• 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:
One could theorize, though. And either be correct or incorrect, although they wouldn't know which.
Click to expand...

Why would you theorize about gods when one, we see that god myths are prevalent and two, we see that those myths were developed when people tried to explain events they didn't understand, and tried to explain and deal with death.

God beliefs now explained based on the evidence and you are still hanging on to what?
 
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...

You need to define your use of proven and science in this context.
 
qayak said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have science and things that aren't science, and expecting science to answer questions unsuitable to science is as ridiculous as expecting things which aren't science to answer scientific questions.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
From where I stand, science is overtaking philosophy as we learn more and more about how moral thinking is biological.
Click to expand...

That may tell you how people arrive at particular ethical beliefs, but it can't tell you whether those ethical beliefs are correct or not.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Why would you theorize about gods when one, we see that god myths are prevalent and two, we see that those myths were developed when people tried to explain events they didn't understand, and tried to explain and deal with death.

God beliefs now explained based on the evidence and you are still hanging on to what?
Click to expand...

Just because you are satisfied with the answers science can bring in its limited scope doesn't mean everyone else is. If you aren't interested in nonscientific things that's fine. But your distinterest in a thing doesn't make it valueless for everybody else.
 
Hawking's beliefs (which were well-known prior to his death, as I recall) were of such paramount importance, and so honoured by all those who'd known him and sought to cherish his memory, that the memorial service of thanksgiving in his honour at Westminster Abbey was secular and non-Christian and barely mentioned God.

NOT.

https://www.westminster-abbey.org/media/8839/stephen-hawking-service.pdf

I mean, I believe/think/hope/pray :) Hawking was wrong, but if someone of any other religion dies, I expect their funeral will be in accordance with that religion, at least as a matter of politeness and respect to their beliefs while they were alive. Why was Hawking not accorded the same respect?
 
TragicMonkey said:
No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have science and things that aren't science, and expecting science to answer questions unsuitable to science is as ridiculous as expecting things which aren't science to answer scientific questions.
Click to expand...

The existence of gods is a scientific question every bit as much as the existence of the Higgs boson is a scientific question. And science answered the god question awhile ago.
 
qayak said:
The existence of gods is a scientific question every bit as much as the existence of the Higgs boson is a scientific question. And science answered the god question awhile ago.
Click to expand...

Okay, then. What was the experiment that disproved the existence of gods?
 
I can only presume my posts are being ignored due to they being overshadowed by much more awesome posts. So I will say it again differently.

religion/philosopy: God is a being who created the universe
science: No gods were required to create the universe

Seems to me there is a problem here that can be solved by
a) God exists but he didn't create the universe.
b) God doesn't exist

Seems to me also that if god intervenes in the natural world, then the question of 'god' moves from a purely philosophical one to a scientific on as well.
 
TragicMonkey said:
No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have science and things that aren't science, and expecting science to answer questions unsuitable to science is as ridiculous as expecting things which aren't science to answer scientific questions.
Click to expand...

You say not science and I say guessing.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
As long as you ignore the fact those biological determinant of "correct or not", neither can pulling it out of the philosophical ether.
Click to expand...

I can't parse this. Whether a given ethical belief is correct or not is a separate question from how one arrived at the belief. Is killing wrong? Why or why not? You can come up with biological reasons why we might feel a need to kill, or reasons why we might feel we shouldn't kill, but that doesn't answer the question of whether it's wrong or not.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Okay, then. What was the experiment that disproved the existence of gods?
Click to expand...

There were thousands of them and together they led to the Big Bang Theory, abiogenisis, Evolution, genetics, the germ theory of disease, etc.

We no longer have to guess which god is angry and why.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Just because you are satisfied with the answers science can bring in its limited scope doesn't mean everyone else is. If you aren't interested in nonscientific things that's fine. But your distinterest in a thing doesn't make it valueless for everybody else.
Click to expand...

Straw man. It's not about my interests, it's about observable evidence. If you want to ignore that evidence and go with some magical explanation, fine. But my rejecting your premises is not about disinterest or values.
 
TragicMonkey said:
That may tell you how people arrive at particular ethical beliefs, but it can't tell you whether those ethical beliefs are correct or not.
Click to expand...
Okay, I'll bite . . .

What CAN tell you whether ethical beliefs are correct or not?
 
epeeist said:
Hawking's beliefs (which were well-known prior to his death, as I recall) were of such paramount importance, and so honoured by all those who'd known him and sought to cherish his memory, that the memorial service of thanksgiving in his honour at Westminster Abbey was secular and non-Christian and barely mentioned God.

NOT.

https://www.westminster-abbey.org/media/8839/stephen-hawking-service.pdf

I mean, I believe/think/hope/pray :) Hawking was wrong, but if someone of any other religion dies, I expect their funeral will be in accordance with that religion, at least as a matter of politeness and respect to their beliefs while they were alive. Why was Hawking not accorded the same respect?
Click to expand...
Rituals have value without needing god beliefs behind them. More than a few Jews, for example, continue all their rituals despite rejecting the religion.

Family get togethers on Christmas is another example of a ritual one doesn't need god beliefs to find value in it.
 
Last edited:
qayak said:
There were thousands of them and together they led to the Big Bang Theory, abiogenisis, Evolution, genetics, the germ theory of disease, etc.

We no longer have to guess which god is angry and why.
Click to expand...

That's not answering my question. What was the experiment that disproved the existence of gods? That there are alternative theories to explain occurrences once attributed to gods does not disprove the existence of gods; at best it proves the noninvolvement of gods in those occurrences.

My great aunt Booboo doesn't cause thunder, we know that now. But that knowledge doesn't inform us whether my great aunt Booboo exists or not, does it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom