Stephen Hawking Lays It All Out

[Aoi Magi]

We have a conscience? hmm.... con-artists do use a lot of science these days, so....

[Whateverist]

As a general rule, theists are shameless.

Or at least desperate.

[genkaus]

Science cannot explain everything. For example, science cannot explain why humans have a conscience.

Wtf are you talking about? Ofcourse science can explain why we have a conscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscience#Secular_views

And this is just the summary - for details, look into sociology, psychology and neurobiology pertaining to conscience. Try the links to all those helpful little references.

---

The thing is, objectivelly there's nothing to really "deny" the possibility of a god.

Not true - the denial of that possibility rests within the definition of god you subscribe to.

That's for sure, but "cosmological" possibility of a transcendant, timeless structure as creator of our everything

Take this definition, for example - you use the term creator, implying that you consider this timeless structure to be an agent i.e. being conscious and capable of action. However, both consciousness and action are temporal concepts - they cannot exist in a timeless state. So this definition of god refutes itself.

[Madness20]

The thing is, objectivelly there's nothing to really "deny" the possibility of a god.

Not true - the denial of that possibility rests within the definition of god you subscribe to.

If there is an overall common definition of "god" through beliefs is that he's the creator, destroyer, eternal and the cause of existence. That there is the possibility? There is, it's undeniable whatsoever.
You can always tend towards "believing" in other possibilities, but that isn't based exactly on rationality but rather emotional preference.

That's for sure, but "cosmological" possibility of a transcendant, timeless structure as creator of our everything

Take this definition, for example - you use the term creator, implying that you consider this timeless structure to be an agent i.e. being conscious and capable of action. However, both consciousness and action are temporal concepts - they cannot exist in a timeless state. So this definition of god refutes itself.

Then we disagree in the definition of timeless, or maybe i misused it. What i meant by timeless is uncreated, eternal and obviously also creator of our "spacetime" if he's the creator of everything, but i obviously think he's also subject to his own temporal frames and changing/phase shifting.

Ultimatelly, the only concievable answer to explain our universe is concieving that something, somehow, is uncreated, and uncreated necessarily will mean that it is eternal, always existed, not that it had a "creation" time frame.
Then we might want to qualify that "uncreated" existance: uncreated, eternal and sufficient source of all creation.

Then we might even want to extrapolate qualifications upon characteristics of that creation, but those characteristics are yet subjective, but some like "creator of order", perpetuator of the "balance"/stability to our universe, alpha and omega, etc etc.

All in all, it becomes obvious that whatever eternal existence or cause to our universe, it is an extraordinarily powerful creative structure.

[Tonus]

If there is an overall common definition of "god" through beliefs is that he's the creator, destroyer, eternal and the cause of existence. That there is the possibility? There is, it's undeniable whatsoever.

I would say that it's quite deniable. I deny it. Do you have something more concrete than "it's undeniable" to convince me otherwise?

[Madness20]

If there is an overall common definition of "god" through beliefs is that he's the creator, destroyer, eternal and the cause of existence. That there is the possibility? There is, it's undeniable whatsoever.

I would say that it's quite deniable. I deny it. Do you have something more concrete than "it's undeniable" to convince me otherwise?

If you read the rest of my previous post, yes, i did speculate something more concrete.

[Cyberman]

Only by redefining words to fit your preconception. By the same rules, I can prove I'm Barack Obama; if I redefine the name to mean a sexy, intelligent white guy from the beating heart of the UK.

[Tonus]

If you read the rest of my previous post, yes, i did speculate something more concrete.

It just reads like a longer version of "you cannot deny it," although you at least admit that it's based on your own limited imagination. Claiming that a particular something is the only conceivable option does not free you from the obligation to demonstrate the why or how of that position, nor does it obligate me to accept it.

[genkaus]

If there is an overall common definition of "god" through beliefs is that he's the creator, destroyer, eternal and the cause of existence. That there is the possibility? There is, it's undeniable whatsoever.
You can always tend towards "believing" in other possibilities, but that isn't based exactly on rationality but rather emotional preference.

That's ironic - given that belief in this definition of a "creator, destroyer, eternal and cause of existence" god isn't based on any reason but purely on emotional preference. And it is your emotional preference that prevents your from seeing all the logical inconsistencies inherent to that definition.

Then we disagree in the definition of timeless, or maybe i misused it. What i meant by timeless is uncreated, eternal and obviously also creator of our "spacetime" if he's the creator of everything, but i obviously think he's also subject to his own temporal frames and changing/phase shifting.

The concepts such as "creating", "changing" and "shifting" are meaningful only within the context of our space-time. What you're trying to do here is a commonly known logical fallacy called "trying to have your cake and eat it too":

1. You assume - without any basis for it - that there is a temporal frame separate and independent from our own in which your hypothetical god exists. The only thing about this "frame" you can reasonable say is that "it is different from our own" - but in that case, how do you even conclude its temporal nature?

2. You assume that some of the concepts dependent on our temporal frame are also applicable within this one - that entities within this hypothetical temporal frame are subject to change or can be conscious like they are within our own. Where is the reason for this assumption? On what basis are you picking and choosing which of our temporal concepts are applicable here?

3. Then you go on to assert that other concepts applicable within our temporal frame are not applicable here - like something being eternal or uncreated. Again, no basis for that assertion either.

4. You also assume that entities within that temporal frame can interact with our temporal frame while remaining independent from it.

5. And finally, you ignore all the other conclusions that can be drawn from what you just posited, such as - if your god is subject to this hypothetical temporal frame then that is something he did not create and therefore he did not create everything. Or, your god may not be the only entity within this temporal frame - there may be many more who are equally involved in the "creation". Or, now you can posit the existence of a super-god, responsible for the creation of this particular temporal frame and therefore responsible for creating your god.


Your idea here is simply a poorly thought-out ad-hoc justification for your belief in god and an attempt to resolve the logical contradictions inherent to the definition. However, given that the justification itself is fraught with logical fallacies, it can be summarily dismissed and you are back to square one - that your conception of god is illogical and therefore impossible and deniable.

Ultimatelly, the only concievable answer to explain our universe is concieving that something, somehow, is uncreated, and uncreated necessarily will mean that it is eternal, always existed, not that it had a "creation" time frame.
Then we might want to qualify that "uncreated" existance: uncreated, eternal and sufficient source of all creation.

"The only conceivable answer"? Really? You do realize that your lack of imagination is not a limitation on reality.

The best you can actually do here is posit something independent from our time-frame. You cannot conclude that its eternal (in fact that would be an incorrect conclusion, given how you have subjected if to an alternate time-frame) and you cannot conclude that it is uncreated.

Then we might even want to extrapolate qualifications upon characteristics of that creation, but those characteristics are yet subjective, but some like "creator of order", perpetuator of the "balance"/stability to our universe, alpha and omega, etc etc.

All in all, it becomes obvious that whatever eternal existence or cause to our universe, it is an extraordinarily powerful creative structure.

"You can always tend towards "believing" in other possibilities, but that isn't based exactly on rationality but rather emotional preference." - you said it, not me.

Whatever extrapolations you have here - like the source being a conscious agent or powerful or creative are baseless assertions.


To summarize:

You posited a definition of god as "creator, destroyer, eternal and the cause of existence". You cannot establish any of those characteristics given the current evidence. In fact, that set of characteristics are illogical and self-contradictory. To resolve that you came up with an ad-hoc justification which is riddled with holes. And even that justification isn't sufficient to support all the characteristics you attribute to you god. In short - your fiction has too many plot-holes to be credible.

[Madness20]

If there is an overall common definition of "god" through beliefs is that he's the creator, destroyer, eternal and the cause of existence. That there is the possibility? There is, it's undeniable whatsoever.
You can always tend towards "believing" in other possibilities, but that isn't based exactly on rationality but rather emotional preference.

That's ironic - given that belief in this definition of a "creator, destroyer, eternal and cause of existence" god isn't based on any reason but purely on emotional preference. And it is your emotional preference that prevents your from seeing all the logical inconsistencies inherent to that definition.

Then we disagree in the definition of timeless, or maybe i misused it. What i meant by timeless is uncreated, eternal and obviously also creator of our "spacetime" if he's the creator of everything, but i obviously think he's also subject to his own temporal frames and changing/phase shifting.

The concepts such as "creating", "changing" and "shifting" are meaningful only within the context of our space-time. What you're trying to do here is a commonly known logical fallacy called "trying to have your cake and eat it too":

1. You assume - without any basis for it - that there is a temporal frame separate and independent from our own in which your hypothetical god exists. The only thing about this "frame" you can reasonable say is that "it is different from our own" - but in that case, how do you even conclude its temporal nature?

2. You assume that some of the concepts dependent on our temporal frame are also applicable within this one - that entities within this hypothetical temporal frame are subject to change or can be conscious like they are within our own. Where is the reason for this assumption? On what basis are you picking and choosing which of our temporal concepts are applicable here?

3. Then you go on to assert that other concepts applicable within our temporal frame are not applicable here - like something being eternal or uncreated. Again, no basis for that assertion either.

4. You also assume that entities within that temporal frame can interact with our temporal frame while remaining independent from it.

5. And finally, you ignore all the other conclusions that can be drawn from what you just posited, such as - if your god is subject to this hypothetical temporal frame then that is something he did not create and therefore he did not create everything. Or, your god may not be the only entity within this temporal frame - there may be many more who are equally involved in the "creation". Or, now you can posit the existence of a super-god, responsible for the creation of this particular temporal frame and therefore responsible for creating your god.


Your idea here is simply a poorly thought-out ad-hoc justification for your belief in god and an attempt to resolve the logical contradictions inherent to the definition. However, given that the justification itself is fraught with logical fallacies, it can be summarily dismissed and you are back to square one - that your conception of god is illogical and therefore impossible and deniable.

Ultimatelly, the only concievable answer to explain our universe is concieving that something, somehow, is uncreated, and uncreated necessarily will mean that it is eternal, always existed, not that it had a "creation" time frame.
Then we might want to qualify that "uncreated" existance: uncreated, eternal and sufficient source of all creation.

"The only conceivable answer"? Really? You do realize that your lack of imagination is not a limitation on reality.

The best you can actually do here is posit something independent from our time-frame. You cannot conclude that its eternal (in fact that would be an incorrect conclusion, given how you have subjected if to an alternate time-frame) and you cannot conclude that it is uncreated.

Then we might even want to extrapolate qualifications upon characteristics of that creation, but those characteristics are yet subjective, but some like "creator of order", perpetuator of the "balance"/stability to our universe, alpha and omega, etc etc.

All in all, it becomes obvious that whatever eternal existence or cause to our universe, it is an extraordinarily powerful creative structure.

"You can always tend towards "believing" in other possibilities, but that isn't based exactly on rationality but rather emotional preference." - you said it, not me.

Whatever extrapolations you have here - like the source being a conscious agent or powerful or creative are baseless assertions.


To summarize:

You posited a definition of god as "creator, destroyer, eternal and the cause of existence". You cannot establish any of those characteristics given the current evidence. In fact, that set of characteristics are illogical and self-contradictory. To resolve that you came up with an ad-hoc justification which is riddled with holes. And even that justification isn't sufficient to support all the characteristics you attribute to you god. In short - your fiction has too many plot-holes to be credible.

Genkaus, sorry that i posted that with a lot of "codification" from well defined opinions i've built elsewhere like my own topic in religion section, sorry but i'm not going to post them again for every time someone demands the same explanations. I invite you to go there and post your objections on there since part of the answers are already there too.