Stephen Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

[Quagmire]

Yes, dream being the key word there. It is not real but merely a figment of your imagination.

Not according to the criteria Alceste was suggesting. Can you think of another, more complete, set of conditions that could be applied to make the distinction?

 

[Badran]

You haven't demonstrated that. I've demonstrated the opposite. The real point here is that if you make a claim that something exists, and then when research is done, no evidence is found to support that claim, that lack of evidence is evidence of the absence of that something.

What have been demonstrated:

If there is something that there is no evidence for right now, that doesn't necessarily mean that something does not exist.

Why?

Because there is something called unfalsifiable claims. Those claims can be so for a certain time, or possibly always. And I provided examples to support what i said. In the past, there were claims that were not falsifiable in the time, and had no evidence to support it, and they were actually true, and have been proven to be true afterwards.

So, the statement that "if you make a claim that something exists, and then when research is done, no evidence is found to support that claim, that lack of evidence is evidence of the absence of that something" is actually false. As there is nothing that indicates necessity of success of that 'research' in every particular case in other words, or that research is possible right now. I can't really put it any simpler than this.

Regardless of the rest of it, the main fact here is that we have enough knowledge of how the universe works at this point to rule out something like heaven. If there was evidence of such a thing, we'd have found something, and it wouldn't continue to go against all the things we do know about the universe.

Please offer anything to support any of those statements.

You're ignoring an important part of my point. When someone brought up something like the atom, it didn't go against how the universe works. It was also a testable claim; they just couldn't test it at the time. There's a big difference between not being able to test a claim at all, and not having the tools at the time to test it.

First, again, i'm not sure how exactly you know that the claim of atom existing didn't go against knowledge at that time. May be it didn't, i just don't know how you're sure of that.

Second, they didn't have the ability to see through the future back then. It was an unfalsifiable and untestable claim to them. They had no knowledge that it would've been proven later.

Finally, i'm not saying heaven is not testable or unfalsifiable, necessarily. For ever, or now. I said possibly.

As I said before, the lack of evidence foe the atom when it was first proposed many years ago did point away from it existing. But since it didn't really go against all of the other stuff known about the world, it didn't point that far away from it.

The main point here is that absence of evidence is sufficient reason to disbelieve something.

And anybody who followed this reasoning back then not only made an unsupported assumption, but they were also dead wrong.

That is disregarding of course that i still don't know on what basis are you making the claim of it not going against the knowledge back then, not that it would make much difference, but i'm curious.

For instance, what is your evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

Give me a little basis for the claim of Santa Claus, so that i don't dismiss it based on things that are not part of the claim.

Besides, the argument you're making could be used to support Santa Claus, leprechauns and any other crazy claim people make. You could just say "Well, there's no evidence now, but there could be in the future". The main point is that there is no evidence now, so it's reasonable to conclude that the claim is false.

That alone is not the reason i would dismiss any of those things.

I'm saying absence of evidence in that case doesn't point as strongly against the claim. For instance, if I claim that I own a ferret, but I can't provide photos or answer some questions about it, that points against my claim, but it's entirely possible that I own a ferret. If I claim to own a dragon, and I can't provide photos or any other evidence, then it points strongly against my claim.

I agree, however your examples still don't do justice to the issue here. As you actually can prove those things, and you and others know that, so you not providing that proof (which is completely providable) does suggest something. But even here there is still a good possibility.

EDIT: A good possibility about the ferret of course, not the dragon. Thats because the dragon's case is different in the number of things arguing against it.

Unless I missed it, I don't think so. I'm asking for an example of a useful claim that we cannot test and there cannot be evidence for.

At the time the claims for atoms were made, they were untestable claims and there was no shred of evidence to support them. Yet they were extremely useful and true, and if were dismissed by anyone, that person would have been wrong and making the exact thing he's supposedly thinks he's avoiding doing.

I'm not following. That sounds like you're still just saying you've had a personal experience. Either that or you're saying you believe it because of how it fits into your religion, but then you're just pushing it off to your religion. You still have the same problem; it just gets shifted to why you believe your religious beliefs.

It is vague, and i apologize for that. I just don't want to go into that extensively as its a side not that we already agree on at the basic level, and it won't add much to this discussion. We agree that its an unsupported position, the only part i wanted to address was it not being as you represented it. That i just accept the claim because my mentors told me its true.

Also i've gone into extremely long debates and discussions just addressing this part alone, so i don't want it to get any bigger at least before we address the main points here.

Like what? All we have so far is that they're taking someone else's word for it, and their personal experiences. Neither of which I would consider a good reason to accept something without evidence.

And i did mention earlier that its possible those reasons are entirely subjective, you may not find personal experience for example as a good reason, others might.

What is the unsupported statement?

That there is no heaven.

I wouldn't call the remark sarcastic, but the point of the remark you're referring to is that people are afraid of death, so they like to believe in an afterlife to comfort them. It's not overgeneralizing or overly simplistic. It's pretty accurate according to what we know of people and an afterlife.

I guess thats how you see it then. I would say likely because of bias however. Because of course, that statement is just wrong. And there is not any reason i can think of that would make you accept such generalization except bias.

Obviously, just scratching the surface, not all people believe in the afterlife or heaven for the same reason.

 

[Dan4reason]

Cosmic Log - Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of heaven a "fairy story"


Now I certainly agree :bow:

And you want to argue with one of the top physicist?????

Yes. Prove it.

 

[outhouse]

Yes. Prove it.

[since you didnt read the whole post I grabbed this a few pages back]

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.

 

[Bismillah]

Clearly Badran, what he fails to grasp is that the particular "location" of Jannah need not be confined to the rules that govern this universe.

That much is obvious, it is a place where time does not exist and basic human physiology and needs are significantly altered including one of the basic premises for life.

Furthermore, I agree the idea that "heaven is a fairy tale" is indeed ludicrous, it is not us who judge whether one is rewarded or punished.

 

[Penumbra]

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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

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

I'll rephrase.

What I'm saying is, all of these brain aspects affect not just our ability to express consciousness, personality, and memories to others- they affect our ability to subjectively experience these things as well.

If consciousness were an external thing that our brain just puts into form, or if consciousness is some aspect of the universe that our brain puts into form, then if the brain goes offline, these things should exist somewhere. For instance, when my father was in a coma, he experienced nothing. It's not as though his consciousness existed somewhere, like dispersed in the universe, but instead, he simply lacked consciousness for that time. This is consistent with the brain being responsible for consciousness, rather than consciousness existing regardless.

And if consciousness is some aspect inherent to the universe that requires something like a brain to form (despite the lack of evidence for such a proposition), what would make one assume an afterlife is possible? If it's dependent on cells, and cells die, then no more consciousness. Or if it's dependent on atoms, then when our atoms disperse, no more consciousness. If the brain is simply responsible for forming consciousness that already exists, then when the brain falls apart, so should this form, according to what you've put forth.

Mind/Brain duality has been a discussion/debate basically forever. Most arguments against dualism are experimental, observational, and scientific. Most arguments for dualism are philosophical, religious, or reactionary. Even amongst arguments for dualism, many of them rely on the concept of emergence from the brain, which leads to the conclusion of no afterlife when the brain is gone.

 

[doppelganger]

Cosmic Log - Hawking: 'There is no heaven'

Stephen Hawking, the famous British physicist, called the notion of heaven a "fairy story"


Now I certainly agree :bow:

And you want to argue with one of the top physicist?????

"Heaven" in the NT is the Greek word ouranos which means the firmament of the sky and the things that appear to be stuck in it (what we would now consider stars, planets, comets, etc.). So of course "Heaven" exists. We just have a very different sense of its makeup than did ancient peoples to whom, incidentally, our modern religious notions of "Heaven" would likely seem incredibly bizarre.

 

[linwood]

EDIT: A good possibility about the ferret of course, not the dragon. Thats because the dragon's case is different in the number of things arguing against it.

That would be because "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"...yes?

The claim of a dragon is far less extraordinary than the claim of a god yet people have no problem believing in gods but consider the belief in dragons to be delusional.

I`ll never get it.

 

[Badran]

That would be because "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"...yes?.

Not really. More like because claims for a dragon's existence is pretty much proven to be false. The only reason i didn't say that and about Santa Clause is because i wanted to be specific and wait for the claim to be presented, so i didn't say proven to be false until then.

 

[linwood]

Not really. More like because claims for a dragon's existence is pretty much proven to be false.

Oh...

 

[Badran]

I'm sorry, what are those pictures supposed to mean? That dragons are likely to exist because, these animals who are similar in appearance do?

Also, would like to specify for me the claim for dragon's existence?

 

[Quagmire]

I'll rephrase.

What I'm saying is, all of these brain aspects affect not just our ability to express consciousness, personality, and memories to others- they affect our ability to subjectively experience these things as well.

Ah, OK. Now I see what you're saying.

If consciousness were an external thing that our brain just puts into form, or if consciousness is some aspect of the universe that our brain puts into form, then if the brain goes offline, these things should exist somewhere. For instance, when my father was in a coma, he experienced nothing.

He remembers nothing. Most of us don't remember most of our dreams.

It's not as though his consciousness existed somewhere, like dispersed in the universe, but instead, he simply lacked consciousness for that time. This is consistent with the brain being responsible for consciousness, rather than consciousness existing regardless.

Are you sure you want to allow anecdotal evidence into the conversation (hope your Dad's OK now, btw)?
If you do, there are reams of accounts of people reporting remote consciousness or out of body experiences while comatose.

Even discounting all that, we could theorize that: since the brain is responsible for recording memory, ie., that the mind uses the portion of the brain thats responsible for memory like a camera to record events, images, information, and since he was out of his brain at the time, the photographer (the mind) had left his camera behind. Naturally he didn't bring back any slides from his trip.

And if consciousness is some aspect inherent to the universe that requires something like a brain to form (despite the lack of evidence for such a proposition),

No solid evidence maybe, but there's certainly plenty of logical reasons to consider the possibility. For instance: the body doesn't produce anything, all it does is convert things into other things: matter to energy, energy to motion. It has to get these things from it's environment. Why would consciousness be any different?

what would make one assume an afterlife is possible? If it's dependent on cells, and cells die, then no more consciousness. Or if it's dependent on atoms, then when our atoms disperse, no more consciousness. If the brain is simply responsible for forming consciousness that already exists, then when the brain falls apart, so should this form, according to what you've put forth.

The form, yes. The usual symbolism used to express this philosophy of consciousness is that the "I" is like a wave on the ocean. When the water in the wave is done being that wave it returns to the ocean (which it obviously never left in the first place). The wave is gone but everything that made up that wave is still there.

According to this philosophy, the consiousness that inhabits the "I" returns to a huge, universal, ocean of consciousness. The "I" is gone, but everything that made up that "I" is still there. No life was lost in the making of this picture.

Mind/Brain duality has been a discussion/debate basically forever. Most arguments against dualism are experimental, observational, and scientific.

No, they actually aren't. The relationship between consciousness and the brain has been studied in depth, to the point that to a large extent we now know which parts of the brain are responsible for which functions of thought. The source of thought/consciousness is a different story all together. Scientists have never observed thought being produced, only effected.. They don't even have any viable theories about what the production process or what the structures involved would look like.

The NCC---Neural Correlate of Consciousness---doesn't even have any theoretical form or characteristics assigned to it yet. At this point, it's existence is still a philosophical theory, not a scientific hypothesis.

The belief in any established existence of the NCC, or even the belief that the scientific community has any idea what it is, where it is, or how to go about conducting experiments in relation to it, is at this point actually just a popular modern superstition.

Most arguments for dualism are philosophical, religious, or reactionary. Even amongst arguments for dualism, many of them rely on the concept of emergence from the brain, which leads to the conclusion of no afterlife when the brain is gone.

Only in accordance with a strict, narrow, and not surprisingly Abrahamic vision of what an afterlife is supposed to consist of.

 

[linwood]

I'm sorry, what are those pictures supposed to mean? That dragons are likely to exist because, these animals who are similar in appearance do?

They are evidence of creatures that were called dragons in ages past.

They are evidence that the thing you claim could not exist did in fact exist and still does.

They support my earlier statement that there is more evidence of dragons than there is for god.
Unless of course you have evidence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, creator of all space, time, energy, & matter that might have been called "god" at some point in history.

I find it funny that people can discount a thing that actually exists and can be evidenced while holding a belief in something that hasn`t a shred of verifiable, objective evidence for it.

It amuses me to no end.

 

[Penumbra]

Only seven multiquotes? You're slipping. :sarcastic

Ah, OK. Now I see what you're saying.

He remembers nothing. Most of us don't remember most of our dreams.

Are you sure you want to allow anecdotal evidence into the conversation (hope your Dad's OK now, btw)?
If you do, there are reams of accounts of people reporting remote consciousness or out of body experiences while comatose.

Even discounting all that, we could theorize that: since the brain is responsible for recording memory, ie., that the mind uses the portion of the brain thats responsible for memory like a camera to record events, images, information, and since he was out of his brain at the time, the photographer (the mind) had left his camera behind. Naturally he didn't bring back any slides from his trip.

Not only do we often not remember consciousness during these states, but they don't really change our mood, implying that there was no causality or continuity in experience during the state. If a unit of consciousness experienced something wonderful or at least extremely different during these times, one would expect it to affect near-term consciousness despite lack of memory. Every time I've been put asleep for a surgery or something, I've woken up in basically the same state I've gone under (with the allowance of drug effects), without any experiences. (And yeah, my father came out of his coma. That's how I know he didn't experience anything; he was able to talk about it.)

Anecdotal evidence can be submitted, but ultimately, I think evidence lies strongly on one side. Yes, some people claim experiences, but they are often not verified. They are "near death" rather than "death" experiences. There have been studies, for instance, to see if people on an operating table can look down and read a code that can only be seen from the ceiling, and whenever controlled tests like those are done, they show up with a negative.

You continue to push this towards non-falsifiability rather than defend validity, despite the fact that non-falsifiability has been granted.

But as I said, there's only so far one can go until one dismisses the possibility, and it differs a bit for each person. I dismiss the possibility of invisible, incorporeal dragons in my apartment despite the non-falsifiability of them. Few people would criticize me for that dismissal if I said they weren't real. Yet Hawking dismisses heaven and it makes headlines.

No solid evidence maybe, but there's certainly plenty of logical reasons to consider the possibility. For instance: the body doesn't produce anything, all it does is convert things into other things: matter to energy, energy to motion. It has to get these things from it's environment. Why would consciousness be any different?

I'm not saying consciousness would be any different. If it were as you say, it would likely be the same as these things, and therefore would be non-continuous, non-orderly, and quantized on a much smaller level than on the level we see ourselves as. Matter and energy come and go through our bodies. If consciousness were an aspect of the universe, then I think a more logical situation is that, like matter and energy, it wouldn't group into permanent "self-units" of people, and instead would be flowing and intertwined like every other force, and so what would be heaven?

The form, yes. The usual symbolism used to express this philosophy of consciousness is that the "I" is like a wave on the ocean. When the water in the wave is done being that wave it returns to the ocean (which it obviously never left in the first place). The wave is gone but everything that made up that wave is still there.

According to this philosophy, the consiousness that inhabits the "I" returns to a huge, universal, ocean of consciousness. The "I" is gone, but everything that made up that "I" is still there. No life was lost in the making of this picture.

I'm reasonably familiar with Vedanta literature. I've read the Bhagavad Gita, the Mukhya Upanishads, and part of the Brahma Sutras, and I'm familiar with the wave/ocean atman/brahman analogy from discussions with Advaita Hindus.

This isn't heaven, though. This is something else entirely.

No, they actually aren't. The relationship between consciousness and the brain has been studied in depth, to the point that to a large extent we now know which parts of the brain are responsible for which functions of thought. The source of thought/consciousness is a different story all together. Scientists have never observed thought being produced, only effected.. They don't even have any viable theories about what the production process or what the structures involved would look like.

The NCC---Neural Correlate of Consciousness---doesn't even have any theoretical form or characteristics assigned to it yet. At this point, it's existence is still a philosophical theory, not a scientific hypothesis.

The belief in any established existence of the NCC, or even the belief that the scientific community has any idea what it is, where it is, or how to go about conducting experiments in relation to it, is at this point actually just a popular modern superstition.

It's known fact that science hasn't solved the hard problem of consciousness yet. So it's not superstition. (There are some people that argue there is no hard problem, though.)

But they've also had no evidence to suggest consciousness comes from anywhere else. Its ability to be observed to exist, its ability to be tied with personality and memories, its ability to be measured, and its ability to be subjectively experienced are all 100% tied to the brain.

Only in accordance with a strict, narrow, and not surprisingly Abrahamic vision of what an afterlife is supposed to consist of.

He did specifically say Heaven rather than Moksha or Nirvana. I don't know how familiar Hawking is with eastern religions, but seeing as how he referenced "being afraid of the dark", I don't think a vague dispersal into a supersoul consciousness accompanied by a loss of identity, personality, and memories is what people typically cling to for comfort or fairy tales.

 

[darkendless]

They are evidence of creatures that were called dragons in ages past.

They are evidence that the thing you claim could not exist did in fact exist and still does.

They support my earlier statement that there is more evidence of dragons than there is for god.
Unless of course you have evidence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, creator of all space, time, energy, & matter that might have been called "god" at some point in history.

I find it funny that people can discount a thing that actually exists and can be evidenced while holding a belief in something that hasn`t a shred of verifiable, objective evidence for it.

It amuses me to no end.

I'd be amused if it didn''t have such a dangerous potential to turn people into useless sponges (fundies) and totally warp their sense of reality.

Sure other things do the same thing but religion excels in creating idiots.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

because evolution, like gravity, has been observed.

Wouldn't that count as proof?

 

[Badran]

They are evidence of creatures that were called dragons in ages past.

Dragon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are evidence that the thing you claim could not exist did in fact exist and still does.

You have presented nothing of the sort.

They support my earlier statement that there is more evidence of dragons than there is for god.

You never actually made such statement:

The claim of a dragon is far less extraordinary than the claim of a god

That isn't saying that dragons have any evidence of their existence.

I find it funny that people can discount a thing that actually exists and can be evidenced

Honestly, i find what you're posting here to be rather embarrassing.

You already know what i was talking about when i use the term dragon, so please, stop wasting my time.

 

[linwood]

You already know what i was talking about when i use the term dragon, so please, stop wasting my time.

 

[Badran]

You know, you really need to put more effort in your posts.

What is this supposed to mean?

 

[youfaith]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.