson

"A believer states everything must have a creator but fail to say how he was created." - Anonymous

 

[arfa brane]

Because our development demonstrates a severe lack of intelligent design, it demonstrates the lack of a creator.

No, it demonstrates that evolution isn't a perfect process, it doesn't say anything about why or how evolution exists.

There is no way to test if God exists.

And yet, if I close my eyes and concentrate, or listen, God does exist. It might not be the God you're thinking about, but that makes sense too because what I see and hear isn't something I think into existence, seeing isn't an idea.

You keep confusing God with yourself.

No, I no longer confuse God, as you do, with something that isn't "myself".

"If God created the world, then who created god? and who created whoever created god?

See Hawking's latest book "The Grand Design".

 

[Neverfly]

No, it demonstrates that evolution isn't a perfect process, it doesn't say anything about why or how evolution exists.

Huh? That statement makes no sense at all.
Evolution is nothing more than CHANGE over time. The changes can be beneficial or detrimental. Detrimental changes MAY result in poor survivability. Many detrimental traits are still passed on because enough beneficial traits keep the species alive. Many extinct species are only extinct because they changed over time into something else. They didn't just all die out (Barring mass extinction events).
There is no intelligence nor design in something that is demonstrated to be Trial And Error.

And yet, if I close my eyes and concentrate, or listen, God does exist.

Kinda like this?

It might not be the God you're thinking about, but that makes sense too because what I see and hear isn't something I think into existence, seeing isn't an idea.

You think your God into existence? So... God is pretty much whatever you make up in your head? See link above...

No, I no longer confuse God, as you do, with something that isn't "myself".
See Hawking's latest book "The Grand Design".

Ok so in other words, you grew weary of bumping God up the rungs of the falsifiability ladder, gave up, and decided that you are God instead. Got it.

That's a little creepy, actually.
Arfa Brane: "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

 

[arfa brane]

There is no intelligence nor design in something that is demonstrated to be Trial And Error.

So what part of: "it doesn't say anything about why or how evolution exists", makes no sense at all?

You think your God into existence?

What part of: "what I see and hear isn't something I think into existence", didn't you understand?

Ok so in other words, you grew weary of bumping God up the rungs of the falsifiability ladder, gave up, and decided that you are God instead.

No, I didn't "grow weary", and I didn't "decide" I was God. What I said was I no longer confuse God with something "outside" myself. I gave up believing God is an idea, in other words. I decided that God isn't in a book; in fact, that God isn't anywhere that I am not.

You can think it's creepy, you can reject it, and both of those things are your concern entirely. But do you ever ask yourself why you need to rationalise God at all, if there's no evidence of God? If it's really in the same category as pink unicorns, why even bother thinking about it?

As I say, I have no need to think about God (although I still do, and it's apparent other people do too), I can experience something that qualifies very well. Unfortunately, this really has nothing to do with a Christian, Buddhist, or other brand of God, but I don't care. Although you seem to.

 

[Neverfly]

So what part of: "it doesn't say anything about why or how evolution exists", makes no sense at all?

You actually say this after you claim that you exist, therefor God exists?
Fascinating...

What part of: "what I see and hear isn't something I think into existence", didn't you understand?

What part of you making that claim repeatedly do you not understand?
You have repeatedly stated that you exist, therefor God exists. You cannot see, hear or otherwise, test Gods existence in any way, yet you claim that you have proven his existence by proving that you exist.

It makes no sense.

So Unless you are inventing what you see and hear-- what you're saying cannot be understood. Perhaps it is not a fault on my lack of understanding but a fault in your inability to make any sense.

No, I didn't "grow weary", and I didn't "decide" I was God. What I said was I no longer confuse God with something "outside" myself. I gave up believing God is an idea, in other words. I decided that God isn't in a book; in fact, that God isn't anywhere that I am not.

What?

You can think it's creepy, you can reject it, and both of those things are your concern entirely. But do you ever ask yourself why you need to rationalise God at all, if there's no evidence of God? If it's really in the same category as pink unicorns, why even bother thinking about it?

GOOD POINT!!!
So why are you rationalizing God by claiming you are him and what the hell else nonsense and absolute gibberish you're spouting?!

As I say, I have no need to think about God (although I still do, and it's apparent other people do too), I can experience something that qualifies very well.

You bumped him up the rungs of the ladder to whole new heights- and feel proud of yourself for it.

 

[arfa brane]

You have repeatedly stated that you exist, therefor God exists. You cannot see, hear or otherwise, test Gods existence in any way, yet you claim that you have proven his existence by proving that you exist.

I can see, hear and otherwise that God exists.

So why are you rationalizing God by claiming you are him

God isn't a "him".
You appear to be maintaining a paradigm which tells you "there is only one God, this person claims to be God so they are claiming this exclusively". This is your mistake. But since you can't see what I can, or hear it (you are lost in your ideas), you can only rationalise. God has absolutely nothing to do with rationalising or thinking, especially not about God.

I notice you've invented the idea that I feel "proud" of something. I suppose, given your position, that rationalisation like this is all you have?

 

[Neverfly]

I can see, hear and otherwise that God exists.

Then Provide That Evidence for Others Examination.

If you cannot- You have No Claim.

It's just the way it is.

God isn't a "him".

Ok, "it." Whatever.

You appear to be maintaining a paradigm which tells you "there is only one God, this person claims to be God so they are claiming this exclusively". This is your mistake. But since you can't see what I can, or hear it (you are lost in your ideas), you can only rationalise. God has absolutely nothing to do with rationalising or thinking, especially not about God.

That's classic! Tell another one.

I notice you've invented the idea that I feel "proud" of something. I suppose, given your position, that rationalisation like this is all you have?

Nope. You displayed it. Deal with it.

 

[arfa brane]

Then Provide That Evidence for Others Examination.

You want me to provide evidence that I can breathe??

p.s. Whatever you believe I "displayed", really is something you have to deal with. All I have to do is ignore it.