Stephen Hawking Lays It All Out

[Exian]

But anyway, science does not have absolute knowledge about the universe to infer if there is or not a god, science does not, at least yet, give any full explanation for our existence,

The part I have emboldened is key. For me, this is the main difference between science and religion in regards to answers. Religion is all done looking. Science, as a system of understanding reality, is not. Even when you consider science to be a body of knowledge, it isn't done looking inward.

[Madness20]

science does not have absolute knowledge about the universe to infer if there is or not a god, science does not, at least yet, give any full explanation for our existence, unless you "believe" in certain hypothesis, which is kind of contradictory for someone claiming to be "sceptic".

Having beliefs and being a skeptic are not contradictory at all.

Being a skeptic means that you critically examine claims, you weigh evidence, you come to hold a position based on that evidence and examination, and you are willing to change you mind based on better, more in depth, more refined evidence that may come to light, even if it contradicts a previously held belief.

The thing is, objectivelly there's nothing to really "deny" the possibility of a god. Theistic Religion's gods? That's for sure, but "cosmological" possibility of a transcendant, timeless structure as creator of our everything is not exactly something that can be refutable without any sort of evidence, a theory is a theory, and every single of them might be accepted until it's refuted.

So Hawkings while putting his beliefs on his M-Theory is in fact also emotionally biased towards his own theory in opposition to an antagonistic belief for him that would be the existence of a god, for which he has actually no true arguments to hold against, besides his emotional bias.

[Minimalist]

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

Apparently if you are a pervert priest you and your whole hierarchy does not have a conscience.

Science can explain that.

They are scumbags.

[Exian]

There's zero evidence for ID. You can't refute it, but you can certainly reject it. And without emotional bias.

[Madness20]

But anyway, science does not have absolute knowledge about the universe to infer if there is or not a god, science does not, at least yet, give any full explanation for our existence,

The part I have emboldened is key. For me, this is the main difference between science and religion in regards to answers. Religion is all done looking. Science, as a system of understanding reality, is not. Even when you consider science to be a body of knowledge, it isn't done looking inward.

I don't think belief in a god and science are necessarily antagonistic, that some people have a "theory" about the ultimate nature of the universe has no real contradiction with actually trying to find it.

Meh, science until XX century was mostly created by people that trully believed in a god but still had their curiosity.

In my field at least, (mathematics) we have countless stories of people trying to prove or comprehend the existance of god led them to big conclusions and create theorys that have actually alot of utility in understanding nature.
Infinity for example, is a concept that Cantor studied fully convicted that he would get some answers about god, and he ended up creating the whole field of set theory of mathematics. Curiously, he ended up with some conclusions that were actually contradictory to his initial set of beliefs: he thought there was just one kind of infinity, but ended up discovering that there exists at least 2 types of infinity, and one of them is "bigger" than the other.

What we might oppose is religions trying to allienate people from science as it's arguments are contradictory to their religions, for example in the aspect of creationism.

---

There's zero evidence for ID. You can't refute it, but you can certainly reject it. And without emotional bias.

There's nothing to reject on something that doesn't even constitute a theory, unlike the idea of God.

[Exian]

Intelligent design and God are both claims. You can reject them both equally.

---

All you've presented with your mathematician anecdote is religion is questionable. Did he use religious techniques to understand infinity, or did he use science?

[Clueless Morgan]

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

All I have time to post right now is this:

If you're going to bet on a boxing match, which are you going to bet on? The Sure thing, whose never lost a match despite having fought hundreds of thousands of them? Or the proven loser that's lost every fight they've ever partaken in?

Science is the sure thing. Gods are the proven losers.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Waiting for Pat Robertson or some other prominent fundie to tell us that Hawking's physical ailment is "punishment from god."

... all the while forgetting that every man's death is punishment from God.

[Brakeman]

When will that day come? Will you say the human conscience is nothing more than an illusion created by chemicals flowing through our brains? Is there anything that is not purely material? If there is no spirit, then what distinguishes a human being from any other object, like a rock, a tree, or a fire hydrant?

We already know that the conscience is nothing more than a natural computer program played in the bio-chemical brain. There is NO MAGIC WOO required!
We know we can totally dick with the conscience with chemicals and probes, something that would not be possible if the brain were controlled by magic "Woo."

"Spirits of the type you are referring to, do not exist.

"What distinguishes us from rocks, trees, and fire hydrants?" What a fine example of christian brainpower with that question! Are you having trouble with this currently?

Besides the obvious material differences, we do originate from exploded star material, so in that way, there isn't any difference.

[Jenny A]

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

Really? You do know that there is not only intra but also inter species competition between organisms. We are a social species and consciences contribute to our inter-species survival.

---

If there is no spirit, then what distinguishes a human being from any other object, like a rock, a tree, or a fire hydrant?

Kind of a funny question. Suppose that you have a soul and it exists independent from your body, how does that make you more valuable than a tree? Suppose a sentient being created you. How does that make you more valuable than a tree created by the same sentient being?

Your self-worth comes from self regardless of what made you or what you are.