teroko

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I hope you realize that the null hypothesis says the exact opposite, that since your "truth" hasn't been found in all this time by billions of searchers, it's more likely this "truth" of yours doesn't exist. Unless of course, the "truth" is that there are no gods, in which case it may exist after all.

Right. That is also a possibility for now because it couldn't be demonstrated yet, the existence or unexistence of God, isn't it? But the truth exists and is unique. The fact we could not know it is another problem.

8 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

How can there be a "truth" when it involves billions of opinions? The kind of truth you're looking for is an illusion. That kind of truth is all subjective, so how can it be "true" for everyone?

Billons of opinions may be because the truth hasn't been found yet. But the truth exist and is unique. May be we don't know it but it exists. Of course the problem would be to find it and demonstrate it what could not be easy at all. While not demonstrated I think we must stay with what at least can make sense to us...

29 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

 I don't think you understand what this word means, because of the way you assert yours. It's not an opinion to say, "God is for real". That's an assertion of fact. Opinion would be, "I think God is for real".

You are right. Everything about God are opinions and theories. Any Religion is nothing more than a theory. The point is to try to find the truth. I present to everybody what makes sense to me after a long time reflecting about taking much things into account. May be could make sense to you too. It's your decision...

I think that was God idea. The Universe to run alone without much intervention. The problem is that things didn't run as would have been planned. Something unexpected came into place and things became wrong. And for the worst was something that affected God himself not allowing him fix the things. That's what I think. The question open for us is if a help could be given. The purpose of this thread is to point this out.

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

True. But your gods have not shown any sign of appearing or helping out with any problems. It is almost as if they don't exist.

Right.

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. It was just wrong, then

Just in your opinion... 

35 minutes ago, Strange said:

More comma problems? Should that have been: "No god is real" and "Only, his problems remain are in our imagination"

No. It was well written… 😄

35 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which god again?

The Creator of the Universe.

35 minutes ago, iNow said:

Which god again?

If none of your known "Creator of the Universe God" convince you, I think you could try to develop your own concept for that God.

8 hours ago, iNow said:

So, you're saying god only exists in the imagination. I'm forced to agree with you here. 

No, God is for real. Only his problems remain for our imagination.

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

You're not exactly speaking cogently enough to entice people to go seek more, and it's against the rules of this site anyway... Rules you agreed to upon joining. You must have the discussion here, not attempt to direct traffic to alternative sites like a lousy spammer.

That's why I didn't even try to post the link of my site. That's why I think is not good to discuss about my personal work which is related to it here. But I have been accused to not wanting to discuss then. So, I don't know what to do now… 

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

Perhaps you can begin with the questions and counter points you've evaded

I have pointed out the possible problem of a God in troubles and that I think may be something could be done about but only by the imagination. Following this approach I think each one should follow his own intuition and imagination to try to find God's troubles and point out possible solutions. May be someone luckily find the right ones and the solution of the world and life problems would follow.

The only thing I evaded is to talk about my personal work in this approach. Now, as I said, you can find it in my profile if you would be interested. Now is up to you to present your point of view if you want. I don't expect any agreement you know. What I don't know is if it would be good to discuss that in this thread...

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

So you opened a discussion thread but refuse to discuss it. That's usually the point at which threads get closed.

Ok, let discuss whatever you want then. What I don't know is everything could be discussed in this thread but go ahead.

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You connected them in analogy. Where did you connect them in reality?

I did it challenging things of Science and things of Religions, of course. I have developed a small site for that but I'm not allowed to publish the link here, right? But it is in my profile in the Forum. You can visit it and take a look in the site if you want. But is not possible to discuss everything about it here in this thread you know… And I guess you won't like what you will find so useless to discuss about...

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

2. Cannot be connected in reality

They can be connected. I did. Too complex and extense to discuss this here I think.

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

But you can see, touch, analyze and take chunks of rock out of the one mountain.
The other mountain is based solely on belief; you can't see it, touch it, or analyze it.

And everybody takes whatever they want from it; and that seems to be the source of a lot of problems.

Right.

I disregarded some rocks of the Science's mountain and took some others of the Religion's mountain to make my way in the valley.

That's why I am here now.

That's why I could be a problem for you now… 😄

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Cute. Unfortunately it is  guilty of begging the question. You can connect them in analogy but in in reality.

That's what you think...

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Did you read my post's?

 

Yes, what's your point now?

34 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Not really, we all just tried to explained why a god is unnecessary.

Science versus Religion, right?

Quote of mine:

“There exist two mountains, the Physics Sciences’ one and the Religions’ one. Between, a valley to transit.”

I believe in something in the "middle" but it would be too extense to discuss here in this thread… May be other time...

Hey, you all went beyond the scope of the thread...

35 minutes ago, Eise said:

In philosophy, one does not give a viewpoint without reasons why this viewpoint should be valid. As you don't, I can just put it aside.

For me it is only obvious that Hawking means it to be an argument against not having free will. But he is wrong: it is an argument against fatalism. And I explained why.

You are not going too give up so easily isn't it? And now you are stating Hawking did it wrongly...

Fatalism has nothing to do here! That isn't even mentioned in the article of the context of the quote. You wrongly invented that.

The quote is about freedom of choice, in other words "free will". How could you not understand that? Unbelievable.

This is my last comment. I'm out now. It doesn't worth discuss this anymore.

1 hour ago, Eise said:

Yes, but the original quote does not support it, as said, it is an argument against fatalism, not against not having free will.

If you are stubborn I'm worst.

Hawking's quote "I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined and that we can do nothing to change it look before they cross the road." is clearly and obviously related to free will.

44 minutes ago, Eise said:

Ah, well, that is interpretation too, and it is not bad as an abstract, but it is generally not a good idea to base philosophical discussions on abstracts.

I found the complete text, and here is what, in my opinion, makes clear what Hawking means (added an empty line for readability):

I think he should have left the red lines out, because they do not fit the rest argumentation. In all the text he is talking about 'determined', but in the red lines he switches to 'predestined', which are definitely different concepts. 'Predestined' means that whatever you do, your fate is fixed. For this Hawking's red lines fully apply, but it is not an argument against determinism. Say we are determined: then what we do is determined as well. But the 'whatever you do' is not valid anymore. If you die on the gallows or in a storm at sea depends on your decision, even if your decision is determined. That is simply not what 'predestined' means. The red lines are an argument against fatalism.

Any case, with or without determinism, what i remark is Hawking's support to the existence of free will, the main subject of this thread.

My personal opinion on the subject is that i find rather difficult if not impossible the possibility of the existence of free will within a completely deterministic Universe…

Just now, Strange said:

I apologise. Maybe a language problem? When you said "ever existed" did you mean "always existed"?

Right. That was the intention.

55 minutes ago, Strange said:

You still haven't acknowledged this is very obviously wrong.

There were diseases of animals and plants before humans existed.

There were natural calamities and catastrophes (are these different things?) such massive volcanoes that destroyed life over large areas, meteors hitting the Earth, etc., before humans existed.

There were calamities and catastrophes caused by other living things before humans arrived (such as the oxygen catastrophe).

So it would be nice if you acknowledged that this stamens of your was not just wrong but nonsensical.

I totally agree with this! Is you that didn't see the comma after the "No" I posted!

17 minutes ago, Sensei said:

You know it is not true. One life form relies on other life form. There is fixed quantity of Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Hydrogen atoms, which are building blocks of the all organic molecules. And they are transferred one way or another from one life form to another.

One thing is how things are, other thing is how they should be.

I don't want to go beyond the scope of the thread but just to figure out how a God could change everything is may be altering slightly some physics parameters' values. Everything would be different. Nature would be different. But to intervent in the Physics of the Universe is something that only a God could do. Current parametrs' values could be not the ideal ones for an ideal kind of life… That points out a possible problem in the Physics of the Universe of course...