Hawking's final book offers brief answers to big questions

October 15, 2018 by Robin Millard
Stephen Hawking's final book tackles issues from the existence of God to the potential to time travel

Stephen Hawking's final work, which tackles issues from the existence of God to the potential for time travel, was launched on Monday by his children, who helped complete the book after the British astrophysics giant's death.

Hawking was forever being asked the same things and started work on "Brief Answers to the Big Questions" last year—but did not finish it before he died in March, aged 76.

It has been completed by the theoretical physicist's family and academic colleagues, with material drawn from his vast personal archive.

"He was regularly asked a set of questions," his daughter Lucy Hawking said at the Science Museum in London.

The book was an attempt to "bring together the most definitive, clearest, most authentic answers that he gave.

"We all just wish he has here to see it."

Hawking, who was wheelchair bound due to , dedicated his life's work to unravelling the mysteries of the universe.

The cosmologist was propelled to stardom by his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time", an unlikely worldwide bestseller.

It won over fans from far beyond the rarefied world of astrophysics and prompted people into asking the mastermind his thoughts on broader topics, answered in his final work.

The big questions

The 10 questions Hawking tackles are:

— Is there a God?

— How did it all begin?

— What is inside a black hole?

— Can we predict the future?

— Is possible?

— Will we survive on Earth?

— Is there other intelligent life in the universe?

— Should we colonise space?

— Will artificial intelligence outsmart us?

— How do we shape the future?

Hawking's daughter Lucy said the scientist was regularly asked a set of questions and the book was an attempt to answer them in the clearest way
Multiple challenges

In his book, Hawking says humans have no option but to leave Earth, risking being "annihilated" if they do not.

He says computers will overtake humans in intelligence during the next 100 years, but "we will need to ensure that the computers have goals aligned with ours".

Hawking says the human race had to improve its mental and physical qualities, but a genetically-modified race of superhumans, say with greater memory and disease resistance, would imperil the others.

He says that by the people realise what is happening with climate change, it may be too late.

Hawking says the simplest explanation is that God does not exist and there is no reliable evidence for an afterlife, though people could live on through their influence and genes.

He says that in the next 50 years, we will come to understand how life began and possibly discover whether life exists elsewhere in the universe.

"He was deeply worried that at a time when the challenges are global, we were becoming increasingly local in our thinking," Lucy Hawking said.

"It's a call to unity, to humanity, to bring ourselves back together and really face up to the challenges in front of us."

In his final academic paper, Hawking shed new light on black holes and the information paradox, with new work calculating the entropy of .

Turned into an animation narrated by Hawking's artificial voice, it was shown at the book launch.

"It was very emotional. I turned away because I had tears forming," Lucy Hawking told AFP on hearing her father's voice again.

"It feels sometimes like he's still here because we talk about him and hear his voice—and then we have the reminder that he's left us."

Explore further: Time travellers welcome at Hawking's memorial service

Related Stories

Gifted Colombia kids pay tribute to hero Hawking

March 17, 2018

Gifted children at the Stephen Hawking school in Colombia's capital Bogota have been paying a special tribute to the astrophysicist whose life inspired them to study science.

UK to offer Stephen Hawking fellowships

June 11, 2018

Exceptional students in mathematics and physics can compete for research fellowships in honour of the late British physicist Stephen Hawking, who died in March, the government announced on Monday.

'The mind of God': top quotes from Stephen Hawking

March 14, 2018

The world-famous British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, who died on Wednesday at the age of 76, was known as much for his profound and witty comments as his scientific discoveries.

Recommended for you

Magic number colloidal clusters

December 14, 2018

Complexity in nature often results from self-assembly, and is considered particularly robust. Compact clusters of elemental particles can be shown to be of practical relevance, and are found in atomic nuclei, nanoparticles ...

Tangled magnetic fields power cosmic particle accelerators

December 13, 2018

Magnetic field lines tangled like spaghetti in a bowl might be behind the most powerful particle accelerators in the universe. That's the result of a new computational study by researchers from the Department of Energy's ...

131 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rderkis
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 15, 2018
I very much respect Stephen Hawking as a Theoretical Scientist/Physicist. However if he were to say somthing like "hot dogs taste better than hamburgers to almost everyone", I would doubt his expertise on the subject. In the same way I feel he had no business talking about God's existance except as his personal belief(without proof either way).
BTW But at this point I feel he could say for certain, in light of his newest experience.
mvg1
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 15, 2018
Answer to the question of God's existence should be similar to one of his other answers:

"He says that by the time people realise what is happening with climate change, it may be too late."
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (19) Oct 15, 2018
The great pseudoscientist has his last word, and it's worth about the same as his first. Needless to say, the incoherent babblings of an infant isn't worth much to an adult.
guptm
3.1 / 5 (16) Oct 15, 2018
God exists for feeble minds. God is a life support system for the ill person. Healthy people do not need such a system.
rderkis
2.5 / 5 (16) Oct 15, 2018
God exists for feeble minds. God is a life support system for the ill person. Healthy people do not need such a system.


Please don't speak with such presumed authority without scientific research to back it up. Or were you just babbling on without any true evidence?
Dismynewacct
4.3 / 5 (17) Oct 15, 2018
The great pseudoscientist has his last word, and it's worth about the same as his first. Needless to say, the incoherent babblings of an infant isn't worth much to an adult.


That's an awfully brazen comment to make for someone who can't even properly conjugate a verb.
Ojorf
4.6 / 5 (16) Oct 16, 2018
The existence of god is a perfectly testable hypothesis, depending on your definition of god. Many versions of god can summarily be ruled out by science.
If your version of god favors believers over non-believers. It would be trivial to show that believers have "better luck" than non-believers. It's not, so that version can be ruled out.
In fact any god that influences the world would be "visible". All effects have natural causes, except when a god interferes and an effect would have a unnatural cause. This does not happen.

Why do people think gods exist then? Easily explained by evolutionary psychology. IOW human nature.

A god that created the whole of all existence, did it without leaving a single fingerprint or having any effect on it since then?

It really is irrational to believe in it's existence.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2018
I very much respect Stephen Hawking as a Theoretical Scientist/Physicist. However if he were to say somthing like "hot dogs taste better than hamburgers to almost everyone", I would doubt his expertise on the subject. In the same way I feel he had no business talking about God's existance except as his personal belief(without proof either way).
BTW But at this point I feel he could say for certain, in light of his newest experience.

says rderkis

Yes, Elvis has left the building.
But seriously, in spite of Hawking's flagrant and fearless proclamation that (in his opinion) God doesn't exist, he must have, at one time or another, done some heavy wishing that God would do something about Hawking's disabilities - not realising that it wasn't that God had made him that way, which He hadn't - but his own personal body chemistry had run amok and did him in, physically.
Being made of Matter comes with its own inherent problems. As they say, it's the luck of the draw.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2018
Answer to the question of God's existence should be similar to one of his other answers:

"He says that by the time people realise what is happening with climate change, it may be too late."
says mvg1

An analogy for the ages. One would think that Hawking in his wheelchair, with no hope of ever recovering his former physical health, would have drawn closer to his Creator for comfort and solace as a way of easing any distress that would have come with the knowledge that his body was mortal and would return to dust. But the theoretical scientist desired unequivocal evidence that his Soul is immortal before he could bring himself to admit that there was a chance that he was wrong.

"What fools these mortals be"
-- Puck (in A Midsummer Night's Dream)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 16, 2018
God exists for feeble minds. God is a life support system for the ill person. Healthy people do not need such a system.
says guptm

There is an old saying that: "There are no atheists in foxholes".
Ojorf
4.5 / 5 (13) Oct 16, 2018
There is an old saying that: "There are no atheists in foxholes".


Says SEU

There is no mystery to that, it makes perfect sense.

There is an old saying that: "A drowning man will grasp at straws"

Wishful thinking feels good, especially if you imagine the options to be death or eternal life in a fairy tale.
Which one would you rather have? (Oops, I know)

There is an old saying that: "When you shit in your one hand and wish in the other, which is filled first?"
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (12) Oct 16, 2018
It's funny to see how Hawking's view on 'local vs. global' is immediately mirrored in these comment sections by people picking out the most unimportant/consequence-free of his statements to discuss.
rderkis
2 / 5 (10) Oct 16, 2018
The existence of god is a perfectly testable hypothesis, depending on your definition of god. Many

It really is irrational to believe in it's existence.


A blind man speaks of a universe he can't see.
Doug_Nightmare
1.7 / 5 (9) Oct 16, 2018
Eschew eristic.

Some younger cosmologists advance time as real and space as emergent only, admitting infinite universes, one of which must (everything that can happen must happen in an infinity) admit the supernatural. God endures to be with us in our Heaven Universe that does not allow the supernatural. Sola Fide. Sola Scriptura. Sola Gratia.
granville583762
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 16, 2018
Stephen Hawking - Questions in Our Time and Space

As Stephen has oft pondered the existence of life and the ultimate in its finality, the existence of existence, the very being of our existence as none so more is enabled to question as Stephen, confined to eternity until god in his wisdom took it on himself to release Stephen from this earthly eternity, to free his soul to eternal life so that Stephen will once again walk through the gardens of his youth as he oft walked those exclusive parks and gardens passed by the flowing gowns of his Fellows as they cycle to those excusive Cambridgeshire College's, as he now relishes his freedom of his youth, he awaits that day a newborn babe will god in his wisdom place Stephen's subconscious to return once more to this earthly paradise a newborn babe anew

As we all await our time in the carousel of life, we will meet again Stephen!
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 16, 2018
one of which must (everything that can happen must happen in an infinity) admit the supernatura

How can universes - that are all natural - admit the supernatural? That's a contradiction in terms. Just because something is thinkable does not make it possible - even in infinite universe.
granville583762
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 16, 2018
Simply conscious
antialias_physorg> How can universes - that are all natural - admit the supernatural

antialias_physorg, existence of our earthly spiritual entity that is colloquially describe as god, is a mere thought in the shadows and memories of our earthly minds antialias_physorg
They are there for spiritual earthly scribing and long lost conversations of are ancestors
As for my beliefs, not that I want to shatter the dreams of my daily scribing of what appears spiritual antialias_physorg, as a long ardent atheist I see both sides of the fence simultaneous as my scribing "he awaits that day a newborn babe will god in his wisdom place Stephen's subconscious to return once more to this earthly paradise a newborn babe anew" in short, we are only born again when we shuffle this mortal coil, born as newborn anew and as no spirit exist we have no past life we are simply conscious, this how Stephen is to return with nothing of his past life, as it does not exist!
rrwillsj
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 16, 2018
Well, if there are any such fabulism to screw up reality as deities? They have proven to be singularly inept and incompetent. See my Theory of Stupid Design.

A friend of mine had written a series of mystic fantasy novels and she was stumped for some grand explanation to pull the mythology together.

As one of her beta readers, I suggested that the fantasy creatures she describes were not actually of supernatural origin.

Faerie, fae, vampires, werewolves, "wee" folk, and on and on. Each has a perfectly logical explanation for natural cause. Influenced with adaptation to their environment and evolutionary pressure from predators.

This of course, displays the limits of logical analysis. Trapping one into irrational apologia and unreasonable belief systems.

But, hey! Her style of writing appeals to my sense of humor.
sirdumpalot
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 16, 2018
The simplest explanation, the simplest explanation.. My me, the man is either not using the scientific method as intended, or does not understand the issue at hand.

YHWH, God, Tawheed, Tao, Brahman - whatever the name, is a statement about the metaphysical. As per Aristotle, metaphysics comes 'after physics', or after a-posteriori examination.

The scientific method of observation/measurement has hypothesis, followed by experiment. 'God exists', 'God does not exist' are hypotheses. But!! (and this is the important point) What observational experiment can be made on what is axiomatically defined as being beyond observation/measurement?!? None - any hypothesis on the metaphysical must always remain a hypothesis, and anyone saying otherwise is then talking about the physical (which is not Parmenides' One!)

Now as the Buddha said a long time ago: placing faith in that which is defined as axiomatically un-observable - one way or the other - leads to doubt and suffering. Simples!!
sirdumpalot
3 / 5 (4) Oct 16, 2018
The issue with permanent entities is that they are not evident - all phenomena are subject to birth dependent on conditions, subsistence dependent on conditions, and ending dependent on conditions. Therefore, once conventional, relational experience is posited, there is no benefit in adding any notion of an underlying permanent God (externally) or permanent Self/Soul (internally).

From the observational, scientific side - removing the notion of Eisensteinian realism from QM (as Rovelli's RQM does), gets rid of the paradoxes parsimoniously.

https://arxiv.org...9002.pdf
https://arxiv.org...4064.pdf

For the philosophico-logical side, Nagarjuna showed 1800 years ago that any metaphysical speculation 'there IS a God', 'there IS no God', is untennable.

https://ia800400....0Way.pdf

guptm
3 / 5 (6) Oct 16, 2018
@rderkis Here is the true evidence:

The universe is continuously expanding and evolving. The things that are created never evolve on its own. This means universe was not created by anyone, it evolves from infinity to infinity on its own. God is thus debunked.
Ojorf
4 / 5 (12) Oct 17, 2018
What observational experiment can be made on what is axiomatically defined as being beyond observation/measurement?!?


That's not true.
How many religious people pray for things?
How many religious people believe morals come form god?
How many believe god looks after them and protects them and their family and friends?
sirdumpalot
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 17, 2018
@Ojorf

Lots of people - my mum is insanely Orthodox these days.

The issue is that God is not dependent on this world (if the hypothesis of the first cause is to have even a hope of providing meaning, it cannot be dependent on its future effects). God is independent and unchanging, and we cannot influence him. That religious ones believe in a one way dependency relationship, is logically disproved in Nagarjuna's book above. It also does not sit with QM that an observer can observe without impacting that which they observe, if RQM is not your favourite, at least the quantum Zeno effect is enough to show this!

So - either God is essentially different from QM entities, or God is 'of QM', and hence dependent. The latter is not God, the former is unobservable and independent of the physical world (at least if considering RQM).

sirdumpalot
3 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2018
Why value RQM?

Copernicus' relativity: humans not Absolutely valued, absolute motion, absolute time, absolute space, absolute property, absolute object;

Gallilean relativity: relative motion, absolute time, absolute space, absolute property, absolute object;

Special relativity: relative motion, relative time, absolute space, relative property (relativistic Doppler effect), absolute object;

General relativity (top down): relative motion, relative time, relative space, relative property, relative object (? not sure here, can one observer see an object as present whlist another not see the object - if close to a black hole?);

Relational QM (bottom up): relative motion, relative time, relative space, relative property, relative object.

With every turning of an absolute, independent entity, into a relational one, scientific theory became more and more explicative.

For phenomena - conventional, conditioned, reality, dependent origination is accurate.
rderkis
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 17, 2018
@rderkis Here is the true evidence:

The universe is continuously expanding and evolving. The things that are created never evolve on its own. This means universe was not created by anyone, it evolves from infinity to infinity on its own. God is thus debunked.


Wow, since you have all the answers please explain what dark energy and dark matter are. Plus please explain all the other things we have not yet discovered like other dimensions, other universes and things we can not even imagine yet. What kind of modern day person believes as you do, like the inquisition, that they and you know all that has been and ever will be.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2018
"superhumans, say with greater memory and disease resistance, would imperil the others."

-The article is full of antagonizing terms like 'imperil'. Archaic humans cannot avoid their use. It's a primary indicator of why they are obsolete.

Archaic humans are already imperiled which is why they need to be replaced. They're incompatible with the world they've created.

But no, improved humans wont be killing them off. They'll continue to die as they always have, from accident, disease, violence, decrepitude.

Meanwhile the initiative to reduce their reproduction has already begun with the destruction of the family and with the encouragement of drug, alcohol, and tobacco use, overeating and sedentarism, and of course the ONE BILLION ABORTIONS of unwanted and inconvenient babies, and the prevention of hundreds of millions more through contraception.

The transition will continue, gradually, over many gens. Archaics will have comfortable lives so long as they dont mate.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) Oct 17, 2018
YHWH, God, Tawheed, Tao, Brahman - whatever the name, is a statement about the metaphysical. As per Aristotle, metaphysics comes 'after physics', or after a-posteriori examination
Archaic brains are rife with damage and defect. This reduces their appreciation of reality and gives rise to all sorts of idiot fantasy and illusion.

As improved and augmented humans begin to predominate, commentors such as this sad, chemically-impaired nutter will begin to disappear, and the physorg website will finally become the pristine, unadulterated forum for intelligent discourse that it was initially intended to be.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Oct 17, 2018
The ghost that is Otto in life's eternal
TheGhostofOtto1923> Archaic brains are rife with damage and defect. This reduces their appreciation of reality and gives rise to all sorts of idiot fantasy and illusion

When in the vacuous vacuum that is space did that ghost in the quantum of fluctuations archaic in earthly brain did mystify fantasy of illusion as to enter time and space when in times the quantum of fluctuation finally ceased in ethereal flutter did out of time the emergent of ghost in Otto form with archaic brain rife with damage and defect, while all around are natures pristine cellular brains of perfect thought and perfection in atomic construction non can surpass, as to what is this doom laden unearthly archaic existence of what we colloquially know as dear Otto sunk to in depths of doom laden despair as Otto, life is as doom laden as the archaic brain of cellular construction wish's it to be dear Otto!
Phyllis Harmonic
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 17, 2018
Wow, since you have all the answers please explain what dark energy and dark matter are. Plus please explain all the other things we have not yet discovered like other dimensions, other universes and things we can not even imagine yet. What kind of modern day person believes as you do, like the inquisition, that they and you know all that has been and ever will be.


Ah, that dog-eared old "god of the gaps" argument. Thanks to science, the gaps are becoming fewer all the time.
rderkis
2 / 5 (4) Oct 17, 2018

Ah, that dog-eared old "god of the gaps" argument. Thanks to science, the gaps are becoming fewer all the time.


While I can't argue gaps are getting fewer all the time (Quickly). I will say compared to all the universe(s) and possible dimensions we probably only know much less than .000000000000000000001% of it. While people on here with even less than that amount of knowledge unequivocally try to say what does or does not exist. Those people are clowns filled with their own self importance without a hint of the true reality.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 17, 2018
Otto says
Archaic brains are rife with damage and defect
and then some troll says
When in the vacuous vacuum that is space did that ghost in the quantum of fluctuations archaic in earthly brain did mystify fantasy of illusion as to enter time and space when in times the quantum of fluctuation finally ceased in ethereal flutter did out of time the emergent of ghost in Otto form with archaic brain rife with damage and defect, while all around are natures pristine cellular brains of perfect thought and perfection in atomic construction non can surpass, as to what is this doom laden unearthly archaic existence of what we colloquially know as dear Otto sunk to in depths of doom laden despair as Otto, life is as doom laden as the archaic brain of cellular construction wish's it to be dear Otto!
-Well there you go.
drrobodog
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2018
unequivocally try to say what does or does not exist.

That is not the argument.
The argument is if something has no effect, such that it has/cannot have evidence for or against it, that something can be disregarded until such time as the conditions change. This is because; 1) near infinite somethings fall into that category, anything the imagination can conceive of, and if you accept one based on the reasoning you must accept them all. 2) Since there is no effect, there is no gain. If there was any gain there would be evidence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Oct 18, 2018
There is an old saying that: "There are no atheists in foxholes
Imagine the squirrel being chased by a fox, taking the time to pray instead of remaining focused on his escape. All the squirrels who did that are extinct.

Imagine all the unfortunate soldiers who charged the enemy thinking their god was protecting them, instead of using their head and using cover to advance.

This is how religion improves the quality of the human race, by weeding out martyrs.

'Gott mit Uns' on the belt buckles of every german soldier.
guptm
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 18, 2018
Beware people! There are pseudo-scientists here in this physics forum. No wonder Galileo was house-arrested and "god-men" chopped off his fingers for telling the truth, when fake physicists comment in this forum to tell us that earth is 6000 years old.

I salute Galileo and Copernicus for enlightening us that earth is not the center, but the Sun is. Million thanks to Darwin and Dawkins for ruling out the God hypothesis, the root of all evil, and purely anti-scientific.

Thanks to Hawking for showing us the true path. We will have to stop the government for appointing fake professors in disguise here!
guptm
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2018
Definition of "Prayer" - A special request to the 'authority' to make an exception and break all the laws of nature for the personal benefit of someone's own interest. That doesn't sound fair!
Phyllis Harmonic
4 / 5 (8) Oct 18, 2018
Definition of "Prayer" - A special request to the 'authority' to make an exception and break all the laws of nature for the personal benefit of someone's own interest. That doesn't sound fair!

Exactly! Also this: A prayer is a wish wrapped in dogma.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2018
@Ojorf

Lots of people - my mum is insanely Orthodox these days.

The issue is that God is not dependent on this world (if the hypothesis of the first cause is to have even a hope of providing meaning, it cannot be dependent on its future effects). God is independent and unchanging, and we cannot influence him. That religious ones believe in a one way dependency relationship, is logically disproved in Nagarjuna's book above. It also does not sit with QM that an observer can observe without impacting that which they observe, if RQM is not your favourite, at least the quantum Zeno effect is enough to show this!

So - either God is essentially different from QM entities, or God is 'of QM', and hence dependent. The latter is not God, the former is unobservable and independent of the physical world (at least if considering RQM).

says sird

Humans are only able to see that which is made of Matter. The Creator isn't, so they can't see Him, Truth be told.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2018
The ghost that is Otto in life's eternal
TheGhostofOtto1923> Archaic brains are rife with damage and defect. This reduces their appreciation of reality and gives rise to all sorts of idiot fantasy and illusion

When in the vacuous vacuum that is space did that ghost in the quantum of fluctuations archaic in earthly brain did mystify fantasy of illusion as to enter time and space when in times the quantum of fluctuation finally ceased in ethereal flutter did out of time the emergent of ghost in Otto form with archaic brain rife with damage and defect, while all around are natures pristine cellular brains of perfect thought and perfection in atomic construction non can surpass, as to what is this doom laden unearthly archaic existence of what we colloquially know as dear Otto sunk to in depths of doom laden despair as Otto, life is as doom laden as the archaic brain of cellular construction wish's it to be dear Otto!
says gran

Otto is demonically possessed
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2018
-contd-
@granville

Many, if not most of humanity have already been taken over in their minds by demonic-possession, while it is the demons themselves who whisper to their human hosts that demons don't exist. They will even tell their human hosts that Satan doesn't exist, and that it's OK to do, say and think evil because if Satan doesn't exist, there won't be any retribution after they die.
So with that thought in mind, all of the evil that these humans do, say, and think are done out of the feeling that they are completely innocent of any wrongdoing - even if society says otherwise.

Satan LOVES this and other science websites. He LOVES those humans who deny God's existence, curse at God and say evil things against Him. Satan is on the internet to learn about science and humanity to see how he may destroy both humanity AND God, so that Satan can take possession of the Universe and all that is in it. Truly ambitious, that one.
And humans are his willing accomplices.
Phyllis Harmonic
4 / 5 (8) Oct 19, 2018
Satan is on the internet to learn about science and humanity


You got a URL?
sirdumpalot
4 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2018


Humans are only able to see that which is made of Matter. The Creator isn't, so they can't see Him, Truth be told.


"Potthapada, it's as if a man were to say, 'I'm in love with the most beautiful woman in this country,' and other people were to say to him, 'Well, my good man, this most beautiful woman in this country with whom you are in love: do you know if she's of the warrior caste, the priestly caste, the merchant caste, or the laborer caste?' and, when asked this, he would say, 'No.' Then they would say to him, 'Well then, do you know her name or clan name? Whether she's tall, short, or of medium height? Whether she's dark, fair, or ruddy-skinned? Do you know what village or town or city she's from?' When asked this, he would say, 'No.' Then they would say to him, 'So you've never known or seen the woman you're in love with?' When asked this, he would say, 'Yes.'"

https://legacy.su...t/en/dn9

...
sirdumpalot
4 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2018
... I won't go into what scientists believe as a whole, mostly science has lost philosophy over the last century (even if it is half of the method - the hypothesis)

But - for a theist believing in permanent entities (including nihilists): you are faced with an ever changing, impermanent world. Placing your hopes on permanence, is placing your hopes on the unobserved, the unexperienced. This can only lead to doubt and unsatisfactoriness.

Buddhism is an empirical system (faith at first, practice and experience later - but like the scientific method, it only accepts directly observed 'things' as truths), and it starts with the observation of impermanence. Observing impermanence, and consequentially placing faith in the validity of not-Self (in more modern words - not Einsteinian realism), is at the very least reasonable given what one sees, hears, and senses - because all those seen, heard, felt things are comprehended as ever changing. impermanent.

sirdumpalot
3 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2018
https://www.corri...cc.shtml

For the scientifically inclined - Rovelli read Nagarjuna (many told him it was worthy of his time!)
sirdumpalot
1 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2018
** "Potthapada, it's as if a man were to say, 'I'm in love with the most beautiful woman in this country,' and other people were to say to him, 'Well, my good man, this most beautiful woman in this country with whom you are in love: do you know if she's of the warrior caste, the priestly caste, the merchant caste, or the laborer caste?' and, when asked this, he would say, 'No.' Then they would say to him, 'Well then, do you know her name or clan name? Whether she's tall, short, or of medium height? Whether she's dark, fair, or ruddy-skinned? Do you know what village or town or city she's from?' When asked this, he would say, 'No.' Then they would say to him, 'So you've never known or seen the woman you're in love with?' When asked this, he would say, 'Yes.'

"So what do you think, Potthapada—when this is the case, don't the words of that man turn out to be unconvincing?"

"Yes, Lord..."

(cause I forgot the reply! :) )
sirdumpalot
3 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2018
".. don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them."

https://www.acces...han.html

God, and any essentialist philosophy - including the loved Platonic Forms of the philosophers - do the opposite: they encourage fundamentalism and ideology. Fixed thinking, with truth being defined not by what is immanent, evident, and individually observable, but by what is enforced by ritual.

Sadly life is the process of objectification (and God is objectification's summit), and objectification's abandonment is not easy to see!
guptm
2 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2018
God can't exist without Satan/ghost; and Satan/ghost can't exist without God. They need each other to complete the hypothesis.
idjyit
3 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2018
Since there are so many experts here I'm going to drop the bombshell ....

I am God , just ask me anything, I'm happy to answer all questions !.
granville583762
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2018
idjyit> Since there are so many experts here I'm going to drop the bombshell ....

I am God , just ask me anything, I'm happy to answer all questions !.

When is gods birthday, idjyit.

p.s. A clue; its the same as your own birthday!
rderkis
2 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2018
I am smarter than any of you even at 71 and God DOES exist! :-) And none of you can PROVE otherwise. If you think you can, it just proves my first statement.
idjyit
1 / 5 (2) Oct 19, 2018
I don't know.
rderkis
2 / 5 (4) Oct 19, 2018
I don't know.


Does that mean your a agnostic? If so, that at least is a intelligent response to someone who believes in God.
idjyit
1 / 5 (2) Oct 20, 2018
Yes it does
rderkis
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2018
Yes it does

idjyit, need I remind you that you were not answering me when you said "I don't know."
idjyit
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 20, 2018
What ? , speak your mind bud
rderkis
2 / 5 (4) Oct 20, 2018
Their you go again, idjyit. Which comment did bud post? Perhaps bud had no commit he wished to post. Or is bud just a voice in your head, idjyit?
idjyit
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2018
Now you are just being rude.

Constrain your bleeding emotions rderkis.
You say nothing really well.
You say something very very badly.
Your "Faith" is Your emotional response , emotions are a powerful tool if chosen with care.
If brandished as a weapon Your Faith is simply an illogical wailing of a lost soul.

Why are you wailing at people on a science board who are paying you the respect of trying to interact with you ?

It's not like you will ever be able to tell people what to think.
Phyllis Harmonic
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 20, 2018
I am smarter than any of you even at 71 and God DOES exist! :-) And none of you can PROVE otherwise.


The burden is on you to prove that there is a god. And don't use an argument from ignorance to shift the burden. And no, you aren't smarter than any of us regardless of your age. Belief in gods doesn't require anything other than the desire to do so.
rderkis
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 20, 2018
Age has nothing to do with IQ. I am smart enough to know, I can not prove the existance of God or even try. It's a shame your not smart enough to know you can't disprove God's existance.
guptm
2 / 5 (4) Oct 20, 2018
@rderkis

It's an illogical and mathematically irrational statement to prove something without knowing what you are going to prove. Can you first exactly define God in terms of mathematics and physics?

At the moment, we have no idea what you are talking about when you say God. In mathematics and physics and in whole of science, there is nothing called God.

Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Einstein, Darwin, and many others have already given enough solid proofs of the non-existence of such a thing! Mind that this is a physics forum, not a religious one. Here we reject the hypotheses that don't work. Talk like a scientist, if at all you are one.

rderkis
2 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2018
You people are so untenable in your logic. If I said God was a alien with technology and intelligence so far above you, you could not understand him. You would not be so closed minded to the possibility. You have set your minds so tight that no amount of proof would be acceptable to you. I see that same mindset when it comes to president Trump. Elon Musk and several other of our wisest men have done a about face on their support of President Trump because they can truly be objective. I hated President Trump but I am not blind.
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2018
If I said God was a alien with technology and intelligence so far above you, you could not understand him. You would not be so closed minded to the possibility. You have set your minds so tight that no amount of proof would be acceptable to you.


Then it is only an alien with wonderful technology, cleverly using the laws of nature to achieve it's ends.
God is per definition 'supernatural' and able to circumvent the laws of nature.
I hear god is supposed to be omnipotent.
rderkis
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2018
Then it is only an alien with wonderful technology, cleverly using the laws of nature to achieve it's ends.
God is per definition 'supernatural' and able to circumvent the laws of nature..


And how would you know the difference? It has been said by our wisest people that advanced technology would look like magic to us.
Using Advances technology death will be optional. And our greatest scientists now say time travel in both directions is probably possible with enough energy.

In other words we would not know the difference between a super advanced civilization and God. Yet you can believe one is possible and not the other based on only semantics.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2018
Some younger cosmologists advance time as real and space as emergent only
Never seen this. Got some links to credible references, or only blowing hard?
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 21, 2018
In other words we would not know the difference between a super advanced civilization and God. Yet you can believe one is possible and not the other based on only semantics.


Easy.
Take cause and effect. A miracle is an effect without a cause. Now matter how advanced technology gets it can't break that.
Or bread and fish, conservation of mass/energy, miracles can supposedly get around that as well, technology not.
What about instant (FTL) communications or travel? Isn't god supposed to know what's happening everywhere, all the time even faster than instantly, isn't he supposed to know everything that has happened and will still happen everywhere for all eternity? Not only that, god can apparently be multiple places, or even everywhere at the same time, manipulating events. I bet aliens can't do that.

Ojorf
3 / 5 (8) Oct 21, 2018
rderkis, god can probably also time travel if he wanted to. I'm not sure about aliens, maybe you can help.

Using Advances technology death will be optional. And our greatest scientists now say time travel in both directions is probably possible with enough energy.


Care to direct us to a few of "our greatest scientists" saying that time travel into the past is possible?
Do you have any links?
That is for an at least a feasible way of time travel, without using infinitely heavy or infinitely long objects or masses.
guptm
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2018
Santa Claus exists for kids of certain age. If kids believe it all their life, they will miss the opportunity to see the real beautiful world. They were born kid, and will die kid. In other words, born asleep, and will die asleep. Santa is like a crutch that does help kids.

In a room full of people fast asleep, only the awakened one can wake them up. A blind man's worldview is radically different from the man with both eyes.
guptm
2 / 5 (4) Oct 21, 2018
A bird that cannot break the eggshell will probably never fly thus missing the entire amazing life of flying.
rderkis
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2018
What about instant (FTL) communications or travel? supposed to know everything that has happened and will still happen -- apparently be multiple places


Your stating/asking things about technology that we don't know yet. We think we know that some things can be at more than one place at the same time. We think we know that instant communication is possible using quantum entanglement, As far as knowing what is going to happen, time travel takes care of that.
All those things I am not speculating on. But I would speculate that the only thing God can do that a advanced civilization can't do is make energy/mater out of nothing. And I mean nothing. Supposedly there are predictions that energy/matter can pop in and out of existance. But once again I am guessing it is just appearing/disappearing in different places not being created. Kind of like quantum tunneling but different.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (6) Oct 21, 2018
rderkis, god can probably also time travel if he wanted to. I'm not sure about aliens, maybe you can help.

Using Advances technology death will be optional. And our greatest scientists now say time travel in both directions is probably possible with enough energy.


Care to direct us to a few of "our greatest scientists" saying that time travel into the past is possible?
Do you have any links?
That is for an at least a feasible way of time travel, without using infinitely heavy or infinitely long objects or masses.
@Ojorf, this is another version of "if Gawd is omnipotent, can it make a rock so big it can't lift it?" The entire concept of omnipotence is ludicrous.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2018
If you wanna do politics instead of science feel free but everyone can smell it. Maybe I'll get some more 1s to make your smell nastier.

May I mock you another time?
rderkis
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2018
I don't think Da Schneib is very smart. I told him I have ignore set for his comments because he is a troll. But everytime I post he follows up with some kind of comment I can't read and don't read. Since he keeps repeating the same useless behavior he falls under the insane category or is just plane dumb.
sirdumpalot
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 21, 2018
"if Gawd is omnipotent, can it make a rock so big it can't lift it?" The entire concept of omnipotence is ludicrous.


Yes he mutha-fuckin' can!!... because - God, by definition is omnipotent, and all powerful! It's a shitty argument, but it depends on the question - can God disavow his own divinity? If 'no', then he is not omnipotent, if 'yes', he can create a rock he cannot move - but at the expense of his own divinity. But then, again - he is not permanent and independent.. And I am tooo drunk to give a shit to think further down this silly path! Peace :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
I am smarter than any of you even at 71 and God DOES exist! :-) And none of you can PROVE otherwise.


The burden is on you to prove that there is a god. And don't use an argument from ignorance to shift the burden. And no, you aren't smarter than any of us regardless of your age. Belief in gods doesn't require anything other than the desire to do so.
says PhyllisH

Actually, rderkis has no burden to prove that God exists. He has no obligation to prove anything that has to do with his beliefs. For rderkis to insist on that belief in a chatroom with this calibre of proponents for the nonexistence of God, is really a big waste of time and intellectual energy.
Both rderkis and I have already established the fact that the Creator God exists, whether in here, or only amongst ourselves, so that being charged with the burden of proof is really irrelevant.
As one chooses to reject, another chooses to believe. And that is the important thing - to make the choice.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
@rderkis

It's an illogical and mathematically irrational statement to prove something without knowing what you are going to prove. Can you first exactly define God in terms of mathematics and physics?

At the moment, we have no idea what you are talking about when you say God. In mathematics and physics and in whole of science,(**)

says gupta to rderkis

"Can you first exactly define God in terms of mathematics and physics?"

Hmm let's see.
1. Fibonacci numbers (sequences are also found in Nature)
2. E = mc2
3. Evolution
4. Laws of Thermodynamics
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2018
Satan is on the internet to learn about science and humanity


You got a URL?
says PhyllisH

Here is one: Phys.org
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2018
"if Gawd is omnipotent, can it make a rock so big it can't lift it?" The entire concept of omnipotence is ludicrous.


Yes he mutha-fuckin' can!!...
OK, so then it can't lift the rock. So much for omnipotence.

We done here?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2018
It's so amusing to watch the thumpers of the Babble about the super magic sky daddy by the drunken stone age sheep herders do a faceplant.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
God DOES exist! :-) And none of you can PROVE otherwise
I've proved many times that the perfect god of abraham doesnt exist. The fact that people ignore the proof, doesnt invalidate it.

"Tel Aviv U archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:

"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom..." etc

1) THAT god claims to be perfect
2) perfection is intrinsic to his existence
3) evidence proves that his version of history is fiction
4) so either hes ignorant, passively lying, or he adulterated the evidence
5) so the abrahamic god is not perfect
6) so he doesnt exist.

Period.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 22, 2018
And yes you can prove a negative.
https://www.psych...negative

-more desperate religionist obfuscation.

You can prove that something which claims to be perfect, is not perfect. And so you can conclude that that thing doesnt exist in it's perfect form.

There may very well be some lying, cheating, book-writing god who promises to make you immortal, grant all your wishes, absolve you of your guilt, and punish your enemies with eternal torture. But what makes you think you can believe THAT rubbish when it all comes from a book about people who never existed and events which never happened? A book so obviously written by PEOPLE and intended to decieve by playing off your most basic fears and desires?

You really THAT desperate for miracles??
sirdumpalot
2 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2018
"if Gawd is omnipotent, can it make a rock so big it can't lift it?" The entire concept of omnipotence is ludicrous.


Yes he mutha-fuckin' can!!...
OK, so then it can't lift the rock. So much for omnipotence.

We done here?


Basically! :) For God to be omnipotent, it must have the choice to lose its omnipotence. But then God can suffer change - so would have to be conventional and physical, if satisfying logic.

My favourite one is still that God is an Absolute, but its creation - as far as science seems to be pointing - is relational, and empty when thought experimentally 'summed' up into one whole.

So, God the creater, has created no thing. It's not God's omnipotence, but its total lack of any visible potency that most stands out from observing the world!
sirdumpalot
2 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2018
And yes you can prove a negative.


Proof is 100%. A core of the scientifc method is the null hypothesis, which is always stated in the negative. Because the sample is always smaller than the population statistic, you cannot hit 100% significance level, no matter your experiment. So - you can't prove a negative. At least not within what is currently considered the scientific method.
guptm
2 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2018
Kudos to TheGhostofOtto1923. Appreciated!

God is neither absolute nor relative, he is not there at all! Created things do not evolve, they stay as they are, but the universe is evolving continuously. This proves there is no God or anything similar.

Religion is born out of fear and threat (that's why they threatened people with hell, heaven and ghosts) whereas science is born out of courage and audacity to take the risk. God on one side, devil/Satan on the other side of the coin. That's how they made this system. Priests were and are the biggest enemies of humankind.

Religion does not allow new ideas and criticism (read Galileo's case) whereas scientists discard their own theories if they don't work or are found inconsistent, thus, improving continuously.

Scientists can negate religion, but religion cannot negate science because scientists question themselves all the time before anyone else does and they move forward.
sirdumpalot
2 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2018
You are not as you were even one second ago, and it would be difficult claim you are not a conditioned creature - at the very least you depended on your parents to be born, and food to continue staying alive.

'The Universe is evolving continuously' - hypothesis. But where can you find an observer to measure the evolution of the whole Universe?! Nowhere - because you can't place 'some thing' external to 'All things'. The Universe is ultimately empty, it is empty of emptiness, or any other conceptually designated word salad.

God is a hypothesis about the permanent, independent, unobservable. Proof is only available through direct observation - not inference, or logic, or anything else. There is no observation of that which is defined as essentially independent, essentially beyond observation. Claiming otherwise is exactly that religion and ideology.

The divine/corporeal duality is mind made. Both the conventional and the Ultimate are empty, and empty of emptiness.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2018

Proof is 100%. A core of the scientifc method is the null hypothesis, which is always stated in the negative. Because the sample is always smaller than the population statistic, you cannot hit 100% significance level, no matter your experiment. So - you can't prove a negative. At least not within what is currently considered the scientific method
You didnt read the article I linked did you? By someone who actually knows what they're talking about?

Why dont you go argue with him?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 22, 2018
Because the sample is always smaller than the population statistic, you cannot hit 100% significance level
The god of abraham is a population of one.

Perfection is an absolute. You can certainly prove that perfection is imperfect. All it takes is one example. The bible is full of them. The holy land is full of them.

One more thing - deist gods are not theist gods. Philos invented deist gods expressly to be unassailable. They thrive on unanswerable questions.

The god of abraham is theist, not deist. As soon as he claimed perfection, we could kill him.

Theists love to hijack deist arguments, implying that they apply to their tribal gods, just like you're doing. They dont. Its dishonest.

But that never stopped a committed godder, does it? Self-deception is the cornerstone of faith.
guptm
2 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2018
'The Universe is evolving continuously' - a unassailable Fact evidenced by Hubble's discovery of expanding universe, discovery of supernovas, blackholes, gravitational waves (This evidence was given Nobel Prize). Therefore, universe is not static, it is expanding and evolving. Thus God is not there to rescue anyone. No help ever comes! Science is the truth.
sirdumpalot
2 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2018
Nope, I didn't say it was static, or permanent, or any of those terms (God is, like Newtonian mechanics, an imperfect charactarization of Existence), simply that when considered as a whole, from the ultimate frame of reference - which any observer internal to some Hubble volume of it cannot do, because they occupy a conventional frame of reference - the universe is empty of any and all concepts - Plato's Forms are as metaphysical as Logos.

Take 'external' - is there an 'external' to All? You may say 'nothing' (since internal is everything) - but I would still say that is only ever a hypothesis, because you will never offer me an experimental set up to demonstrate your claim. Now if 'external to All' is not a justifiable position using the scientific method, what is 'internal to All'?

When examining 'it is One', we are left with Plato's Parmenides - who logically denies that One any properties, even wholeness. Essentialist ontology leads to paradoxes. Hence relational QM.
sirdumpalot
2 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2018
Theists love to hijack deist arguments, implying that they apply to their tribal gods, just like you're doing.


I don't see a distinction - if you posit permanent entities, independent of observation, whether you call them deist, theist, Platonist, Einstanian realist - they are all the same, in their orthogonality relative to the scientific method of observation. (I am also Buddhist, which would take time to explain)

This is where Pramanas https://en.wikipe.../Pramana are useful. Do you consider the scientific method gains truths not only by observation, but by inference also? If only direct observation, then we agree as to epistemology, and you would also give in by saying any position you hold on God or the Absolute is inferred, and hence not scientific. If you accept inference as a valid method of gaining truth, then a stereotype (a property of some population) is perfectly applicable to the individual. Schrodinger's eq doesn't work like that.
guptm
2 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2018
The 10 questions Hawking tackles are:

— Is there a God? Big no, everyone knows it.

— How did it all begin? It never began. It's -Inf to +Inf.

— What is inside a black hole? Nothing, it's outside human reach.

— Can we predict the future? No, it's too complex.

— Is time travel possible? No, practically impossible.

— Will we survive on Earth? No, life is mortal.

— Is there other intelligent life in the universe? It's probable.

— Should we colonise space? No, because you cannot.

— Will artificial intelligence outsmart us? Never

— How do we shape the future? Focus on the present.

TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2018
I don't see a distinction - if you posit permanent entities, independent of observation, whether you call them deist, theist, Platonist, Einstanian realist
Because you dont know enough about the subject to comment. But do continue to make shit up as if you do.
sirdumpalot
2 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2018
"Bhikkhus, there are these three sectarian tenets which, when questioned, interrogated, and cross-examined by the wise, and taken to their conclusion, will eventuate in non-doing. What are the three?

(1) "There are, bhikkhus, some ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view as this: 'Whatever this person experiences—whether pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure—all that is caused by what was done in the past.' (2) There are other ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view as this: 'Whatever this person experiences—whether pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure—all that is caused by God's creative activity.' (3) And there are still other ascetics and brahmins who hold such a doctrine and view as this: 'Whatever this person experiences—whether pleasure, pain, or neither-pain-nor-pleasure—all that occurs without a cause or condition.'...

https://suttacent...en/bodhi
sirdumpalot
2 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2018
Here is a cryptic answer:

Bodhidharma asked, "Can each of you say something to demonstrate your understanding?"
Dao Fu stepped forward and said, "It is not bound by words and phrases, nor is it separate from words and phrases. This is the function of the Tao."
Bodhidharma: "You have attained my skin."
The nun Zong Chi stepped up and said, "It is like a glorious glimpse of the realm of Akshobhya Buddha . Seen once, it need not be seen again."
Bodhidharma; "You have attained my flesh."
Dao Yu said, "The four elements are all empty. The five skandhas are without actual existence. Not a single dharma (thing) can be grasped."
Bodhidharma: "You have attained my bones."
Finally, Huike came forth, bowed deeply in silence and stood up straight.
Bodhidharma said, "You have attained my marrow."

Why cryptic? Because people don't often accept silence as an explanation for all. But no other answer survives 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed..'
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2018
And yes you can prove a negative.


Proof is 100%. A core of the scientifc method is the null hypothesis, which is always stated in the negative. Because the sample is always smaller than the population statistic, you cannot hit 100% significance level, no matter your experiment. So - you can't prove a negative. At least not within what is currently considered the scientific method.
sirdumpalot

Correct. Proof requires Evidence = Evidential Proof = 100% whether in the positive or negative. There is no halfway proving of something in order to convince those who oppose it.

Science as mainstream can only deal with and discover that which is of a material nature. Scientific instruments are solely based on the "human eye", and that human eye tends to negate anything which is rendered impossible to see. To that end, the trend of science is to reject all that the human cannot see - except, of course, Black Holes and Dark Matter which have not been seen either.
sirdumpalot
2 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2018
To that end, the trend of science is to reject all that the human cannot see - except, of course, Black Holes and Dark Matter which have not been seen either.


This is where experience gets interesting - in my humble opinion! No 'thing' is absolute, or absolutely observable, like it or not - that is what the scientific method is leading towards. Black holes have their effects on surrounding matter, so does dark matter. Both of these facts are inferred, and anyone leaning on observation/measurement can't celebrate these inferred observations completely, but inference is not absolutely meaningless - either some un-desribed thing, or some error in the explicative theory must be present.

But that is substantively different from any theory of permanence imo - aether being the latest and last fully scientific one!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2018
Here is a cryptic answer:

Bodhidharma asked, "Can each of you say something to demonstrate your understanding?"

Finally, Huike came forth, bowed deeply in silence and stood up straight.
Bodhidharma said, "You have attained my marrow."

Why cryptic? Because people don't often accept silence as an explanation for all. But no other answer survives 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed..'
says sirdumpalot

I am quite impressed with your anecdote, sir.
It is widely known that there is, in each human, a need to gain acceptance and rewards given out for thinking and believing in the most accepted or tolerated (by human standards) ideals, whether for good or evil, according to which tribal circle in which one chooses to be involved.

And then there is the naked Truth, which transcends all explanations and which reverberates out of Time and Space and Matter/Energies. That Truth is impossible to corrupt, although some have attempted it. That Truth is the Creator God
guptm
2 / 5 (4) Oct 22, 2018
Who created God? If no one created God, then there is no problem in rejecting creation theory. If God can live without being created, the universe can exist without being created.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
-contd-
It is with great interest and amusement that I/we read the negativeness of the posts coming from SpookyOtto, DaShnieb, guptm, fruckCaptainstumpsywoompsy, and his wife, ojorf, as well as some others who have come around to declare their hatred of their Creator, and/or just waiting for the ride to hell. DaCaptain is lurking about.

It is amusing to again and again - repeatedly read from SpookyOtto's posts about the atheist Jew, Ze'ev Herzog, who projects that Archaeologists will fail evermore of finding any Biblical artifacts that prove that Jewish history is real, and SpookyOtto still never understanding that most of the Bible is just JEWISH HISTORY - and not much else. I have tried to make SpookyOtto understand this, but failing each time.
SpookyOtto's headlines for Ha'aretz (It is known for its left-wing and liberal stances on domestic and foreign issues.) are from an Israeli atheist rag that spews venom against the Jewish religion - in Israel of all places.
LOL
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018

Who created God? If no one created God, then there is no problem in rejecting creation theory. If God can live without being created, the universe can exist without being created.
says tuptim

The Creator God has always existed. You are still only projecting your material ideology onto a Being who is not of a material Nature, as you are. Perhaps that premise scares you?
Materialism is what drives the human animal to reject a Creator who created Matter, therefore not being of the same Matter as that which was created.

The premise is original and has been known for millions of Earth years, but then was rejected sometime after the dawn of man.

And the Universe has always existed in that its Space had always existed. Just as Time has always existed without dimensionality.
It was the Matter that was created by the Creator God that is what your senses tell you is real. YOUR reality is not God's reality. Your only concern is with the reality of the material, whatever it is
guptm
3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
Neither does God, nor do heaven/hell/demon/Satan/ghost exist.

"The priests are the main culprits who created all these toys to keep the children busy and engaged. Innocent children get easily lured by their tricks. Religion is childish, the grown ups do not need it." - OSHO (1931-1990)
guptm
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 22, 2018
It is disappointing to see that some religious bigots who have no understanding of science at all have invaded a purely scientific forum where they do not belong. They still live in pre-Copernican era!

Surprisingly, formally educated people also get lured by the creation of the Creator Priest who created God to scare/threaten people and do their 'business'.

Period.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
-contd-
ALL that you see in the known and yet-to-be-known Universe of which you have learnt that exists, was created and did not come into existence of its own accord. And all have evolved - each according to how it was programmed to evolve. LOL Part of that programming is now referred to as: the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.
Of course, as with all Matter, there were/are some who don't "get with the program" (to borrow an Americanism), and stray out of their appointed pathways in a chaotic fashion. These Stars will meet their end due to Chaos not being permitted for long in the Universe.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
The Creator God has always existed
prove it
show the evidence you have that your sky faerie has always existed

Yea, but it has come to pass that the FSM has spoken thusly, to be written upon the stone of all beings hearts, never to fade: be wary of those who claim knowledge without a source or means to prove their validity, for they are not of this sauce. They are of the rancid, moldy green garnish of envy amongst the meatballs of reality

so sayeth the FSM
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
Neither does God, nor do heaven/hell/demon/Satan/ghost exist.

"The priests are the main culprits who created all these toys to keep the children busy and engaged. Innocent children get easily lured by their tricks. Religion is childish, the grown ups do not need it." - OSHO (1931-1990)
says tuptim

Your problem, as is the problem with your god-hating compatriots, is that you blame religions for your failures in life and, quite possibly, your fright that one day you will die and go into the night, and your flesh will become worm food. You cherish your flesh, blood and bones, as well as your mind and the disaster it has become through your own choices.
So, you react by telling yourself that it is all the fault of religions and priests, rabbis, ministers, etc. of whichever religion you hate most - or all of them. You cannot put the blame on The Creator God, simply because you don't believe He exists.

And that is your way of dealing with your life and its realities
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
quite possibly, your fright that one day you will die and go into the night
nope
been there, done that
and your flesh will become worm food
Nope
I left my body to science fiction, so I don't have to worry
You cherish your flesh
nope
I cherish pizza and bacon, but I ain't no cannibal like you nutters are
simply because you don't believe He exists
that is squarely on your own shoulders as we've asked for proof and you still deny us the evidence

if (s)he does exist, (s)he is surely going to be pissed at you, not any of us who asked for evidence!

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
The Creator God has always existed
prove it
show the evidence you have that your sky faerie has always existed
says Captain Chickenshit

A sky faerie, eh? And when did you start spelling faerie that way instead of the American English, fairy? Seems to me that you are pretending to be what you are not - and you have been copying the spelling that granville and I use - which is 'faerie'. You fraud. ROFLMAO

Be that as it may, we have no idea what a "sky faerie" could be. Is that similar to Walt Disney's "Tinker Bell" from Peter Pan? Curious, that.

Why do you want proof of the Creator God's existence? Do you think that you can bully Him into going away? You do take a lot on yourself, don't you.

I assure you that when we come for you, your mind will know the eternal darkness that your mind will never be able to escape - that darkness that is so black that there is no other description for it.
You may also feel pain; burning in the blackness. We will enjoy that
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
Your human flesh will become worm food, as said before. Even if you choose to have yourself cremated, your flesh in its most reduced form will still know the horrors of eternal pain, while your mind begs to escape from the eternal blackness as you are driven mad. If you are lucky, your damned soul will be brought to the place where all such as you will be burning in an eternal furnace.
LOL all you want. You have already committed yourself to your fate.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
@egg-tarded
And when did you start spelling faerie that way
I use either as both are acceptable, but normally use faerie
Why do you want proof of the Creator God's existence?
because you specifically said "The Creator God has always existed" - that means you can prove the statement as it's not prefaced with designations of opinion

As such, I am asking for the requisite evidence to substantiate your claim
Personally, I know you can't because I happen to know you're wrong
Do you think that you can bully Him
Wakinyan can, and they have backup from FSM
I assure you that when we come for you
still making threats?

one thing I know for a fact: you will never come for me
you're projection and defensive posturing is because you know you're too pathetic to even try

however, if you do grow ballsy, feel free to PM me, since you have my info, and I'll give you directions

PS - bring a shovel
guptm
3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Einstein

God will stay in existence as long as stupidity (The Creator Priest) exists. Alas, stupidity outnumbers wisdom.

Light has not illuminated all those God-followers yet. God exists because exists. That's how dogmatic/fanatic system of belief emerges from such people. America is striving to fight against such outfits.

Such God-fearing people are the biggest hurdle in the growth of humanity and science!
guptm
3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
It is their Creator Priest, God, and the created book that tell them to become violent and curse someone denies to accept their belief.

Interestingly, God-denier's fate how they are going to die is decided by God-followers' rule book!

Intolerance is the basic premise of all religions, which is observed quite distinctly here.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
ROFLOL
Wakinyan Tanka is the Sioux religion's explanation for an extraterrestrial battle in the sky that they had witnessed and made a religion out of it. No biggy, that.

One thing that I know for a fact: we will come for you. And we don't threaten; we just do, as I have told you before.
We know all about you. We see everywhere you go, what you do, who you are with, and we even know what your thoughts are. You will never escape the wrath.
We will come for you - and you will suffer all that I have described.

full stop
guptm
3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
Correct: "God exists because stupidity exists."
Incorrect: God exists because exists.

Sorry for the typo.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
@egg-on-your-face and stupid
Wakinyan Tanka is the Sioux religion's explanation for an extraterrestrial battle in the sky
no, it is not
Your google must be broken - or you're illiterate: https://www.csico...derbirds

http://www.native...erer.htm

also note: they are not *a religion* any more than your joseph is a religion
And we don't threaten; we just do, as I have told you before
well, if that is the case, then you're a blatant liar too
you haven't "done" anything but threaten (need I explain what that word means?)
We know all about you
no, you don't, otherwise you would not have threatened me
You will never escape the wrath
We will come for you - and you will suffer all that I have described
I'm still waiting

Surely if you know all about me you realise that you will be seen coming for miles, right?

You sure you want to try that, spineless little troll?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
Oh by the way -

And when did you start spelling faerie that way
I use either as both are acceptable, but normally use fair
Why do you want proof of the Creator God's existence?
because you specifically said
As such, I am asking for the requisite evidence to substantiate your claim
Personally, I know you can because I happen to know you're right
Do you think that you can bully Him
Wakinyan is my god and he can, and they have backup from FSM
I assure you that when we come for you
still making threats?
one thing I know for a fact: you will never come for me
you're projection and defensive posturing is because you know you're too pathetic to even try
however, if you do grow ballsy, feel free to PM me, since you have my info, and I'll give you directions

PS - bring a shovel says Chickenshit

Well of course we will bring a shovel to dig your grave, unless you choose cremation first. In that case, we will take possession of your corpse.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
@illiterate eggy with the broken google
Well of course we will bring a shovel to dig your grave, unless you choose cremation first
Ah, the death threat...
Really?

ROTFLMFAO

like I said: pathetic little liar

you can't even figure out how to quote, and you think making a death threat makes you scary or will back me off?

LOL

you really don't know jack about me at all!
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
ROFLMAO
So, Wakinyan Tanka is your god - lol a thunderbird. Hey, didn't they make thunderbirds in the US several decades ago? Ford, I think it was.
Tell us, Cshit, do you dance dressed like an Indian of the 1800s around the campfire in the Sioux celebrations during Wakinyan Tanks week? Bet you do. What a sight to behold. And do you pray to the thunderbird to protect you? ROFLOL
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
ROFLOL
We will come for you when the time is right, Wakinyan-worshipper. And with that, I bid tuptim adieu and sorry for neglecting his posts.
Maybe another time tuptim, we can have that little talk that you missed out on when the raging bull thunderbird barged in.

Ooops time to take the doggie for a walk. She is anxious
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
@egg-tarded pathetic little be-yotch
So, Wakinyan Tanka is your god
Nope
they're my siblings
during Wakinyan Tanks week?
no such thing, even for a retarded crayon-eating troll like you

so don't buy tickets to that show again this year like you always do
do you dance dressed like an Indian of the 1800s
you don't even know how they dressed, yet you want to ridicule them?
LMFAO

all the internet at your fingertips and you can't do a basic search to learn what Lakota wore during the 1800's...
TOO funny!

it explains a lot about your stupidity and religious addictions to your sky faerie
And do you pray to the thunderbird
so, you didn't even read those links I left?
LMFAO

wow...

either you're illiterate or just plain stupid!

and ya can't make me mad about that tripe either - I am not religious

well, except for the FSM, which says you're to be confined to the hell of the mouldy garnish for your insolence against his meatball-ness
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 22, 2018
A man was chased by a tiger to the edge of a cliff. Knowing the tiger was too heavy to come down after him, he quickly started climbing down the cliff.

But as he hung there from his fingers and toes, he looked down and saw there was another tiger waiting for him below.

Looking around, he saw a strawberry vine. He reached out and took a ripe strawberry from it and it was the best he'd ever tasted.

And in that moment he was enlightened.

My favorite koan.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 23, 2018
Interesting. But I like the Wakinyan Tanka creation story of the Indian boy who created cats, coyotes, birds, owls and other animals, It is said to resemble the Creation story, Lakota style.
But it's all superstitious nonsense, isn't that right, DaShriek?
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2018
@egg-on-da-face
But it's all superstitious nonsense
that's rich considering your above alien encounters and deity worship
The Creator God has always existed
It was the Matter that was created by the Creator God
YOUR reality is not God's reality
your hypocrisy at it's worst

so, why is it OK for you to be superstitious and spout your superstitious nonsense on a science site, especially knowing that science requires evidence?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2018
A man was chased by a tiger to the edge of a cliff. Knowing the tiger was too heavy to come down after him, he quickly started climbing down the cliff.

But as he hung there from his fingers and toes, he looked down and saw there was another tiger waiting for him below.

Looking around, he saw a strawberry vine. He reached out and took a ripe strawberry from it and it was the best he'd ever tasted.

And in that moment he was enlightened.

My favorite koan.
says DaShriek

Which religion, if any, did you get that little story from. Doesn't appear to be of a religious sort, since tigers have been known to chase men. But it does resemble Buddhist philosophy. I don't think Buddhism is a religion in itself, but more of a set of common sense rules to live by.
But the Wakinyan Tanka religious crap is purely garbage, what with the worship of a thunderbird making the noise of thunder and making a god of a bird. Totally ridiculous.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2018
ko·an
/ˈkōän/Submit
noun
a paradoxical anecdote or riddle, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment.

Curiosity got the best of me.

So DaShriek just may be a Buddhist, or at the very least - a big fan of anecdotal philosophy for which Buddha was famous.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 23, 2018
@egg-tarded trolling religious fundie
But the Wakinyan Tanka religious crap is purely garbage, what with the worship of a thunderbird making the noise of thunder and making a god of a bird. Totally ridiculous
LOL
I just have to remind you that you're the one talking about aliens, daemons and other delusional b*llshit beliefs that can't be substantiated because your hallucinations can be seen by everyone else... saying that any religious belief is crap is equivalent to a turd calling a mink stinky

or are you just being a racist with your condemnation of other cultures because you're so inadequate you can't do science?
Which religion, if any, did you get that little story from
you do realise that Tiger's are limited in their distribution and habitat, right?

your google must be broken again

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2018
@egg-centric cont'd
is purely garbage
here is the thing:
they described things they didn't understand at the time using their existing cultural and natural beliefs

their interpretations of the unknown were based upon observed natural events

They saw the power of the eagle and heard the intense beating of their wings and jumped to the conclusion that the storms etc may have been caused by a scaled-up version of the eagle

The fearsome tornado, lightning, torrential rains and storms that brought change were then attributed to a mythical unseen beast of incredible proportions

this is no different than your own delusional rantings about aliens, etc

what you saw, you can't comprehend, therefore it must be magical or technologically superior in a way that transcends the laws of physics. You immediately jump to aliens and wormholes because it's popular in today's culture and TV

your "religious crap is purely garbage" because you're ignorant
Phyllis Harmonic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2018
One thing that I know for a fact: we will come for you. And we don't threaten; we just do, as I have told you before.
We know all about you. We see everywhere you go, what you do, who you are with, and we even know what your thoughts are. You will never escape the wrath.
We will come for you - and you will suffer all that I have described.


Oh my, I've not seen this level of delusion in a long time. Really sounds like he's suffering from some sort of schizoid event. He obviously lives in a psychological bubble and is projecting his distorted sense of self and agency but damn, I'm glad I'm not actually in physical proximity to this wacko!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 24, 2018
Oh my, I've not seen this level of delusion in a long time. Really sounds like he's suffering from some sort of schizoid event. He obviously lives in a psychological bubble and is projecting his distorted sense of self and agency but damn, I'm glad I'm not actually in physical proximity to this wacko!
Its even worse than you think. Pussytard gets his religious notions from wiki.

"Yes! Indian gods! [typetypetypetype] oh yeah this ought to dazzle em..."
savvys84
1 / 5 (3) Oct 25, 2018
thanks lucy and others. rip stephen. tho as a Christian i can safely say that God exists. The Holy Spirit is the proof. Praise the Lord
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (2) Oct 25, 2018
thanks lucy and others. rip stephen. tho as a Christian i can safely say that God exists. The Holy Spirit is the proof
I can safely say that Darth Vader exists. The Force is the proof.
May the Force blah
guptm
5 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2018
Maybe holy ghost is the genital of your god. - Osho

Maybe holy ghost the genital of Creator Priest who created all these stories.
Phyllis Harmonic
5 / 5 (4) Oct 25, 2018
The Holy Spirit is the proof.


Well, if the proof of the Holy Spirit is anything less than 40, I'm not drinking it.

Also, a statement of belief is not a proof.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2018
Well, if the proof of the Holy Spirit is anything less than 40, I'm not drinking it

Actually I think it's about 70 proof
http://www.deliri...erium_fr
Also, a statement of belief is not a proof
It is when they call it faith.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.