Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

[outhouse]

I still think these are the facts at hand that dictated his responce


we are spending more time studying the arguement then heaven itself.

whats failed to be said here is, we could put heaven on trial for being manufactured by man.

there is no doubt in my mind I could personaly win that case as prosecutor with evidence at hand, with a impartial jury of course.


Just looking at the source for heaven says volumes. Now we are talking a literal heaven here so lets ask. Has the source been literally accurate in the past.????

has the source used allegory and fiction?????

has the source made statements that are simular to a fairy tale in the past??

When was the source written and by who?? and has it been updated as needed???

Has anyone ever had 1 bit of evidence for, or against said place beyond imagination???

This doesnt take evidence, in my opinion. It takes a logical open mind with common sense.

You pick your own verdict, ive picked mine.

 

[Magic Man]

Bacteria for example.

Was there a time when someone said "Bacteria exist" but there wasn't any available evidence that they could show?

The conclusion is still based on an assumption, that an afterlife is testable or that we can find evidence for it right now or at all. Its still based on the assumption that anything is provable, and right now.

If a claim is not testable, then it's useless. Every claim that's worth considering can be tested and supported by evidence.

Also i do not of course accept it because i was told its true by my mentors.

Then why do you accept it? I thought we had established that it has no evidence. If something has no evidence, you pretty much either believe it because you just want to or because someone told you to, or both.

This is basically the problem as it seems to me. You're taking away from the opposite position, and overlook shortcomings in yours. Both positions have the same possible problem.

The other position is that something for which there is no evidence exists. I don't think saying that believing that means you're accepting it because your mentors told you to is taking away from it. And no, both positions don't have the same problem. One position is to accept that something exists for which there is no evidence. The other position is to reject that that something exists because there is no evidence and reason to believe it was made up.

Not in my opinion.

Let me put it in different words, when i hear a scientist of this level expressing his opinion on such a matter, i expect much better than this.

I don't see what could be better than this. His opinion is that our brains are like computers; they stop working and that's it. There isn't anything else to it. What else do you want? We have no reason to believe there is a part of ourselves that continues to exist without a functioning brain.

I have heard opinions that far supersede his in quality, reasonableness and lack of bias right here in this forum from people that are not anyway near him in knowledge.

I'd like to hear them, but it sounds to me like it's your bias that is causing you to see bias in Hawking's comments. There's nothing biased about saying there is no heaven and that our brains are like computers. There's also nothing unreasonable about it.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Of course that's true, there is always more than one side.

People who uncritically accept or reject information are all on the same side. They're called idiots.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I still don't know what this debated heaven is supposed to be? (or not be)

In the context it was brought up, I'd say he's talking about a literal afterlife, for starters.

 

[Quagmire]

This leads back to what I've already said- for basically everything that exists, we can phrase it in a non-falsifiable way, and yet, we're not expected, nor should we be, to continue to entertain every possible proposition of every potential mythical beast, god, or concept. Eventually evidence becomes so stacked on one side, that the other side is dismissed. Precisely where this point is to a certain extent is up to us, and for Hawking, it has apparently been passed.

But if that evidence is being weighed on a pre-existing scale (one that may not be capable of measuring whatever it is we're trying to weigh) then it's perfectly reasonable to scrutinize the scale.

If you say "I've weighed this and the scale says it ways 10lbs" and I say "I think I see a thumb on the scale" that doesn't mean I have to prove that whatever it is we're weighing actually weighs 15 or 20 lbs, since I'm not making any claims about the objects weight, merely about the scale.

If there is zero evidence that consciousness is independent of the brain, and there is already considerable established medical and biological knowledge of the brain, why would Hawking be incorrect to dismiss claims that aren't supported?

The only claim being made is the negative one. For the purposes of this discussion all other alternatives are merely possibilities. Classifying any of these possibilities as "claims" is only necessary if the original claim is untestable (which it is).

This claim...

And more than not being supported, they're things that have been rather strongly pursued and yet not found.

has come up in every debate I've ever had about this topic. At this point I usually ask "How was the possibility of an external source or origin of consciousness "persued"? What tests were conducted? How were they conducted? Were there any conclusive findings one way or the other".

The problem here is that any science that actually attempts to determine or discover any non-physical properties or functions of consciousness falls under the heading of para-psychology, a study that isn't taken seriously enough by the scientific community to even be perused.

In other words, you're implying that the hypothesis of an external source or existence in regards to consciousness has been looked into seriously, thoroughly and presumably with the pre-requisite lack of bias that any other scientific endeavors are conducted with.

I'm dubious of this, but I'm open to looking at any actul examples of these studies that you may be aware of.

I'm not saying you're taking positive stances-

No, but you still refuse to address any of my points except along those terms, ie., as if I actually am making claims.

I'm showing why one side of the argument is unfounded scientifically compared to the other side.

And you're assuming there are only two side, ie., only 2 possibilities. There are any number of possibilities.

The question isn't "Is consciousness a product of the brain, or does the brain merely relay consciousness". the question is "does consciousness originate in the brain or doesn't it".

The idea that the brain may be actin as a relay was only offered as an example of one alternative possibility.

Part of showing this is to show why various aspects of claims from the other side are either incorrect or completely without evidence.

As I pointed out, our brain can be affected such that it changes our personality, removes our memories, and reduces our eliminates our consciousness. You used the common signal analogy to provide an explanation of how this can be and yet how the potential for an afterlife can exist.

But if our brain was simply a mechanism for receiving consciousness (despite absolutely no evidence in its structure to suggest that),

And I'm still waiting for you tell tell me how we would recognize those structures.

then why would these things affect our subjective experience of consciousness? Rather than merely blocking or modulating some whole signal that's put in, changes to the brain change how we subjectively think, subjectively remember, and our ability to be conscious. If any of these things were independent of the brain, then damage to the brain should stop our ability to express these things, yet shouldn't stop our ability to experience these things subjectively.

Could you rephrase this? I'm not sure what you're saying here.

 

[Alceste]

About whether Mr. Hawking is qualified to answer the question "is there a heaven". I thought that was what the thread was about.

But if heaven is thought to exist, why wouldn't a physicist be qualified to answer the question of whether or not such a place is in the realm of the possible (or plausible)?

 

[Madhuri]

But if heaven is thought to exist, why wouldn't a physicist be qualified to answer the question of whether or not such a place is in the realm of the possible (or plausible)?

Qualified according to whom?
More subjectivity.

As a Hindu, I do not consider a physicist to be qualified to answer something that he has no understanding or experience of. Heaven is not physical and spirit does not abide by the laws of physics.

 

[Alceste]

It is just my opinion, but I feel that a few people think :"If a scientist says it, it must be true". I am not saying it was said here on this thread, but I know there are some who are thinking it.

Hang on a minute. Are you saying you think there are people who were agnostic about heaven, or believed in it, who then stumbled on Hawking saying it is a fairy tale and abandoned their belief in heaven based on his say-so?

I doubt that. I don't think anybody in their right mind is in the least bit surprised that such a brilliant physicist thinks heaven is a fairy tale, let alone shocked enough to change their own beliefs based on his opinion.

 

[Quagmire]

But if heaven is thought to exist, why wouldn't a physicist be qualified to answer the question of whether or not such a place is in the realm of the possible (or plausible)?

Because it isn't posited to be a psychical place.

 

[Alceste]

Qualified according to whom?
More subjectivity.

As a Hindu, I do not consider a physicist to be qualified to answer something that he has no understanding or experience of. Heaven is not physical and spirit does not abide by the laws of physics.

Qualified according to anybody who is genuinely interested in learning what does and does not (or can and can not) actually exist. That is, after all, what physicists spend their lives investigating - on a vast scale. Yes, everybody is subjective, but empirical investigation operates according to a model that does everything it can to minimize the influence of our innate subjectivity. Due to this vigilance, physics (and science in general) describes the closest semblance of an objective reality any of us will ever encounter.

If you are agreeing that heaven doesn't actually exist, or that it only exists in some non-corporeal subjective sense - as a "feeling", for example - then that's a different story altogether. For example, if you feel as though you are presently in heaven, I can not possibly disagree with you. If you believe heaven is a location on the dark side of the moon, I can.

 

[Alceste]

Because it isn't posited to be a psychical place.

I'm pretty sure it is, for many.

 

[Madhuri]

Qualified according to anybody who is genuinely interested in learning what does and does not (or can and can not) actually exist.

I'm not sure if you meant it to be, but this statement is quite mean. It assumes that anybody who believes that there is or could be a spirit world, as posited by numerous religions, is not genuinely interested in learning truth.

But whatever your intention, I disagree. I think that physics is very interesting and a very good insight into understanding the physical realm. But how can you conclude absolutely that the inability to locate a spiritual place through the use of physical knowledge means that spirit is not a reality?

You must come back to the idea that a lack of evidence is evidence in itself, which relates to probability rather than absolute truth and is also relative/individual.

If you are agreeing that heaven doesn't actually exist, or that it only exists in some non-corporeal subjective sense - as a "feeling", for example - then that's a different story altogether. For example, if you feel as though you are presently in heaven, I can not possibly disagree with you. If you believe heaven is a location on the dark side of the moon, I can.

I am only saying that heaven, in the context of religions such as Hinduism, is not a physical place. It is a spiritual place.

 

[outhouse]

Heaven - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In many religions, Heaven is a realm, either physical or transcendental in which people who have died continue to exist in an afterlife. Heaven is often described as the holiest place, accessible by people according to various standards of divinity, goodness, piety, faith or other virtues.

One popular medieval view of Heaven was that it existed as a physical place above the clouds and that God and the Angels were physically above, watching over man

The ancient concept of "Heaven" as a synonym for "skies" or "space" is also evident in allusions to the stars as "lights shining through from heaven", and the like

 

[Alceste]

I'm not sure if you meant it to be, but this statement is quite mean. It assumes that anybody who believes that there is or could be a spirit world, as posited by numerous religions, is not genuinely interested in learning truth.

But whatever your intention, I disagree. I think that physics is very interesting and a very good insight into understanding the physical realm. But how can you conclude absolutely that the inability to locate a spiritual place through the use of physical knowledge means that spirit is not a reality?

You must come back to the idea that a lack of evidence is evidence in itself, which relates to probability rather than absolute truth and is also relative/individual.



I am only saying that heaven, in the context of religions such as Hinduism, is not a physical place. It is a spiritual place.

It's not meant to be mean. When I say "actually exists" I am only referring to the sort of stuff you can thump on with your hand, or smell, or see, or taste. IMO, if you are talking about an entirely non-physical concept, the whole question of "existence" is moot: heaven is whatever anybody thinks it is, and is or isn't "real" according to one's entirely subjective POV.

 

[outhouse]

It's not meant to be mean. When I say "actually exists" I am only referring to the sort of stuff you can thump on with your hand, or smell, or see, or taste. IMO, if you are talking about an entirely non-physical concept, the whole question of "existence" is moot: heaven is whatever anybody thinks it is, and is or isn't "real" according to one's entirely subjective POV.

There we go

one needs to define heaven first by religion before you can jump into deep waters

 

[Quagmire]

It's not meant to be mean. When I say "actually exists" I am only referring to the sort of stuff you can thump on with your hand, or smell, or see, or taste. IMO, if you are talking about an entirely non-physical concept, the whole question of "existence" is moot: heaven is whatever anybody thinks it is, and is or isn't "real" according to one's entirely subjective POV.

Here's the problem with that: anyone whose had vivid dreams knows that our minds are capable of creating worlds full of stuff you can thump on with your hand, or smell, or see, or taste.

Personally, I've even had lucid dreams (one's where you realize your dreaming) where I was looking around at everything and thinking "My god, my mind is creating all this". In particular, at one point, I zoomed in on a group of bushes to see how close I could get before it stopped looking like a bush. The closer I got, the more realistic it seemed: I could see every stem, blemish, dimple, vein in every leaf I focused on and if anything it was more vivid than any leaf I'd ever taken the time to look at in the non-dream world.

Same with the other 4 senses. So basically what I'm saying is that if we're using the ability to verify existence and solidity via our senses as the criteria for 'real", or even "physical", then that world qualifies as much as this one does.

 

[Badran]

since he was just answering a question and finds heaven to be fantasy, I find his opinion valid.

If he was writing a paper on said subject I would agree. In this case someone grabbed a sound bite and ran with much the way I did.

I see your point, and i'm sure thats not the best he can do

I'm just judging what is offered, that i find it rather unimpressive. Lets say from my subjective view, i would expect much better from him.

 

[Badran]

Was there a time when someone said "Bacteria exist" but there wasn't any available evidence that they could show?

Not sure, and it doesn't really matter. My point is there was a time where bacteria existed, and there was no shred of evidence to support its existence. So, obviously the lack of evidence doesn't mean something doesn't exist, or point against the claim of its existence, necessarily.

If you want a specific example about something that was claimed at a time, and at that time there was no evidence for such thing, and it later turned out to be true and has been proven to be so, I think that was the case with the atom.

If a claim is not testable, then it's useless. Every claim that's worth considering can be tested and supported by evidence.

Like I said, I'm afraid that’s not true at all. Unless you mean it's worthless since you're never going to be sure anyway. In that case, well if you take that attitude then yeah, you won't. If you don't however, you might be able to do something about it, even If takes a whole lot of time, sometimes more than one person's lifetime.

And if we assume that there can never be something to make you sure, that still doesn't mean it's useless. Because nothing suggests that we can know everything for sure in the first place, neither has any human being in history known everything for sure. If you want to stick to things you can know for sure only, that’s your choice. But that is not even your choice; you still make assumptions without knowing for sure.

Then why do you accept it? I thought we had established that it has no evidence. If something has no evidence, you pretty much either believe it because you just want to or because someone told you to, or both.

I explained it in brief in my last post replying to 9-10ths_Penguin.

The other position is that something for which there is no evidence exists. I don't think saying that believing that means you're accepting it because your mentors told you to is taking away from it. And no, both positions don't have the same problem. One position is to accept that something exists for which there is no evidence. The other position is to reject that that something exists because there is no evidence and reason to believe it was made up.

Well, I explained whats the problem with the second choice; you didn't include that in your description here however. You too made an unsupported assumption. You claim that anything can either be proved or tested now, or else it doesn't exist or probably doesn't exist and/or is useless or worthless, irrelevant etc….

And of course saying I accept the claim because my mentors told me its true is taking away from it, it basically means that I'm an idiot who accepts whatever he's told. Thats not to say that this is what you're saying to me, however thats what it means to accept something just because i was told its true by my mentors.

I don't see what could be better than this. His opinion is that our brains are like computers; they stop working and that's it. There isn't anything else to it. What else do you want? We have no reason to believe there is a part of ourselves that continues to exist without a functioning brain.

Well, like I said, if its his opinion, then I don't particularly have a problem with it, but just am rather unimpressed. If he's making a claim however, which I realize now is unlikely that he was actually doing, that’s even much worse.

So if its his opinion, lets just say from my subjective view I don't find what he expressed, or the way he chose to express it with impressive at all.

I'd like to hear them, but it sounds to me like it's your bias that is causing you to see bias in Hawking's comments. There's nothing biased about saying there is no heaven and that our brains are like computers. There's also nothing unreasonable about it.

That’s not the case. The statements I was referring to that impressed me much more than his were not actually statements representing my position, or sharing it.

Saying our brains are like computers is too simplistic in my view, and stating that there is no heaven and that its only a "fairy tale for people afraid of the dark" doesn't sound any better. And that’s not because it argues against my position, as like I said I have no problems with other arguments made against my position.

 

[Alceste]

Here's the problem with that: anyone whose had vivid dreams knows that our minds are capable of creating worlds full of stuff you can thump on with your hand, or smell, or see, or taste.

Personally, I've even had lucid dreams (one's where you realize your dreaming) where I was looking around at everything and thinking "My god, my mind is creating all this". In particular, at one point, I zoomed in on a group of bushes to see how close I could get before it stopped looking like a bush. The closer I got, the more realistic it seemed: I could see every stem, blemish, dimple, vein in every leaf I focused on and if anything it was more vivid than any leaf I'd ever taken the time to look at in the non-dream world.

Same with the other 4 senses. So basically what I'm saying is that if we're using the ability to verify existence and solidity via our senses as the criteria for 'real", or even "physical", then that world qualifies as much as this one does.

I do have vivid dreams, but I would never argue that the worlds I have dreamed exist outside of my imagination. Would you? Also, my dream hands are not my actual hands, whether they feel things or not.

Science must be repeatable. For anything I've touched or seen in dreams to qualify as "real" in an empirical sense, somebody else (everybody else, in fact) has to be able to touch or see it too, independently.

 

[Quagmire]

I do have vivid dreams, but I would never argue that the worlds I have dreamed exist outside of my imagination.

Not the point, I was just showing you that by the criteria you were using to determine reality, a a dream world like the one I was describing would qualify just as easily as this one would.

Would you? Also, my dream hands are not my actual hands, whether they feel things or not.

And you realize this while your dreaming?

Science must be repeatable. For anything I've touched or seen in dreams to qualify as "real" in an empirical sense, somebody else (everybody else, in fact) has to be able to touch or see it too, independently.

Problem is: in your dream world there would most likely be people who could do all that.

Anyway, you missed the point: I wasn't arguing that dreams are real, I was just showing that it's entirely possible for a world to be created from thought, and that while we're in that world, it's reality is just as verifiable in every way that this one is while we're here.

In other words: if there is a Heaven of some kind, or another dimension, etc., the fact that it might mirror physicality in every respect wouldn't necessarily mean it would be accessible from where we are now.