Stephen Hawking and his "no need for God" hypothesis

[ImmortalFlame]

Science will stay as it is, perhaps how we teach science and physics will change and scientists might adopt weak objectivism while describing their scientific models.

How can it stay as it is if it's abandoning "physicality"? Science is dependant on something being demonstrable.

What we call empirical reality is only a state of mind is a scientific fact and that mind is the product of a divine God. Atheism is dead.

Prove it. And don't just copy and paste random out-of-context quotes by random theoretical physicists. What you're making is an extraordinary claim, so it requires extraordinary evidence.

Its already happening, wake up and accept the truth. These are facts established from experiments. Its funny how atheists deny facts and show double standards.

You've yet to present any facts which haven't been wildly misinterpreted by you. Perhaps you should accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, you are wrong.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

These are facts established from experiments. Its funny how atheists deny facts and show double standards.

Um, so external reality doesn't exist, but the facts that support your argument exist?

Talk about a double standard.

-Nato

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Um, so external reality doesn't exist, but the facts that support your argument exist?

Talk about a double standard.

-Nato

That's another thing I don't understand about his argument. If reality doesn't exist, how can you demonstrate anything?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Contrary to your false misconception,

Tell me, how did the foundation of the universe arise before we were present to observe it, hm?

Science still does not say what you think it does.

Essentially gentlemen, we are facing a savant who has gotten hold of large words and concepts about which he understands about 30% of the whole, and expounds on them at length.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Contrary to your false misconception, Bell theorem is proved based on two premises i.e Locality and Realism and Aspect team proved that Bell inequality is violated and either of the assumption locality or realism must be false

Ignoring for the moment that this is likely merely a Gish gallop, the wiki apparently says

Main article: Bell test experiments
Experimental tests can determine whether the Bell inequalities required by local realism hold up to the empirical evidence.
Bell's inequalities are tested by "coincidence counts" from a Bell test experiment such as the optical one shown in the diagram. Pairs of particles are emitted as a result of a quantum process, analysed with respect to some key property such as polarisation direction, then detected. The setting (orientations) of the analysers are selected by the experimenter.
Bell test experiments to date overwhelmingly violate Bell's inequality. Indeed, a table of Bell test experiments performed prior to 1986 is given in 4.5 of Redhead, 1987.[18] Of the thirteen experiments listed, only two reached results contradictory to quantum mechanics; moreover, according to the same source, when the experiments were repeated, "the discrepancies with QM could not be reproduced".

So it would appear that, in fact, QM is not shown to be in error, statistically, based on experiments which we are currently capable of. Red for emphasis.

 

[idav]

Contrary to your false misconception, Bell theorem is proved based on two premises i.e Locality and Realism and Aspect team proved that Bell inequality is violated and either of the assumption locality or realism must be false and what Anton Zeilinger et al team did that they tested for a more advanced theorem developed by Leggett which allowed non-locality and tested for realism and these theories are called as non-local realistic theories but even these theories failed to model nature properly and the conclusion is that we need to abandon realism.

The conclusion is you have to "abandon realism"? Really? So basically particles do really weird stuff therefore particles are not real? What do you suppose these people are measuring?

 

[otokage007]

Listen from 2:00 to 4:00.

He specifically asks "Is it out there as it is" and "our experiments create reality which wasn't there before".

Dude, these are facts established from experiments, this is the way nature is, you can be as deluded as ever and go on believing in your flawed position but you do need a reality check and I go by evidence.

The Reality Tests § SEEDMAGAZINE.COM

It's not that objective reality doesnt exist. It exists. But it is impossible for any lifeform to grasp it. Every creature is limited by the own senses, and biased by the own mind.

This isn't proof of any kind that God exists.

 

[Pleroma]

The conclusion is you have to "abandon realism"? Really? So basically particles do really weird stuff therefore particles are not real? What do you suppose these people are measuring?

Yes, that's what experiments says and that's how nature is.

"There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality," Zeilinger concludes.

Particles do not have an independent existence of their own which is consistent with Bernard D'Espagnat's statement that what we call reality is only a state of mind and that these particles are not self existent independent of the human mind.

Quantum magic trick shows reality is what you make it - physics-math - 22 June 2011 - New Scientist

I very well know what I am talking here, these are recent experiments which have been tested and there is no absolute objective reality out there in the physical world. If atheists do not want to learn and hold on to their flawed position then its not my mistake, that shows the attitude of atheists who lie to people that they have read all religious traditions and that they very well know what science is. Nope they do not know. I cannot reply to those members here who think that I have quoted them out of context and who have made personal attacks. If they don't understand the results of these experiments and what nature is saying then its not my problem.

 

[PolyHedral]

The absolute reality is the wavefunction. I thought we'd established that with Bell's theorem?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

lol, I think he thinks I'm an atheist; they just never learn.

Atheism is not a requirement for the understanding of science.

 

[Pleroma]

lol, I think he thinks I'm an atheist; they just never learn.

Atheism is not a requirement for the understanding of science.

Those who lack a belief in God are called atheists and also those who deny a God hypothesis are atheists and if you are arguing in favour of Stephen Hawking then you are an atheist.

I very well know that only I and Bernard D'Espagnat hold this views and actually we do need to give up realism and anyone who has studied QM knows the problem and the arguments of Bernard are rock solid and this is the reason why I insist that atheistic scientists are intellectually dishonest even though all evidence is forcing us to give up realism and adopt a radical idealistic view of the world. I very well understand what I am talking here. There is no consensus among the scientific community on these topics.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Those who lack a belief in God are called atheists and also those who deny a God hypothesis are atheists and if you are arguing in favour of Stephen Hawking then you are an atheist.

I am a polytheist, and have more Gods than you do.

You are much more of an atheist than I am.

And I still know science better than you

 

[Pleroma]

I am a polytheist, and have more Gods than you do.

You are much more of an atheist than I am.

And I still know science better than you

Just having more Gods than me won't do, you need to put them for testing and falsify them and that's how science works and that's what shows the soundness of your arguments.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Just having more Gods than me won't do, you need to put them for testing and falsify them and that's how science works and that's what shows the soundness of your arguments.

Do you normally throw rocks inside glass houses, or is this a special event?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Just having more Gods than me won't do, you need to put them for testing and falsify them and that's how science works and that's what shows the soundness of your arguments.

Knowing science better than you does well enough in this case

I am simply disproving your assertion that atheism is required to know that these various sciences we are discussing are true.

 

[Pleroma]

Discover Interview: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics | Cosmology | DISCOVER Magazine

"One of the greatest thinkers in physics says the human brain—and the universe itself—must function according to some theory we haven't yet discovered."

Physicists have no idea about the kind of reality which we are living in and people like Penrose and Bernard are intellectually honest and no one has to take the claim of Stephen Hawking seriously as someone said he is both ignorant and arrogant. A God hypothesis is a competing hypothesis for the origin of our cosmos.

 

[skywrath32]

I've always respected Stephen Hawking's intelligence and tenacity in the face of his illness.

Last night I got to see the full episode of the show in which he describes why there is no need for God in the creation of the universe. As I understood his reasoning, before the Big Bang, time did not exist and there was no "before". Therefore there was nothing for God to exist in. However, I see one flaw in his reasoning (how arrogant of me ). He seems to be referring to a pantheistic God, a God who is the universe. He doesn't consider the possibility of a panentheistic and transcendent God. If God is transcendent, which as a panentheistic Hindu I believe, then God exists outside of time. A transcendent God does not need time or anything to exist in, therefore in my reasoning, the universe could very well have been created by God, even though there was "no before" this universe.

What say you?

His explanation also makes the existence of God possible.
And anyway, Saying 'nothing' started the universe is just a way to escape the belief in a creator. This theory is all flawed if you try to see it in a human's logic. I rather believe in someone eternal creating the universe than purely 'nothing' creating us. coz if you look at it, Its just impossible. Yes, Time dont exist and you have an infinite time before the universe existed but no object existed before time nor energy did. So how can you create sonething out of nothing?

 

[PolyHedral]

He doesn't consider the possibility of a panentheistic and transcendent God. If God is transcendent, which as a panentheistic Hindu I believe, then God exists outside of time. A transcendent God does not need time or anything to exist in, therefore in my reasoning, the universe could very well have been created by God, even though there was "no before" this universe.

What say you?

How do you create things, without a time? Without time, change cannot happen, and therefore there can't be a transition between there not being a universe and there being one.

His explanation also makes the existence of God possible.
And anyway, Saying 'nothing' started the universe is just a way to escape the belief in a creator. This theory is all flawed if you try to see it in a human's logic. I rather believe in someone eternal creating the universe than purely 'nothing' creating us.

Any creation of the universe at all is unjustified by evidence. As far as evidence is concerned, the big bang is the beginning of everything.

 

[skywrath32]

How do you create things, without a time? Without time, change cannot happen, and therefore there can't be a transition between there not being a universe and there being one.


Any creation of the universe at all is unjustified by evidence. As far as evidence is concerned, the big bang is the beginning of everything.

Yes. Everything that existed within the time frame. Big bang begun that.

 

[outhouse]

Discover Interview: Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics | Cosmology | DISCOVER Magazine

"One of the greatest thinkers in physics says the human brain—and the universe itself—must function according to some theory we haven't yet discovered."

Physicists have no idea about the kind of reality which we are living in and people like Penrose and Bernard are intellectually honest and no one has to take the claim of Stephen Hawking seriously as someone said he is both ignorant and arrogant. A God hypothesis is a competing hypothesis for the origin of our cosmos.

there is no such thing as a credible god hypothesis, scientifically he doesnt exist.


that would be defined as faith and faith alone.


There is not one shred of evidence towards any deity creating anything, only mountains of evidence that what creation mythology was written by ancient men ignorant to the natural world around them, has been so far shown, to be only mythology.