• 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.
TragicMonkey said:
I get that people here favor the scientific method as the best means to figure out the truth. I agree with that myself. But if some ancient Greek philosopher theorized the atom based on nothing but his own notions he was just as correct as the scientists millennia later who finally managed to see the damn things. He didn't use the best methodology but he was still right. And the atom would continue existing whether nobody knew of it or not.
Click to expand...

Actually Democritus had a some empirical notions to back up the hypothesis
 
JoeMorgue said:
I take their actual effectiveness into account. I'm not really sure what all the hostility toward that is coming from.

I really don't get how me saying "I respect methodologies that actually produce usable answers and information more than ones that don't" becomes perceiving "all pursuit of knowledge as a conflict."
Click to expand...

First you spoke of 'sides', then you put listed different fields of study in a hierarchy, saying the later one supplanted the former. How is that not conflict?

As for respecting 'usable answers' I'll leave aside the irony that utilitarianism is a philosophy. If that's all you value is 'usable answers' then that's fine: you are interested in only what science can answer. The mass of Jupiter, the cure for cancer. Not the question of ethics, the definition of the good, because those are not scientific questions.

Which leaves me wondering why, if you aren't interested in religious or philosophical questions, are you so fervently insisting that the answers reached by others on those questions are necessarily wrong? Shouldn't you be, like science, disinterested?
 
TragicMonkey said:
First you spoke of 'sides', then you put listed different fields of study in a hierarchy, saying the later one supplanted the former. How is that not conflict?
Click to expand...

Okay fine you can call it "conflict." Not sure what difference it makes outside you think calling if "conflict" makes me sound unreasonable and militaristic.

As for respecting 'usable answers' I'll leave aside the irony that utilitarianism is a philosophy. If that's all you value is 'usable answers' then that's fine: you are interested in only what science can answer. The mass of Jupiter, the cure for cancer. Not the question of ethics, the definition of the good, because those are not scientific questions.
Click to expand...

And that's fine for people who see science as nothing outside the beakers and labcoats.

Which leaves me wondering why, if you aren't interested in religious or philosophical questions, are you so fervently insisting that the answers reached by others on those questions are necessarily wrong? Shouldn't you be, like science, disinterested?
Click to expand...

Because we're talking "Science" not "Straw Vulcanism."

I get it. I said "Science" so you're going to hear "Emotionless logic driven robot."
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
They define what the word god means.
Click to expand...

They define what they mean by the word when they use it, yes. But not all religions define it the same way. Heck, get different denominations of Christianity to define the Trinity!
 
psionl0 said:
you're philosophizing again.

There is no known scientific test that can determine whether any gods exist.
Click to expand...
Sounds like your go-to rationalization so you don't have to question your beliefs.

Observable evidence is not philosophy.

No observable evidence when there should be some is not philosophy.

Forming hypotheses based on evidence is how science poses questions. Just because I said you are asking the wrong question doesn't make what I said philosophy unless you take it out of context.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
Not even one of those many Hindu deities? How could he know that?
Click to expand...
Once you have ruled gods out, one after the other, and nothing suggests one might be ruled in, it's time to say you have sufficient evidence.

Or put another way, do you have any issues saying Zeus and Péle are mythical beings? Do you have any evidence the Judeo-Christian god isn't also a myth?
 
TragicMonkey said:
You'd have a devil of a time proving or disproving the existence of a Gnostic-style god: a force without personality or will that exists outside the universe and never interacts with it. Fortunately for the tidy-minded there is no difference in impact if such a god exists or doesn't, the results are exactly the same, so nobody need bother with it.
Click to expand...
Not only no need to bother, there's no way anyone could know about a god that doesn't interact with the Universe.
 
David Mo said:
Of course, but the assumption lies in the non-scientific claim that only science provides knowledge of things. This cannot be scientifically proven.
Click to expand...
Math has proofs, science doesn't.

What best explains god beliefs based on the evidence? They are human generated myths.

End of the trail of evidence.

I don't know where you get the idea only science provides knowledge.
 
David Mo said:
...You should think about this.
Click to expand...
What makes you think we haven't seriously thought about the god question? Most atheists I know, know more about the Christian religion than most Christians I know. And most atheists know a lot about other religions, philosophy and science.
 
TragicMonkey said:
My god, have you ever studied a single religion or philosophy? They aren't science and they don't want to be science. It's not what they're for. If you personally hate the notion of anything that's not science, fine, go with it. But don't claim everything else -things you know little about- simply must be totally wrong because they don't work by your favored methodology. You may think such an attitude benefits science but it does not: science needs no champions to make a religion of it. You're doing it a disservice.
Click to expand...
Not everyone accepts the non-overlapping magisteria. I don't. Faith based religious beliefs don't differ in essence from psychic beliefs. You have to have a blind spot to ignore that fact.
 
TragicMonkey said:
One could theorize, though. And either be correct or incorrect, although they wouldn't know which.
Click to expand...

Basically what you are saying is that we have two systems for figuring things out, science and guessing.

I guess if one is the type to give the two equal weight guessing is the smart choice because it's so easy.
 
Last edited:
TragicMonkey said:
I'm getting the impression you haven't actually read much philosophy either. That's not what philosophy is, and it's not what philosophy does. I get it: you have a deep hatred for everything that isn't science. But that isn't a scientific attitude, science greets nonscientific questions with utter disinterest. Science does not say 'God does not exist'. Science says 'there is no evidence God exists' and moves on with other, more pertinent questions. You seem to expect capital A Answers. You're not going to get that from science because it only offers theories, and those conditionally, and only on topics proper to it. Since you reject any other methods you simply won't get Answers on the rest of it.
Click to expand...
From where I stand, science is overtaking philosophy as we learn more and more about how moral thinking is biological.
 
psionl0 said:
You didn't mention "observable evidence" in your philosophical post.
Click to expand...
You took my post out of context. I clarified it.

Are you now dodging the issue instead of accepting the clarification? Pretty sure that makes it a straw man.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom