toldailytopic: Stephen Hawking says Heaven is a 'fairy story'

[Silent Hunter]

I've noticed you dwell on "fear" quite a bit. Apparently, you don't believe people when they say they aren't fearful.

. . . as individuals . . . yes . . . one can only wonder how rm is able to speak for the entirety of Christianity . . . :think:

The Five Stages Of Grief

1. Denial — "I feel fine."; "This can't be happening, not to me." Denial is usually only a temporary defense for the individual. This feeling is generally replaced with heightened awareness of possessions and individuals that will be left behind after death.

2. Anger — "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?" Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy.

3. Bargaining — "Just let me live to see my children graduate."; "I'll do anything for a few more years."; "I will give my life savings if..." The third stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow postpone or delay death. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Psychologically, the individual is saying, "I understand I will die, but if I could just have more time..."

4. Depression — "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"; "I'm going to die... What's the point?"; "I miss my loved one, why go on?" During the fourth stage, the dying person begins to understand the certainty of death. Because of this, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time crying and grieving. This process allows the dying person to disconnect from things of love and affection. It is not recommended to attempt to cheer up an individual who is in this stage. It is an important time for grieving that must be processed.

5. Acceptance — "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it." In this last stage, the individual begins to come to terms with her/his mortality or that of a loved one.​

It is my experience (limited though it is) that Christians spend a great deal of their life in stages 1-4 (most of that in stage 3) and relatively none in stage 5.

How are we to dialogue if you don't believe that I speak my truth?

. . . you I trust b . . . :kiss:

 

[Sherman]

Incredulity add up to nothing. So atheists have nothing. What a way to live.

 

[badp]

I like your sig:

"Anything you don't understand you attribute to a natural process. Nature for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say natural processes did it." - Some random atheist

(Well that's sort of a paraphrase)

 

[Vaquero45]

Wow, so he's incredulous. That's all atheists have . . . incredulity.

Sent from my SGH-i917 using Board Express

LOL

need to "spread it around" or you'd get a sweet rep boost.

 

[Sherman]

I like your sig:

"Anything you don't understand you attribute to a natural process. Nature for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world, all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off and say natural processes did it." - Some random atheist

(Well that's sort of a paraphrase)

I like it! I think I will add it my sig.

 

[assuranceagent]

Can God be empirically observed?

Can Heaven be empirically observed?

No. Therefore should scientists, who base their assertions on empirical observation, make dogmatic statements in regard to the divine?

And if they do, don't those statements validate the concept of faith? No matter their bent?

 

[Selaphiel]

. . . academia is unnecessary to the individual's evaluation of his/her existence.

I see you have trouble addressing the original point here which was a statement against rexlunae's assertion that theology is simpler and thus anyone can comment on it. But theology, like the humanistic disciplines are not simple, you actually need to have an insight into theology or any humanistic discipline if you are going to make bold statements about it.

. . . and don't need to . . .

No, you do not need to, but then again your understanding of these issues is likely to be less insightful than that of someone who has thoroughly studied it.

. . . Hawking's book had little to do with metaphysics . . . except for you must have must have read that into it . . .

M-theory is metaphysical, it is not a scientific theory, it is a set of different ideas that have no observational basis nor any testable predictions. He discusses realism and anti-realism, he offers thoughts on the mind and epistemology. These topics have one thing in common, they are philosophical. Seems strange to discuss philosophical issues after you have declared philosophy to be dead.

. "serious theologian" being defined as . . . whoever agrees with Selaphiel's point-of-view no doubt . . .

You should stop embarrassing yourself. I disagree with many serious theologians. Ask anyone theist I have debated with here. A serious theologian is one who follows the critical rigor of academic theology, whether they agree with me has very little to do with it. But I see that you are far more concerned with attacking me rather than making an argument.

. . . were Hawking a theist (Christian in particular) I'm sure your oar would be on the other side of the boat.

Assumptions, assumptions and more assumptions about me. That is completely false. One example: John Polkinghorne is a physicist (and a theologian) who has written extensively on the matter, I disagree with him fiercely on many issues. That is just one example among many.

. . . it's interesting how you deride Hawking for lacking credentials for philosophical pronouncements but inject your own scientist as an authority . . . cleaver.

Except that I cited as Penrose as a critic of the idea that M-theory is science, not of Hawking's metaphysics or atheism. Penrose is himself an atheist.

exactly . . . at least for NOW. Sounds vaguely familiar to General Relativity which was obviously "not a proper scientific theory due to a complete lack of observational basis and testability" and was "thus metaphysical speculation based on mathematics" . . . at least until 1919.

General relativity did not exist in 100 different forms and it explained discrepancies in the classical Newtonian view.
And I have not said that M-theory is not correct, what I have said is that there is no basis for asserting that NOW. What may happen in the future is irrelevant. You may remember another theory from Fred Hoyle in 1948 called the steady state theory. Today it is considered to be utter non-sense. What it may be in the future is not a very good argument for what it is today. Today there is no observational basis for M-theory and it is not even testable. To call that science is ridiculous, since it fails to meet two key criteria for a scientific theory. That MAY change, it might be testable in the future, but it also may be falsified in the future. I suggest you stick to the present.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Incredulity add up to nothing. So atheists have nothing. What a way to live.

. . . "incredulity" is where most theistic (Christian) arguments begin . . . "I don't believe X . . . therefore X is impossible."

. . . it's better to have an honest uncertainty than I false certainty.

 

[Granite]

Incredulity add up to nothing. So atheists have nothing. What a way to live.

Considering that creationism relies on arguments based on incredulity, this statement's awfully rich. And considering you have no idea who or what I am there's no way for you to possibly imagine what I do or do not live for. This kind of arrogance doesn't become you.:down:

 

[nicholsmom]

Laughing is not an argument.

:thumb:

 

[Silent Hunter]

I see you have trouble addressing the original point here which was a statement against rexlunae's assertion that theology is simpler and thus anyone can comment on it. But theology, like the humanistic disciplines are not simple, you actually need to have an insight into theology or any humanistic discipline if you are going to make bold statements about it.

:think:

:rotfl:

No . . . you don't.

No, you do not need to, but then again your understanding of these issues is likely to be less insightful than that of someone who has thoroughly studied it.

. . . not necessarily. Obviously you've never heard the phrase, "Out of the mouth of babes . . ."

While it takes a rocket scientist to build (design) a rocket . . . it doesn't take a "trained" philosopher/theologian to be a philosopher/theologian.

M-theory is metaphysical, it is not a scientific theory, it is a set of different ideas that have no observational basis nor any testable predictions. He discusses realism and anti-realism, he offers thoughts on the mind and epistemology. These topics have one thing in common, they are philosophical. Seems strange to discuss philosophical issues after you have declared philosophy to be dead.

. . . it's a theory . . . you're making a mountain out of a grain of sand.

You should stop embarrassing yourself.

:chuckle:

I disagree with many serious theologians. Ask anyone theist I have debated with here. A serious theologian is one who follows the critical rigor of academic theology, whether they agree with me has very little to do with it. But I see that you are far more concerned with attacking me rather than making an argument.

. . . anger issues too?

Assumptions, assumptions and more assumptions about me. That is completely false. One example: John Polkinghorne is a physicist (and a theologian) who has written extensively on the matter, I disagree with him fiercely. That is just one example among many.

So?

Except that I cited as Penrose as a critic of the idea that M-theory is science, not of Hawking's metaphysics or atheism. Penrose is himself an atheist.

. . . who you said, said that the "theory" was "metaphysical speculation." Scientists . . . according to you . . . cannot make such pronouncements.

General relativity did not exist in 100 different forms and it explained discrepancies in the classical Newtonian view.
And I have not said that M-theory is not correct, what I have said is that there is no basis for asserting that NOW. What may happen in the future is irrelevant. You may remember another theory from Fred Hoyle in 1948 called the steady state theory. Today it is considered to be utter non-sense. What it may be in the future is not a very good argument for what it is today. Today there is no observational basis for M-theory and it is not even testable. To call that science is ridiculous, since it fails to meet two key criteria for a scientific theory. That MAY change, it might be testable in the future, but it also may be falsified in the future. I suggest you stick to the present.

. . . one has to admire your ability to construct a strawman . . . :chuckle:

 

[Cracked]

. . . my life has plenty of meaning . . . I don't need wishful thinking (as in the case of Christianity) to make it so . . . .

And yet you spend a good deal of time here mocking others for their faith. You've exchange "wishful" thinking for incredulity and childish contempt.

 

[Silent Hunter]

And yet you spend a good deal of time here mocking others for their faith.

. . . just returning the favor to those who mock me for my lack of it . . .

You've exchange "wishful" thinking for incredulity and childish contempt.

:baby: :loser: :e4e:

 

[Cracked]

. . . just returning the favor to those who mock me for my lack of it . . .

:baby: :loser: :e4e:

Ah, "tit for tat"... that seems to be the battle cry of the anti-theist. I know you are aware that you are on a Christian website. Certainly, you've come here expressly for conflict - to sharpen your knives, so to speak, to better tear down the faithful. However, your mockery only works to embolden others in their beliefs. You probably already know that, but it really doesn't matter, does it? What matters is that you get to try to humiliate someone. I would suggest a new tactic if you really do want to persuade people.

 

[Selaphiel]

No . . . you don't.

Compelling argument...

If you don't understand those disciplines, your statements are likely to be non-sense. It is painfully obvious when you for example read Richard Dawkins' God Delusion, he got no clue about theology or philosophy, yet he feels he is qualified to comment on it. And when he comments, he present little but misunderstandings of even the most basic principles of Christian theology and of philosophy.

hile it takes a rocket scientist to build (design) a rocket . . . it doesn't take a "trained" philosopher/theologian to be a philosopher/theologian.

Just like it takes a trained engineer to construct a rocket that is of any use, it takes a trained philosopher or theologian to make a worthwhile theological or philosophical argument. You do not need the degree per se, but you do need proper understanding of the disciplines.

. . . it's a theory . . . you're making a mountain out of a grain of sand.

Compelling argument once again. It must be one of those theories that is a theory regardless of not meeting the criteria of being a theory, that is fascinating. Show me the observational basis for M-theory (and which M-theory it is observational basis for) and show me some testable scientific predictions that it makes. If there is no observational basis and no testable predictions, then it is not a scientific theory. End of story, it really is that simple.

. . . anger issues too?

Merely stating an observation.

So?

It shows that your assumption is absolutely incorrect and thus maybe you should not make assumptions about people so quickly.

. . who you said, said that the "theory" was "metaphysical speculation." Scientists . . . according to you . . . cannot make such pronouncements.

Nice strawman. One would think that a scientist is qualified enough to know the methodology of his own field.

. . . one has to admire your ability to construct a strawman . . .

How is that a strawman?

. . . just returning the favor to those who mock me for my lack of it . . .

That attitude of an adult right there. I do it, because he did it to me first. The rotten behavior of others is a very poor excuse for your own rotten behavior.


I'm beginning to understand why people have you on ignore. You add nothing to any discussion I have seen you in except mockery and a confidence that is way beyond your actual abilities and insight. I will add you to ignore as well, not because your arguments scare me because they do not. Simply because you are a waste of my time, you have no interest in actual discussion. All you do is spout your childish mockery and I rather spend my time on those who are open to actual discussion. That was anger, no go waste someone elses time, I will check your posts every now and then to see if you have grown up.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Ah, "tit for tat"... that seems to be the battle cry of the anti-theist. I know you are aware that you are on a Christian website. Certainly, you've come here expressly for conflict - to sharpen your knives, so to speak, to better tear down the faithful. However, your mockery only works to embolden others in their beliefs. You probably already know that, but it really doesn't matter, does it? What matters is that you get to try to humiliate someone. I would suggest a new tactic if you really do want to persuade people.

:yawn:

You really should see someone about those issues . . . :kookoo:

Feel free to get back on topic . . . at your leisure . . . of course . . . this is YOUR forum after all . . . :chuckle:

 

[Silent Hunter]

Compelling argument...

. . . . . . thanks.

If you don't understand those disciplines, your statements are likely to be non-sense. It is painfully obvious when you for example read Richard Dawkins' God Delusion, he got no clue about theology or philosophy, yet he feels he is qualified to comment on it. And when he comments, he present little but misunderstandings of even the most basic principles of Christian theology and of philosophy.

. . . opinions . . . opinions . . . everyone has at least one.

Just like it takes a trained engineer to construct a rocket that is of any use, it takes a trained philosopher or theologian to make a worthwhile theological or philosophical argument. You do not need the degree per se, but you do need proper understanding of the disciplines.

. . . to a certain degree . . . on TOL . . . not so much.

Compelling argument once again. It must be one of those theories that is a theory regardless of not meeting the criteria of being a theory, that is fascinating. Show me the observational basis for M-theory (and which M-theory it is observational basis for) and show me some testable scientific predictions that it makes. If there is no observational basis and no testable predictions, then it is not a scientific theory. End of story, it really is that simple.

. . . one has to wonder how M-theory manages to hold the title so tenaciously . . . if all of physicsdom believes it so unfalsifiable . . . :think:

Merely stating an observation.

:mmph:

It shows that your assumption is absolutely incorrect and thus maybe you should not make assumptions about people so quickly.

. . . got to start somewhere . . . no?

Nice strawman.

Hardly.

One would think that a scientist is qualified enough to know the methodology of his own field.

. . . about the theory and the predictions it postulates . . . sure . . . not about weather or not the theory has anything to do with metaphysics . . .

How is that a strawman?

Really? You don't know? :sigh:

That attitude of an adult right there. I do it, because he did it to me first. The rotten behavior of others is a very poor excuse for your own rotten behavior.

:chuckle: and :yawn:

I'm beginning to understand why people have you on ignore.

. . . you mean like nm? Her face is red for a variety of reasons.

You add nothing to any discussion I have seen you in except mockery and a confidence that is way beyond your actual abilities and insight.

. . . yet another mind-reading Christian . . . :vomit:

I will add you to ignore as well, not because your arguments scare me because they do not. Simply because you are a waste of my time, you have no interest in actual discussion.

:sigh:

All you do is spout your childish mockery and I rather spend my time on those who are open to actual discussion. That was anger, no go waste someone elses time, I will check your posts every now and then to see if you have grown up.

:baby:

:wave:

 

[Selaphiel]

One last thing

. . . yet another mind-reading Christian . . .

That is priceless coming from you after you have been keeping on making unfounded erroneous assumptions about me and others.

Now carry on being a troll if you want to.

 

[Jukia]

When a person hates someone, as the non-believer hates God, you should not be surprised to find them often discussing the object of their enmity.

AMR

I am a non-believer. I don't hate God. How can you even bother to hate something that does not exist?

 

[Silent Hunter]

One last thing

:bang:

That is priceless coming from you after you have been keeping on making unfounded erroneous assumptions about me and others.

. . . actually . . . oranges and grapes. I made assumptions about you based on your religious affiliation . . .

. . . yours ("confidence that is way beyond your actual abilities and insight") on nothing at all.

Now carry on being a troll if you want to.

:rotfl: . . . don't let the "ignore" button hit you in the . . . butt on the way out . . . :sigh: . . . :wave: