Hawking says there are no gods

[Skeptic Ginger]

Okay, then. What was the experiment that disproved the existence of gods?

Wrong question. What best explains god beliefs is the correct question as there can then be objective evidence upon which to base hypotheses to answer the question.

Do you really truly honestly spend any time contemplating invisible pink unicorns because one cannot devise an experiment to prove they don't exist?

Why the double standard?

 

[The Sparrow]

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?

It does if the definition of aunt booboo is "the being who creates thunder"

 

[ynot]

Okay, then. What was the experiment that disproved the existence of gods?

Another nibble . . .

The "experiment" of thousands of years of looking for any evidence of gods actually existing without any positive outcome.

Same "experiment" by which we conclude extinct species don't exist any more (but unlike any claimed god at least we know they once did)

 

[The Sparrow]

Nope.


science: We don't know how the universe was created.

Pretty sure Hawking is saying he does know. - Hence him saying no gods required.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

And if said god does not interact with the Universe, there is no way for anyone to know about such a god. IOW Deism loses on that logical problem.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Okay, I'll bite . . .

What CAN tell you whether ethical beliefs are correct or not?

You can't, you can only theorize. You can't expect the Real Answer from philosophy, it's not how it works. That's how science works, but you can't get science answers from philosophy questions any more than you should expect philosophy answers from science questions. Jupiter's mass is X, regardless of your opinions on it. Whether killing is ever justified or if compassion is the highest virtue are debatable.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nope.


science: We don't know how the universe was created.

Which brings us back to the OP. Hawking is saying that we know enough about how the Universe was created to know there is no room for gods in that explanation.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Another nibble . . .

The "experiment" of thousands of years of looking for any evidence of gods actually existing without any positive outcome.

Same "experiment" by which we conclude extinct species don't exist any more (but unlike any claimed god at least we know they once did)

The coelecanth was extinct until we found one. In the gap between learning it ever existed and finding a live one was it extinct? Everything suggested it was. It would have been the most scientific conclusion that yes, it was extinct. Was that conclusion correct?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Not quite. Science: we have a theory about how the universe began, and it doesn't involve deities.

That is not the same thing as saying deities do not exist.

Bit of a quibble but it could be important: We know how our universe has changed over the past 13 billion years. How did it arrive at that starting point and what came before it? No clue.

Pretty sure Hawking is saying he does know. - Hence him saying no gods required.

He didn't know in any scientific sense.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You post a lot in Politics, don't you? How did you formulate your political opinions? What makes you think your opinion on any given issue is the correct one? Is it science? Or is it something else?

Biologically I inherited a strong sense of altruism. And I know a fair bit about economics to know the best system is a mix of capitalism and socialism where socialism (because the term is being demonized and distorted) is the things best done with collective resources.

Health care, social safety nets, police, fire, infrastructure and defense are best managed collectively. Most everything else and some parts of health care have the best outcomes when capitalism is applied.

Philosophy is not going to get me any closer to deciding what is the best outcome than that.

Some people have less biological altruism, they don't give a rat's ass about contributing to the commons.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Wrong question. What best explains god beliefs is the correct question as there can then be objective evidence upon which to base hypotheses to answer the question.

That sounds like you begin with the premise that gods don't exist, then work to explain why anyone would think they did.

Do you really truly honestly spend any time contemplating invisible pink unicorns because one cannot devise an experiment to prove they don't exist?

The existence of invisible pink unicorns is not a scientific question so I have no need to utilize scientific methods to determine if it's likely or not.

Why the double standard?

It's only a double standard if you insist on using the scientific method in arenas it is not appropriate for. A philosophical approach would be "there's no particular reason to believe there are invisible pink unicorns, and whether there are or not doesn't affect me, so I have no need to pursue the question." Although it would probably get hung up on the fact that something can't be pink if it's also invisible.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Which brings us back to the OP. Hawking is saying that we know enough about how the Universe was created to know there is no room for gods in that explanation.

That certainly isn't correct. There is potentially an infinite amount of time we don't know anything about. Also there are potentially infinite dimensions we know nothing about. It's actually anti-scientific to make that claim. It's essentially trying to prove a negative.



BTW I haven't read Hawking's own words so I'm taking your word that he actually said that. It doesn't really matter who said it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Sorry. Try parsing the edited post. I was in the middle of changing it when you hit reply.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

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

 

[TragicMonkey]

Biologically I inherited a strong sense of altruism. And I know a fair bit about economics to know the best system is a mix of capitalism and socialism where socialism (because the term is being demonized and distorted) is the things best done with collective resources.

Health care, social safety nets, police, fire, infrastructure and defense are best managed collectively. Most everything else and some parts of health care are best when capitalism is applied.

Philosophy is not going to get me any closer to deciding what is the best outcome than that.

Some people have less biological altruism, they don't give a rat's ass about contributing to the commons.

"Best" system sounds like a value judgment. What is this quality you call "best"? The most efficient in function? The one that brings the most good to the most people? What is "good"? Why is contributing to the commons "good"? Why is "good" desirable?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The coelecanth was extinct until we found one. In the gap between learning it ever existed and finding a live one was it extinct? Everything suggested it was. It would have been the most scientific conclusion that yes, it was extinct. Was that conclusion correct?

And that contradicts no gods needed, how?

How long are you going to keep insisting we don't know enough about evolution because we can't prove we won't find some aliens landed on the planet and there is some genetic lineage that will be found that throws whole theory into a tizzy?

 

[ynot]

The coelecanth was extinct until we found one. In the gap between learning it ever existed and finding a live one was it extinct? Everything suggested it was. It would have been the most scientific conclusion that yes, it was extinct. Was that conclusion correct?

It was concluded to be extinct according to the then available evidence. New evidence subsequently proved this conclusion to be wrong and the conclusion was corrected (that's how science works).

Please let us all know when you or anyone finds credible evidence of a god actually existing, and the "gods don't actually exist" conclusion will also be corrected.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And that contradicts no gods needed, how?

How long are you going to keep insisting we don't know enough about evolution because we can't prove we won't find some aliens landed on the planet and there is some genetic lineage that will be found that throws whole theory into a tizzy?

Strawman. I'm not arguing about evolution. I'm not even arguing for creationism. I'm arguing that science cannot answer nonscientific questions. Stop assuming I'm advocating a modern Christian fundamentalist's notion of a creator god's existence. There are a lot more theologies and philosophies than that one.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It was concluded to be extinct according to the then available evidence. New evidence subsequently proved this conclusion to be wrong and the conclusion was corrected (that's how science works).

I agree. But the coelecanth living on whether we knew it or not demonstrates that things are how they are regardless of what we know about them, and how we arrived at that knowledge.

Please let us all know when you or anyone finds credible evidence of a god actually existing, and the "gods don't actually exist" conclusion will also be corrected.

Again, you're asking for a science answer to a non-science question. You can't scientifically prove or disprove the Gnostic Pleroma any more than you can philosophically debate the mass of Jupiter.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That sounds like you begin with the premise that gods don't exist, then work to explain why anyone would think they did.

Wrong! I began with the observable evidence: people have god beliefs. There is no evidence even hinting that gods exist. And many many gods have been clearly shown to be myths.

The question, 'do gods exist', is not how we come up with testable hypotheses.

The existence of invisible pink unicorns is not a scientific question so I have no need to utilize scientific methods to determine if it's likely or not.

Dodge.

It's only a double standard if you insist on using the scientific method in arenas it is not appropriate for. A philosophical approach would be "there's no particular reason to believe there are invisible pink unicorns, and whether there are or not doesn't affect me, so I have no need to pursue the question." Although it would probably get hung up on the fact that something can't be pink if it's also invisible.

Why, of all the possible things in this Universe, do I need to apply this double standard to god beliefs? I don't apply it to claims of psychic abilities or the existence of ghosts.

There's nothing special about god myths except that they are very widespread. But even widespread they are inconsistent and contradictory.