FH news Steven Hawking reverses opinion on God!

[nath]

What I got from what Toht is saying is that if you change the definition of God, then God exists.

If you change the definitions of unicorns, unicorns exist.

The initial statement was vague and utterly useless, and yet you guys are all arguing it. There's nothing to argue, Toht has moved the goalpost from the commonly understood definition of "God" to something entirely arbitrary so it's an entirely moo point. Kinda like the point made by a martian cow.

 

[Scouse]

Actually, I'm saying that even if you change your definition of god to what he said, it's still a load of shit

 

[nath]

Actually, I'm saying that even if you change your definition of god to what he said, it's still a load of shit

Well technically it can't be a load of shit, as if you change the definition of something you can call it what you want. As Toht said, he's already happy to call a cow a martian if you change the definition of what a martian is.

 

[Raven]

Its pointless to argue with someone who believes something exists based absolutely no evidence. Just let them get on with it. So long as they aren't trying to convert or persecute others they are doing no harm to anyone but themselves.

People who do try to convert others to their madness should be stopped though, no law should be based on religion and it should not be preached in schools. By all means teach kids about the different religions so that they can make a decision based on the facts but in no way should it be taught as the truth...because it isn't. Blaming all the worlds problems on some crap written about 2000 years ago is ridiculous in this day and age. Shit doesn't happen to test you, it just happens. I don't want to be saved and I certainly don't care about some made up deity supposedly judging me when I die. Christian bullshit has no meaning in my life yet I am still more than capable of making my own moral decisions. I don't need to ask the sky fairy for help, I will help myself thank you very much.

The local vicar comes in the pub most Fridays and leaves his religion at the door, obviously he still behaves as a vicar should but he doesn't talk about it, just the usual talk about what's going on in the village, what's on TV, whatever, because he understands nobody is interested. I don't see why other god bothers can't do that, keep it to themselves.

 

[rynnor]

That's what I'd have said, if it didn't also describe the placebo effect almost exactly.

So, basically, god's a placebo. I can live with that

Actually the placebo effect is no more or less than a scientific term for faith.

Its a poorly understood area, though scientifically we tend to write it off it is capable of amazing effects like firewalking, anaesthetic free surgery, hypnotism etc.etc.

Much like dark matter having a term for something doesnt neccesarily mean it is understood.

 

[Scouse]

Actually the placebo effect is no more or less than a scientific term for faith

Disagree very strongly here rynnor.

The placebo effect is a very real and measureable physiological effect that occurs when people receive, effectively, no medication whilst believing that they are, in fact, being treated.

Every single correctly-performed scientific investigation in medicine has to control for placebo.

So, hardly being a term for faith (or even the faith that patients may have in the reality of their treatment) - it's something that describes a very real effect.

Just because we don't understand how it works doesn't mean that faith, god, sky-fairy shite has anything to do with it.



Edit: And "firewalking" is an easily trumped scam. Science had a cursory look and then shat on it

 

[old.Tohtori]

No Toht, you are as usual changing what you say under duress. What you orginially said fits with the placebo effect. There really is no need to expand further.

Haven't changed anything and as usual, show me how if you can. You can't though.

Much like;

Toht has moved the goalpost from the commonly understood definition of "God" to something entirely arbitrary so it's an entirely moo point.

Err, durr? It's in the first post. Learn to read.

The reason it's not moot, is because there's no change in dynamics. People still pray etc, just that i'm naming the working incredient as the object of prayer.

Praying to god doesn't work, but praying does(at the end) to a degree.

Its pointless to argue with someone who believes something exists based absolutely no evidence. Just let them get on with it. So long as they aren't trying to convert or persecute others they are doing no harm to anyone but themselves.

Funny, yet ANOTHER who doesn't read.

I'm seeing a lot of people who are putting their hand up, according to question asked earlier. Who thinks i'm talking about something magical/sky fairy/ etc?

So recap hmm? Read very carefully now!

Let's see;

You're changing definition of god?

Post 1;

Misdescription.

Hey look at that, it's the first word of the point made!

I'm at NO point claiming prayer works, that there's a skyfairy, that there's some miracle to praying or any of that...BUT...

Because there's a word god, or religion, or belief in the original point, out come the blind, zealot like (anti)-religion nuts.

Anyone with half a brain cell can see that, much like the anti-crew loves to toot, but no one wants to come forward and say it, because you don't want these people on your wrong side.

 

[Scouse]

/wub Toht.

I'll get on your wrong side any day of the week

 

[old.Tohtori]

You're nothing but a confuser really, since you can't help yourself.

Anti-reg-zealot, blinded by hate and not afraid to change facts to fit your prayer circle.

You haven't answered a thing and twist facts(like what i've said) to fit your preaching.

Poor thing, brainwashed and all.

 

[nath]

Err, durr? It's in the first post. Learn to read.

That's exactly my point, genius. From the very first post you were working from a different definition of "god" to the standard one. I didn't say you changed your position during the thread.

 

[old.Tohtori]

That's exactly my point, genius. From the very first post you were working from a different definition of "god" to the standard one. I didn't say you changed your position during the thread.

...did you also read "The reason it's not moot, is because there's no change in dynamics. People still pray etc, just that i'm naming the working incredient as the object of prayer.".

No? Funny...genious.

It's not moving a goalpost, it's a theory on WHAT IS GOD. Ofcourse it's gonna change the definition.

 

[nath]

It's not moving a goalpost, it's a theory on WHAT IS GOD. Ofcourse it's gonna change the definition.

lol.


All of the information as to why you're wrong in what you're saying is available in this thread. There's no need for me to say more because if you're not getting it by now, you lack the ability to. You're an idiot.

 

[Ctuchik]

Then again, that is a theory of one man, so not exactly proof either

No, its not just a theory of one man.

its a theory from one of the most respectable scientists in history.

please don't use your forum arguments on stuff like this...

 

[old.Tohtori]

lol.


All of the information as to why you're wrong in what you're saying is available in this thread. There's no need for me to say more because if you're not getting it by now, you lack the ability to. You're an idiot.

lol.

I don't find "there is no godz!" or "praying to godz isn't working!" as anything related to what i said, those who HAVE talked about it haven't debunked it. You're a moron.

No, its not just a theory of one man.

its a theory from one of the most respectable scientists in history.

please don't use your forum arguments on stuff like this...

One man still, no matter how scientifically acclaimable someone is, they can still claim the moon is cheese.

 

[nath]

lol.

I don't find "there is no godz!" or "praying to godz isn't working!" as anything related to what i said, those who HAVE talked about it haven't debunked it. You're a moron.

I don't see how that relates to *anything* I've said.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I don't see how that relates to *anything* I've said.

Yeah, think about it.

Actually, what HAVE you said? Nothing.

 

[Krazeh]

Yeah, think about it.

Actually, what HAVE you said? Nothing.

I think what he said was that you had once again made an utterly pointless post by posting some vague statement that you then used as a definition of "God" in an attempt to claim that God could exist.

 

[Ch3tan]

Oh come on now Krazeh, that post is clearly just rep farming. I'm sure that's against the CoC

 

[nath]

Yeah, think about it.

Actually, what HAVE you said? Nothing.

I've said that if you're willing to change the commonly accepted definition of God, then discussion becomes pointless.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I think what he said was that you had once again made an utterly pointless post by posting some vague statement that you then used as a definition of "God" in an attempt to claim that God could exist.

And once again if people think that, they need their heads checked for little alien parts and go find that tinfoil hat.

The statement isn't vague at all, it's very clear; belief/prayer is the god.

Secondary statement, from same first post; god isn't what we think it is. (ergo; misdefinition).

It was a theory on what is god, by linking the effect of prayer as the provider of the things people ask from god.

There's nothing vague, no attempt, no thing that people claim going on here.

No magic, no power of god.

Read this; I NEVER CLAIMED THE SKYFAIRY EXISTS!

Get it? Hmm? No? Need to read slower?

But, we can't have someone saying the word god or religion around here without a couple of anti-zealots coming in and twisting everything with pointless crap.

I've said that if you're willing to change the commonly accepted definition of God, then discussion becomes pointless.

You really don't get the meaning of a theory that asks "what is god?". The definition for prayer/belief is there, i simply stated that god is that.

If you find a discussion pointles, here's a hint; stay the f*ck out!

 

[rynnor]

The placebo effect is a very real and measureable physiological effect that occurs when people receive, effectively, no medication whilst believing that they are, in fact, being treated.

Every single correctly-performed scientific investigation in medicine has to control for placebo.

So, hardly being a term for faith (or even the faith that patients may have in the reality of their treatment) - it's something that describes a very real effect.

The placebo effect is the effect of faith - generally peoples faith in a medical cure though it can be in a witch doctor, faith healer, hypnotist or even therapist

It doesnt have to be faith in anything real as long as the subject believes it - if you destroy their 'faith' in the pill/therapy etc. you dont see any placebo effect.

No-one really understands the mechanism - people can recover from serious diseases purely on the basis of such faith - perhaps if we really did understand it we could enter a new age of medicine.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Careful rynnor, Scouse there(along with others) gets mighty testy if you even hint that they could posses traits that are even vaguely linked to religion

Words like belief and faith are a nono, they are religious mumbojumbo and don't exist in the real world.

By the way nath;

the only reason the discussion becomes pointless, is because anti-religion peeps like you can only attack god and if you take that away, you might have to discuss things.

 

[Krazeh]

Read this; I NEVER CLAIMED THE SKYFAIRY EXISTS!

Read this: NOONE IS CLAIMING YOU DID.

What people have been claiming is that what you posted way back when was nothing more than a description of the placebo effect. And Nath was saying that having a discussion about "God" is pointless when you're just arbitrarily changing the definition of God as you see fit.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Read this: NOONE IS CLAIMING YOU DID.

What people have been claiming is that what you posted way back when was nothing more than a description of the placebo effect. And Nath was saying that having a discussion about "God" is pointless when you're just arbitrarily changing the definition of God as you see fit.

If it had stayed in that, i could agree. It hasn't though has it?

If you find a theory about what is god pointless, without the possibility of god being something else(ergo; what is god), then yes it's pointless and you should stay out.

If you're trying to disprove "what is god(questioning definition)" with "you can't prove god(old definition)", ofcourse you'll have a problem.

 

[Krazeh]

If it had stayed in that, i could agree. It hasn't though has it?

It did, apart from the bits where you tried to argue that what you had said wasn't a placebo effect.

If you find a theory about what is god pointless, without the possibility of god being something else(ergo; what is god), then yes it's pointless and you should stay out.

Tbh I find any discussion about what an imaginary human construct is or may be to be fairly pointless at the best of times. There's no evidence of any such thing as "God" existing in any of the forms it's been proposed as so debate about them really has little use. Such a discussion has even less use when participants are arbitrarily changing the definition of God to fit with their proposed description and then claiming that God exists.

 

[old.Tohtori]

It did, apart from the bits where you tried to argue that what you had said wasn't a placebo effect.

Tbh I find any discussion about what an imaginary human construct is or may be to be fairly pointless at the best of times. There's no evidence of any such thing as "God" existing in any of the forms it's been proposed as so debate about them really has little use. Such a discussion has even less use when participants are arbitrarily changing the definition of God to fit with their proposed description and then claiming that God exists.

It didn't, it's quite clear if you read other posts.

And yes i keep my stance that it's not a placebo effect, unless you find all sources of hope(etC) as a placebo(different topic).

The problem with second aprt of your post is the "imaginary human construct", because what i proposed has no imaginary thing in it.

You really don't get "what is god" without resorting to your anti-god semantics. That's your problem.

Much like the rest of anti-religion crew; hung up on a word.

 

[Krazeh]

It didn't, it's quite clear if you read other posts.

And yes i keep my stance that it's not a placebo effect, unless you find all sources of hope(etC) as a placebo(different topic).

Then you clearly don't properly understand what a placebo effect is.

The problem with second aprt of your post is the "imaginary human construct", because what i proposed has no imaginary thing in it.

Firstly, who are the people in your proposal praying to? Is that something tangible and real? Secondly, the belief that causes these people to think they're feeling better is based on the imaginary construct that if they pray then they will feel better.

You really don't get "what is god" without resorting to your anti-god semantics. That's your problem.

What? This sentence doesn't even make sense. I don't really get "what is god" without resorting to my anti-god semantics? So if i did resort to my apparently anti-god semantics I would get "what is god"?

 

[old.Tohtori]

I know what a placebo effect is, claiming that without discussing what i say shows your lack of point. It was shown before too, when you can't answer, you ignore. Much like the rest. If you have points on it, present or gtfo.

It doesn't matter what they're praying to, it was never the point. The point was that the action gives what the target of the action is asked. Prayer = god as prayer gives what god is asked.

Imaginary things come nowhere near that.

The last phrase may be badly written, so here's another way to say it; because you're so anti-religious, you're too blinded by it to discuss anything with the word god in it.

 

[old.Tohtori]

The funny part is that so many anti-god people are SO against a theory that would remove god from the equation

 

[Krazeh]

I know what a placebo effect is, claiming that without discussing what i say shows your lack of point. It was shown before too, when you can't answer, you ignore. Much like the rest. If you have points on it, present or gtfo.

It doesn't matter what they're praying to, it was never the point. The point was that the action gives what the target of the action is asked. Prayer = god as prayer gives what god is asked.

Imaginary things come nowhere near that.

The last phrase may be badly written, so here's another way to say it; because you're so anti-religious, you're too blinded by it to discuss anything with the word god in it.

No, i'll quite happily discuss your placebo effect prayer idea. In fact I think it has been discussed and pointed out that it's nothing more than a placebo effect. It was also pointed out that a placebo effect comes from an internal belief as opposed to external sources, which was something you appeared to skip over. You can't compare the support and assistance provided from say friends and family (i.e. an external source) to the percieved strength you gain from your belief in prayer (i.e. an internal belief); they are two completely separate issues that operate in a completely different manner.

To be honest I fail to see why you're so stuck on the use of the word 'god'. Why does your act of prayer have to be changed into god? What is the insistence of needing to find some way you can say god exists? In this case by changing the fairly universally held definition of what god is?

The funny part is that so many anti-god people are SO against a theory that would remove god from the equation

Except you haven't removed god from the equation, you've simply altered the definition to suit your proposal. You're also continuing to use words intrinsically linked with god and religion when you keep speaking about prayer.