• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
Darat said:
Then your sentence is proven false since there are many, many gods that people people believe in that we know do not exist.
Click to expand...


If e.g. Christians insist that we can't know that their one God does not exist, I can't see how they can make us rule out the rest of them ... or all the other creatures of fiction: Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, Donald Duck, Ford Prefect, Elizabeth Bennet, Kilgore Trout, Scrooge, Wonder Woman, Simon Wagstaff ... to name but a few.
 
dann said:
If e.g. Christians insist that we can't know that their one God does not exist, I can't see how they can make us rule out the rest of them ... or all the other creatures of fiction: Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, Donald Duck, Ford Prefect, Elizabeth Bennet, Kilgore Trout, Scrooge, Wonder Woman, Simon Wagstaff ... to name but a few.
Click to expand...
That is philosophy again.

Science makes no statement about the possibility of god(s) and quantum mechanics does not prove that there is no room for any god in the universe.
 
psionl0 said:
That is philosophy again.

Science makes no statement about the possibility of god(s)
Click to expand...
When god-botherers manage to make some sort of claim about existence, then science is the only tool which can make informed and truthful statements. Not religion, not philosophy.


and quantum mechanics does not prove that there is no room for any god in the universe.
Click to expand...
Quantum mechanics per se may or may not (I think it does) but there are other arguments which prove such.
 
psionl0 said:
ftfy,
Click to expand...

You fixed nothing, you just added your own error to my words. If there was relatively balanced evidence between the universe being controlled by a god and a universe that follows natural laws you could say anyone making a firm statement had succumbed to confirmation bias but the evidence isn't balanced, In fact the evidence so far is 100% in support of a universe governed by natural law and 0% in support of gods. Hawking was only expressing where the evidence has overwhelmingly led us.

Carrying your claim further, as you have been attempting to do, brings you up against the brick wall of infinite regression. "A god must have set the laws in motion!"

"Who set your god in motion?"

You are behaving like the gambler playing Texas Holdem who has gone all in after seeing the flop on a full house of aces over queens only to find out his opponent has aces over kings but figures he has a pretty good chance at quad aces on the river. Yeah, it's possible if there was a screw up at the playing card company but would Hawking be suffering from confirmation bias if he said the gambler wasn't gonna make it?
 
psionl0 said:
That is philosophy again.

Science makes no statement about the possibility of god(s) and quantum mechanics does not prove that there is no room for any god in the universe.
Click to expand...


So Donald Duck actually exists?! He isn't just some fictitious cartoon character?
(I would be very disappointed in quantum mechanics if it wasted time trying to prove or disprove that Duckburg is a real town!)
 
psionl0 said:
That is philosophy again.

Science makes no statement about the possibility of god(s) and quantum mechanics does not prove that there is no room for any god in the universe.
Click to expand...

I don't think you define "no room for" the same way I do. I define it as science doesn't need a god of the gaps, there is no observable evidence left over that needs a god to explain.

I take it you want to hang onto the 'can't rule a god or gods out'. That's not what Hawking is saying. He's saying there is nothing at all left to base a god on.

You're equating the evidence for a god to the evidence for an invisible pink unicorn. There is none but you don't think you need any to say, "we don't know". Hawking says you do need something and there is no something there.
 
psionl0 said:
That is philosophy again.

Science makes no statement about the possibility of god(s) and quantum mechanics does not prove that there is no room for any god in the universe.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. Science tells us Zeus doesn't exist.
 
psionl0 said:
That is philosophy again.

Science makes no statement about the possibility of god(s) and quantum mechanics does not prove that there is no room for any god in the universe.
Click to expand...

Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't think you define "no room for" the same way I do. I define it as science doesn't need a god of the gaps, there is no observable evidence left over that needs a god to explain.

I take it you want to hang onto the 'can't rule a god or gods out'. That's not what Hawking is saying. He's saying there is nothing at all left to base a god on.

You're equating the evidence for a god to the evidence for an invisible pink unicorn. There is none but you don't think you need any to say, "we don't know". Hawking says you do need something and there is no something there.
Click to expand...


That's the way I see it too Ginger.

I might add that I get annoyed by those that say "Science says this or science says that", as if science is sitting in an office somewhere making statements.

Science is just a method, a method we all use, (although some shun the method when it leads to conflict with illogical convictions), and leads us to understanding and informed decisions.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Especially when you can just make up where the limits are.

So what you can "And then?" any epistemology. Okay and? The point?
Click to expand...

There is no other method of explaining facts that can go beyond the limits of science. You have to put up with that.
Other knowledge in the form of hypotheses (and probability) is possible as long as it does not contradict science and clearly delimits its field of action.

I am leaving aside analytic-formal knowledge which is something else. I am talking about facts.
 
psionl0 said:
This is not a theological debate but a scientific one. The question is whether our scientific knowledge is advanced enough to rule out the possibility that a god could exist. I would suggest that we are still standing on Newton's beach and have yet to wet our feet in the vast ocean of knowledge.
.
Click to expand...
psionl0 said:
That is philosophy again.
Click to expand...

The Norseman said:
When god-botherers manage to make some sort of claim about existence, then science is the only tool which can make informed and truthful statements. Not religion, not philosophy.
Click to expand...
Darat said:
Of course it does. Science tells us Zeus doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I regret to say that you are like Molière's Bourgeois gentilhomme, who spoke in prose and did not know it. You are doing philosophy, as much as it kills you.

The existence of God is not studied in the faculties of physics, astronomy, biology, etc. It is studied in the faculties of theology and in some chairs of philosophy.
There is not a single respectable journal of science that has published a single article dedicated to prove or refute the existence of God. Do you know any? Can you say any theorem or physical law that talks about this subject?
A strange scientific subject that is not studied in science faculties or specialized journals.

The problem is that you are so philosophobic that you do not see what is before you. The existence of God is a philosophical problem and atheism is a philosophical issue. You are making philosophy. You will have to confess to your scientist confessor.
 
Last edited:
To ask me to prove that there is no god who operates in some place far from the galaxy or in the depths of the volcano Etna is like asking me to prove that there is no space coffee pot circling Mars.

The one who has to prove that some god exists on Alpha Centauri or on the Islands of the Blessed is the believer. Since believers of any known type have been frankly incompetent to prove the existence of any god of any shape and fur, I believe I am authorized to say that gods do not exist.

But I do not know this from science. But by common sense and philosophy. To Caesar what is Caesar's.
 
The mania of confusing philosophy with theology is very Anglo-Saxon and Roman Catholic. The latter because of the all-embracing power that the Church had over society until the 19th century. In the Anglo-Saxons countries I think it is because of the influence of the USA, where the religious pressure is much stronger than in the old Europe. Here the existence of God stopped worrying philosophers long ago and people such as Levinas o Ricouer seem a little exotic now.
 
David Mo said:
The existence of God is not studied in the faculties of physics, astronomy, biology, etc. It is studied in the faculties of theology and in some chairs of philosophy.
Click to expand...

Many scientists, including Hawking, have waded in on the god question. As soon as a theist makes a testable claim about god science can test it. All those claims have been shown to be false thus far. Proving god is up to those who claim there is one but all their other claims as to how the universe got to be the way it is are testable. God didn't do it.
 
Thor 2 said:
I might add that I get annoyed by those that say "Science says this or science says that", as if science is sitting in an office somewhere making statements.
Click to expand...
"Science" is shorthand for the results or inferences that are drawn after applying a "scientific method". I should not have to spell that out every time I refer to "science". To suggest that I am implying that "science is sitting in an office somewhere making statements" is as dishonest as accusing me of intellectual dishonestly because I did not use somebody's preferred formula when discussing gods that are known or unknown or believed in or not believed in (how DARE I just say "a god").

Regarding the scientific method and gods, this is effect partially begging the question. We are saying that if we assume that there are no gods, can the scientific method account for the existence and form of this universe? In this primitive era of science, it appears very feasible to account for a universe scientifically without assuming anything about "a god". Of course, scientific knowledge will have to be refined to the nth degree before we can consider such inferences reliable.
 
psionl0 said:
"Science" is shorthand for the results or inferences that are drawn after applying a "scientific method". I should not have to spell that out every time I refer to "science". To suggest that I am implying that "science is sitting in an office somewhere making statements" is as dishonest as accusing me of intellectual dishonestly because I did not use somebody's preferred formula when discussing gods that are known or unknown or believed in or not believed in (how DARE I just say "a god").

Regarding the scientific method and gods, this is effect partially begging the question. We are saying that if we assume that there are no gods, can the scientific method account for the existence and form of this universe? In this primitive era of science, it appears very feasible to account for a universe scientifically without assuming anything about "a god". Of course, scientific knowledge will have to be refined to the nth degree before we can consider such inferences reliable.
Click to expand...
Only if you keep asking the wrong question.

Wrong question because there is no evidence to base the hypothesis on: Do gods exist?

Logical question based on over whelming observable evidence, what explains god beliefs?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom