Sorry kid -- you can't. You can't prove it either way.

https://faithit.com/11-year-old-genius-prove-stephen-hawking-wrong-death-god-exist/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2018 07:18AM by anybody.

It will keep him busy, professionally speaking.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


I see put genius in quotes in the title of your thread. Any reason that you doubt, that at an intellectual level, he isn't, when he has been classified that by a psychologist?

And I learned that the hard way.

True, wisdom and intelligence are different.

Do you doubt his genius status?

I third Anybody's statement.

5th it.

Intelligence is only useful when engaged. IQ represents potential, not results.

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Intelligence is only useful when engaged. IQ
> represents potential, not results.


Bingo!

“Well because there’s these atheists that try to say that there is no God, when in reality it takes more faith to believe that there’s no God than it does to believe that there is a God… Because it makes more sense that something created the universe than that the universe created itself. It takes more faith to say the universe created itself than to say something other created the universe because that is more logical.”

... Huh ?

The kid may technically be a "genius," but statements like that shows he doesn't understand basic logic, and is extremely ignorant.

Ignorance (lack of knowledge) is curable...with education.
Somehow, though, given his early propensities, I suspect his "genius" will be wasted, his "education" will be limited, and he'll wind up using his "genius" to make millions scamming non-genius suckers with religion, getting them to pay him for things like magic blessed water.

And he doesn't understand the scientific principle: you don't go looking to "prove" whatever idea (hypothesis) you have, you try to see whether it's true. There IS a difference, particularly in terms of confirmation bias interfering with objectivity.

Definitely a clever 11-year-old, but geniuses are very rare and such child prodigies have a pretty poor track record, overall.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2018 01:42PM by Soft Machine.

Yep.
From the article:
"William wants to prove that an outside force is the only thing capable of creating the universe, which means that “God does exist.”"

Well, first -- no, that wouldn't mean that "god does exist." If he pulled that off, it would mean "an outside force" exists. Such a thing doesn't have to be "god."

Second -- he won't pull that off.
Because to "prove that an outside force is the only thing capable of creating the universe," he'd have to show that NO other way exists for a universe to come to be (I'll leave aside the unfounded assumption that it was "created" for the time being). In other words, he'd have to conclusively prove that every possible way for a universe to come to be except one fails. That's an infinite number of ways. He won't be pulling that off anytime soon. Or ever.

You're right -- he doesn't understand the scientific method. If he does learn it, he'll realize what he now wants to "prove" is rather silly. If it doesn't, he won't be an astrophysicist.

We'll see how this turns out :)

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The kid may technically be a "genius," but
> statements like that shows he doesn't understand
> basic logic, and is extremely ignorant.
>
> Ignorance (lack of knowledge) is curable...with
> education.
> Somehow, though, given his early propensities, I
> suspect his "genius" will be wasted, his
> "education" will be limited, and he'll wind up
> using his "genius" to make millions scamming
> non-genius suckers with religion, getting them to
> pay him for things like magic blessed water.

Well, not so fast. The pull quote in the article has him targeting the new brand of positive atheist that makes the radical departure from "classic" atheism's assertion that they don't believe in a god to the unprovable assertion that there is no god.

“Well because there’s these atheists that try to say that there is no God, when in reality it takes more faith to believe that there’s no God than it does to believe that there is a God… Because it makes more sense that something created the universe than that the universe created itself. It takes more faith to say the universe created itself than to say something other created the universe because that is more logical.”

His opinion is valid as he frames it. Science today would be in shambles if there was widespread acceptance of the concept that causation is meaningless, and we have no reason other than random chance to believe events and objects come to be.

I know you and I disagree on this, and I'll spare you our usual back and forth if you wish. I just want to note that his objection to positive atheism is sound. If you reject any form of theism as unfounded with no evidence, positive atheism should be afforded the same scorn for its abandonment of logical principles.

Putting a number on a brain is not a genius move. Reading the kid's statements makes it clear that even though there are tests to measure the brains ability to function at certain levels in certain areas, the tests clearly do not measure the entire spectrum of the complexities of the brain. I want a lot more from a human being in order to take them seriously than a test score.

Wisdom gained through experience. Insightfulness that comes from the gut. Empathy born through observation. Willingness to explore. Reluctance to draw conclusions. These count. I like to use every color in the palette when I paint.

My brother the Junior G.A. has a genius I.Q. He is also an ass. And cheap. And arrogant. I guess he excels at those things more than anyone because he is a genius. And yes, he thinks the earth was flooded entirely and Eve was made from a rib. But he's a wiz with mathematical figures so I guess we should believe everything else he says?

. “Before we understood science, it was natural to believe that God created the universe, but now science offers a more convincing explanation,” once said the renowned physicist. “What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is we would know everything that God would know if there was a God, but there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”Hawking
"An atheist would have to know a lot more than me about the cosmos." Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2018 01:47PM by koriwhore.

Right, but apparently Hawking knew enough to be an atheist.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right, but apparently Hawking knew enough to be an
> atheist.

He didn't know enough to explain Dark Matter/Energy which supposedly makes up 95% of our Cosmos, according to cosmologists best estimates. So how can he rule out anything called 'god' when he can't account for the missing 95% of our Cosmos, other than to call it "dark" just because we can't see it?
He didn't rule out the God Particle (minus the particle, since it is a field).
And he didn't rule out the Great Attractor, which is equally mysterious as dark matter and could account for dark matter, in my simple mind.

That's cute, you get to embrace Sagan because you agree with him and poopoo Hawking because you don't agree with him.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's cute, you get to embrace Sagan because you
> agree with him and poopoo Hawking because you
> don't agree with him.

I just don't get how he can rule out the existence of anything called God, when guys like Einstein and Sagan called "the laws that govern the universe", "god" or "the mind of god"
It seems like even Hawking used the word, "god" when it suited him, as in, "“God is the name people give to the reason we are here,” he said. “But I think that reason is the laws of physics rather than someone with whom one can have a personal relationship. An impersonal God.”

Seems like he believed in the same, impersonal god as Sagan, Einstein (Dawkins, Buddha, Lao Tzu and a bunch of other pantheists, epicureans, stoics, including me.)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2018 08:34PM by koriwhore.

If you're going to quote Sagan, first of all get the damn quote right:

"An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God." (interview with Joel Achenbach, 1996)

Sagan also said:

"An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I am not that wise, but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god." (1996)

"I often talk about the ‘God hypothesis’ as something I’d be fully willing to accept if there were compelling evidence; unfortunately, there is nothing approaching compelling evidence." (1989)

When we're talking about the sort of god the kid in the OP is trying to "prove" exists, it's pretty clear neither Hawking nor Sagan believed in any such thing.

He is 11. He may have a genius IQ, but he is still a child. He will grow up and hopefully realize that God cannot be proved.or disproved. He may continue to believe, of course, and that does not make him.stupid, but I imagine he will figure out that he cant prove his beliefs to others.I find it a little distasteful to criticize a child for being a child.

Well, I think that's a valid question -- did something create the universe? Or did the universe create itself?

Good luck to him on this line of inquiry.

Why isn't there a third option? That the universe has always been in existence but changes due to the nature of the matter it is composed of? Why the presumption of creation?

The Big Bang, which got things off to a rather spectacular start.

Exactly. Big Bang. Or maybe a lot of little ones too. Now that is what I call matter changing in nature! I just don't see creation as being the right word to describe what is really just re-arranging the furniture.

Since we don't have evidence that lets us *know* the origin of the universe, there are more than two (or three) options. There are infinite options.

However, there is no evidence a "god" exists or created the universe. There's lots of evidence the "Big Bang" occurred. What was the universe "before" the Big Bang? We don't know. Was there even a "before" the Big Bang, since that may have been the beginning of time? We don't know.

We might someday know. We might not.

Either way, replacing "we don't know" with "god did it" is irrational and, frankly, dishonest. Because nobody knows that "god did it" either.

Of ALL the gods that ever were in the imaginations of human beings, spanning tens of thousands of years.

All the civilizations that have come and gone, all with their own gods.

Out of ALL of that, the god of the Hebrews....THAT is the REAL god.

Give me a break.
What idiotic nonsense.

If the argument for existence of god is whittled down to the "big bang", that is not much of an argument. In fact, it is both sides arguing the EXACT SAME THING. It is turtles all the way down.

So let him try. The science will lead where it leads, and any proofs of his will be subject to the review of other scientists who aren't presupposing a conclusion.

Does anyone besides me find it off-putting to mock an 11 year old child, genius or not, for having the emotional maturity of an 11 year old? He is a child, people!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2018 06:24PM by bona dea.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does anyone besides me find it off-putting to mock
> an 11 year old child, genius or not, for having
> the emotional maturity of an 11 year old? He is a
> child, people!

When the child is publicly promoted as a "genius" we should all listen to by a "faith" magazine...

Nope. Not at all.

I'm happy to criticize the parents, teachers or whoever that kid's handlers are. They are setting him up for a reality check and embarrassment by not keeping that kind of crap away from the media. The fact this was in "faithdotcom" makes me wonder if the adults know any better.

Maybe he "skipped" the years where critical thinking skills were taught. ;-?

Such compassion you have! NOT. Regardless of the adults in his life and whether they are behind this and regardless of his IQ, he is still an 11 year old child. When I was 11, I thought I could prove the Mormon church was true. I was pretty smart, although certainly no genius, but bottom line-I had the education, experiences and emotional maturity of a child because I WAS A CHILD. I figured it out a few years later, earlier than you did in fact and I did so without a lot of emotional distress. Maybe you and the other posters criticizing this child should pick on someone your own size. Just a crazy thought. Please tell us how great you were at critical thinking when you were 11.

For the record,I do not agree with the kid but I am against bullying children.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2018 08:13PM by bona dea.

No one here is mocking or bullying an 11 year old child. Your victim isn't here.

No 11 year old should be anywhere near RFM.

Our opinions harm no one except your tender feelings and thought policing ways.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2018 04:59PM by Dorothy.

From the article:

"He disagrees with some of Einstein and Hawking’s theories on black holes and has his own ideas to prove the existence of the universe."

I didn't know the existence of the universe was in question.

I'm thinking the story writer isn't much of a scientist.

He is being mocked whether he is here or not. That is the.point.I am not though policing any more than you are. I simply do not agree with you.All of us get to express an opinion.That includes me.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/25/2018 12:46AM by bona dea.

Any my point is that:

a.) I don't consider any of these opinions to be mocking.

b.) This boy is not being harmed in any way.

c.) I also think that blasphemy is a victimless crime so my guess is we'll never agree about this topic.

d.) I'm sure you'll take the last word so enjoy.

He graduated from college at 9, so he is obviously smart and,no, he isnt going to prove or disprove God, but the point he is a kid with a kid's maturity and we shouldnt be bullying him. I very much hate a certain president and his adult kids, but I drawn the line at attacking his 11 year old. Same thing.

I get where you're coming from, Bona Dea, and I agree that if we were doing it face-to-face with him or on a widely-read international news site, it would be bullying and wrong, but we're simply talking about it in a rather obscure corner of the internet.

His parents and the website that published this, however, are fully deserving of our criticism, IMO.

Tom in Paris

I disagree about bullying and am unsure of the role of others. He claims this was his idea.I doubt Barron Trump reads my FB page,but I still wont attack him because he is a kid. The adults in his family are a different matter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2018 05:01AM by bona dea.

I agree. If you put it out there you have to be ready to defend it. Why shouldn't a smart nine-year old learn to defend his statements. And, since when did disagreeing with someone or analyzing what their mission statements are become bullying?

I wouldn't do anything to stop the kid from pursuing his cause and fulfilling his goals ever. But neither am I bound to suffer the arrogance of youth or not state opinions to the contrary no matter what the age.

Go for it, kid!

And don't let anyone tell you it cannot be done. That's what everyone always says...until it is done; then everyone will pretend that it was obvious the whole time.

If you want to go for it kid, do it but your time could be better spent. After all his "genius" investigations, he will use the same arguments every religious person says. In the end, you can't prove or disprove faith.

I really doubt he can prove God exists or that you can prove the opposite for that matter, but he has a right to try. It is possible that he might come up with some new insights or arguments that are valuable even if they are not absolute proof or he may mature and realize that his efforts are not going to go anywhere. Regrdless, he is a kid. Give him a break and consider what you thought when you were 11 and how immature you were at that age. It seems to me that some of you could find something better to do than pick on a child.

The kid may be smart but who is pulling his strings ?

Good luck with that, kid.

" ... it makes more sense that something created the universe than that the universe created itself. It takes more faith to say the universe created itself than to say something other created the universe because that is more logical."

I don't quite see it that way. To me, it makes it much more complicated to add a creator into the equation, because then you're stuck trying to explain where the creator came from. If creation is the name of the game, then who created the creator?

And that just puts us back to square one, with trying to prove that the creator exists.

And yet, we are programmed from our deepest instincts to recognize causation as intrinsic in virtually everything around us.

It's a universal that when you hear a loud noise, see an unusual sight, or experience something unexpected to have the first reaction be, "I wonder where that came from?"

Accepting a creator can be as simple as accepting some basic science in a syllogism.

Energy can neither be created or destroyed.
Time and space are constructs of the universe and did not exist prior to it.

Therefore, some form of energy is uncreated and has existed eternally. Its existence is apart from the confines of time and space.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Energy can neither be created or destroyed.


I'm not a scientist in any way, so I probably give a very simplified version of the process. But I do recognize that energy can be transferred.

I've often heard that quote used to demonstrate that we have a soul. But the way I see it, our body dies and the decaying process transfers that energy into the soil for new things to grow and the cycle continues.

That's essentially my understanding as well. Energy can change forms, but is never created or destroyed.

I am not sure he will have to 'prove' Hawking 'wrong' if Hawking has changed his mind!

I 'believed' the channels would probably pick up on Hawking and a few did.

One on the radio had Hawking recall the moments after he left his body and stated he was amazed he was not dead, but still interested in learning what was going on and 'basically' said the following ----- I didn't get the 'exact wording' as I tried to write it down but it was hard to keep up.

"Oh my, what in the world is going on? I see my study of black holes was not as important as study of the after-life as I am clearly alive and well. Who would have guessed people who I thought were crazy and 'afraid of the dark' were really on to something. I am moving but feel fine, relaxed and comforted. My worldly cares are far less important to me now. What a wonderful feeling to be free of the body I was in and any cares I had. I wonder if any religions were really right. It will be interesting to find out what truths await me on this journey maybe I can even learn more about black holes and many other things we were interested in knowing on earth."

Another channel on utube asked how he felt about God/source, etc. around the 13:50 point. He basically stated: I am time, I am source, ...
He was asked a lot of other questions but I really didn't get excited about this channel so you will have watch yourself if interested. Also, Einstein and others supposedly kept coming in also on some questions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxzyf4n_gLg&t=4164s

Just to try to translate --- I believe he indicated he was now aware he was part of Source/God and thus believed in a 'concept of God' ---- obviously not like the biblical God. I really have not heard a lot of the way they phrased things so I got bored quickly. However, they attempted to talk a few 'science' things for those interested, but I found this channel, with a cold, very boring and hard to follow on this episode.

Of course, there is nothing to argue about. I provide it for your 'consideration' only.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2018 11:44PM by spiritist.

God, by definition, is an all powerful being. Mankind is not as powerful as God. So, if God existed he has the power to reveal himself. If he chooses not to reveal himself all the 11 year old genius lined up end to end would not possess the power to force God out of hiding. We are left with three possibilities:

1. Despite all of mankind’s desires, wishes and hopes God has chosen not to reveal himself personally.

2. God is trapped and lacks the power to reveal himself.

3. God does not exist.

If it’s one, then we are all wasting our time trying to coax him out of hiding. He apparently doesn’t want to show himself. If’s two, all your faith is wasted. If he can’t escape captivity he surely can’t save you from death. If it’s three we can all stop wasting our time on worrying about the Marvel Comics Super Hero.

The problem that this young man has, as I see it, is twofold: first, given the vast nature of the universe and the existence of almost an infinite number of galaxies, the probabilities that life could exist on Earth and that there would be other planets scattered throughout this vast expanse of space, which could do the same, without the necessity of a creator, is actually higher than you would think. Two. To construct a god, such as the judeo-christian god, one is left with the unsolvable problem of who created that God, and where did he come from? Once you create something, such as a god, you automatically create the next line of inquiry, which is where did that God come from and so the question goes on and on ad infinitum. So to this young man, I say good luck in trying to prove a negative, because you will accomplish the one thing that no one else has been able to do on this planet. By the way, looking at your surroundings is nothing more than confirmation bias and is not proof of anything, other than the fact that you are alive.