Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Looks like the name fits. Nicely done.

😉

Originally posted by KellyJay
No evidence, life could be called evidence, there are several things about the
universe that could be called evidence, yet if you are dead set against calling
any of them evidence they are not according to you.
Kelly

If I have alternative explanations, then they cease to be evidence. Also, if I disagree with the initial reasoning that lead you to believe them to be evidence then I would not consider them evidence.
But it is not about being 'dead set against' calling them evidence. That is you projecting your own ideas about what my motivations may be ie attempting mind reading.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No evidence, life could be called evidence, there are several things about the
universe that could be called evidence, yet if you are dead set against calling
any of them evidence they are not according to you.
Kelly

That is making the assumption that "life" is some mystical entity that something can possess.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
An extract of Stephen Hawkings new book has been printed in The Times, although you can't see it online as you have to pay for it now. An extract -

Britain’s most eminent scientist argues that a new series of theories have rendered redundant the role of a creator for the Universe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493

Biology has rendered God redundant, now it's physics turn.

I forgot to mention that Leonard Mlodinow was in the audience talking to Deepak Chopra claiming that Deepak's knowledge on quantum physics was completely incorrect (after Deepak came out with a load of new age rhetoric). I have quoted it in a post before.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/

You need to look under the section "Nightline Face-Off: Does God Have a Future?". Specifically the link labelled "Scientist Takes on Deepak's Science".

He did talk about writing the book with Stephen Hawking back then. The rest of the debate is interesting as well.

I would be interested in getting that book.

Originally posted by lausey
That is making the assumption that "life" is some mystical entity that something can possess.

Life is some mystical entity, you think you have grasped the physical part of life
which I don't believe you really have, but there is something even beyond getting
that right, something more to life.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
If I have alternative explanations, then they cease to be evidence. Also, if I disagree with the initial reasoning that lead you to believe them to be evidence then I would not consider them evidence.
But it is not about being 'dead set against' calling them evidence. That is you projecting your own ideas about what my motivations may be ie attempting mind reading.

If I have alternative explanations, then they cease to be evidence. Also, if I disagree with the initial reasoning that lead you to believe them to be evidence then I would not consider them evidence."

That is the box you live in right or wrong.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
You obviously haven't followed the thread. Stephen Hawking is suggesting that the universe could come about without something that acts like God.

Do you recall positing the following?

1. The universe popped into existence for unknown reasons or no reason at all (brute fact).
and
2. God existed for unknown reasons or for no reason (brute fact) and created the universe.

Thus, my statement.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Life is some mystical entity, you think you have grasped the physical part of life
which I don't believe you really have, but there is something even beyond getting
that right, something more to life.
Kelly

I would say that life is an illusion. The properties of beings that have this illusion are chemical structures that can self replicate, starting from the simplest structures that have developed the ability to self replicate after billions of years in a vast universe (the odds of these structures are small, but over enough time and space, it is plausible).

However, assuming that life is a mystical entity. How can you base evidence on something which you don't even know what it is?

I wouldn't consider quotes from the bible as evidence.

Originally posted by lausey
I would say that life is an illusion. The properties of beings that have this illusion are chemical structures that can self replicate, starting from the simplest structures that have developed the ability to self replicate after billions of years in a vast universe (the odds of these structures are small, but over enough time and space, it is plausible).

...[text shortened]... hich you don't even know what it is?

I wouldn't consider quotes from the bible as evidence.

Why does that imply it's an illusion? Everything is a chemical structure with some properties, if they combine in a certain way we call it a star, or a planet, or a small rock. If in another way, we call it life...

Originally posted by Palynka
Why does that imply it's an illusion? Everything is a chemical structure with some properties, if they combine in a certain way we call it a star, or a planet, or a small rock. If in another way, we call it life...

'What selective advantage does a consciousness confer on those who actually possess it?'

Originally posted by Palynka
Why does that imply it's an illusion? Everything is a chemical structure with some properties, if they combine in a certain way we call it a star, or a planet, or a small rock. If in another way, we call it life...

I was thinking in the context that life is some entity that can be given to something (specifically a biological specimen that we are used to on Earth) which allows it to reproduce. Once this has been taken away, it can no longer reproduce (i.e. death). The illusion that this "life" is some mystical entity like some spiritual form when it is just a combination of normal explainable processes.

Fair enough that you can define life as just a series of chemical processes (i.e. the life of a star), but I would say that is a different definition in another context. A star doesn't reproduce in the same way as biological structures that we are used to on Earth.

To really say that a star has "life" though is just our tendency to anthropomorphisise.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
'What selective advantage does a consciousness confer on those who actually possess it?'

Look around. Mankind dominates the planet. 🙂 Why are you quoting?

Almost any trait has advantages and disadvantages. If you want to justify almost any trait by evolution all you need is to weigh them in the way you like and gives you your answer. That is why I don't think arguments set in those terms are very meaningful.

Originally posted by lausey
I was thinking in the context that life is some entity that can be given to something (specifically a biological specimen that we are used to on Earth) which allows it to reproduce. Once this has been taken away, it can no longer reproduce (i.e. death). The illusion that this "life" is some mystical entity like some spiritual form when it is just a combinatio ...[text shortened]...

To really say that a star has "life" though is just our tendency to anthropomorphisise.

I'm just saying this because personally I don't believe life is some mystical entity, yet I don't see why that implies it's an illusion. It's not well defined at the boundaries, I'll grant you that, but for me and you we are clearly "alive" and possess this property. Would you disagree with this?

Originally posted by lausey
I would say that life is an illusion. The properties of beings that have this illusion are chemical structures that can self replicate, starting from the simplest structures that have developed the ability to self replicate after billions of years in a vast universe (the odds of these structures are small, but over enough time and space, it is plausible).

...[text shortened]... hich you don't even know what it is?

I wouldn't consider quotes from the bible as evidence.

So life isn't reality, it is something less, an illusion? I don't think I follow you
here! What is contained in our chemical structures is something more than the
physical body by itself, when someone dies something besides chemicals are
affected. I don't think life is an illusion as much as what life is, it is hidden from
you because you have not found the source of it, so it simply does not make
sense.
Kelly

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm just saying this because personally I don't believe life is some mystical entity, yet I don't see why that implies it's an illusion. It's not well defined at the boundaries, I'll grant you that, but for me and you we are clearly "alive" and possess this property. Would you disagree with this?

Yes, fair enough. I can't argue with that. To reinforce the point about how fuzzy it is, an animal is only really defined as dead when it reaches a point where medical science cannot revive it, even though most of the bodily resources may still be there to do so with more advanced technology.

Centuries ago someone would be considered dead from what today would be considered a superficial injury or illness.