Hawking says there are no gods

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

If the article is misquoting Hawking I suspect we will hear about it.

As for proving the negative, please catch up on the thread. I'm not going to repeat it for every newcomer to the thread.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I've read the thread. What you said is incorrect.

 

[Jodie]

Really? Awesome.

I eagerly await ANY evidence to support this "hypothesis".

As David Hume said,"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish."

So we just appeared out of thin air aware enough to be having this conversation by accident? Isn't that a ridiculous conclusion?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"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?

I addressed that ^.

Philosophy is not going to determine good, bad, beautiful, ugly or any other esoteric value judgements.

 

[TragicMonkey]

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.

You're concluding you don't need to test the hypothesis. That's different from testing it and reaching a conclusion based on the resulting data.

Dodge.

No, it's not. Why can you not grasp this? I don't attempt to apply the scientific method of inquiry to nonscientific questions.

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.

Again, it's not a double standard. You're applying the wrong standard. And it's not just "god beliefs", it would be anything that isn't appropriate for science. The existence of an afterlife would be another such item.

Existence of ghosts, however, could well be appropriate for scientific examination because they are supposed to manifest in this world. Such claimed apparitions could be studied. But the best conclusion science could reach on them would be "there is no evidence this incident was caused by ghosts, nor are there any other examined instances where ghosts were observed". It couldn't say, conclusively, that ghosts do not exist. For the millionth time, "we have no evidence of A" does NOT mean "we have evidence of Not-A".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

It was an analogy, why waste time with this ring-around-the-Rosie post?

I think I've addressed everything else in your post. We are at the repeating-ourselves phase.

I wasn't putting you in the Christian God believer category. If you notice I mostly talked about gods, lower case g.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I addressed that ^.

Philosophy is not going to determine good, bad, beautiful, ugly or any other esoteric value judgements.

I missed it. Where did you define what good is, and why it's preferable?

 

[Dr.Sid]

"No possibility of creator" is just unfounded. You can't disprove all-mighty being. There might be no need or evidence for gods to exist, but that's far from "no possibility".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've read the thread. What you said is incorrect.

Good, we're done here then.

 

[ynot]

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.

Science (and good scientists) don't claim knowledge is absolute.

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.

Why is "do gods exist?" a "non-science question"? If a god exists but doesn't interact with reality then it's essentially no different than it not existing. If a god did exist and did interact with reality then science could be applied to the "do gods exist" question.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

"No possibility of creator" is just unfounded. You can't disprove all-mighty being. There might be no need or evidence for gods to exist, but that's far from "no possibility".

Until one makes the paradigm shift from proving gods don't exist, to explaining god beliefs for which we have evidence, we will continue to stall out at this point here.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Science (and good scientists) don't claim knowledge is absolute.

I never said they did. That's precisely why I'm arguing that "no gods exist" is NOT a scientific conclusion.

Why is "do gods exist?" a "non-science question"? If a god exists but doesn't interact with reality then it's essentially no different than it not existing. If a god did exist and did interact with reality then science could be applied to the "do gods exist" question.

Either gods exist or they don't. Agreed? A or Not-A. And whether A or Not-A is the true state of being is independent of whether we think the correct answer is A or Not-A. Is that agreed? Having no evidence for A is not the same thing as having evidence for Not-A. Is that agreed?

And yes, if gods interacted with reality then science --if you could devise the right experiment or observation method -- could investigate. But I have yet to see anybody's proposed experiment on how to determine if gods exist or not. So far all we've got is "we came up with alternate explanations for certain phenomena once claimed to be caused by gods", which is not in any way to my mind an experiment at all, much less a conclusive one.

 

[ynot]

As David Hume said,"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish."

So we just appeared out of thin air aware enough to be having this conversation by accident? Isn't that a ridiculous conclusion?

I agree! That humans appeared out of "thin air" (dust and a rib) and were aware enough to be having this conversation is absolutely a ridiculous conclusion.

 

[The Sparrow]

The origin of the universe IS a scientific question. Positing a god as the cause brings the action of god into the realm of science.
I don't see how you are drawing some sort of boundary between god and the natural world when by most western definitions of god, he did create the natural world, and according to many myths, occasionally intervenes in its affairs.

It's almost like you art tracing causes further and further back and at some point you suddenly say that the question of 'what caused that turtle' suddenly becomes a 'philosophical' question, but the immediate turtle above it was a 'scientific' question.
What changed between turtle 8,000,000,002 and 8,000,000,001?

 

[The Sparrow]

As David Hume said,"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish."

So we just appeared out of thin air aware enough to be having this conversation by accident? Isn't that a ridiculous conclusion?

So much wrong with this statement:
"So we just appeared out of thin air aware enough to be having this conversation by accident?"

I don't even know where to begin.
Who exactly is claiming that is where humans came from? No scientist I have ever heard about.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The origin of the universe IS a scientific question. Positing a god as the cause brings the action of god into the realm of science.
I don't see how you are drawing some sort of boundary between god and the natural world when by most western definitions of god, he did create the natural world, and according to many myths, occasionally intervenes in its affairs.

It's almost like you art tracing causes further and further back and at some point you suddenly say that the question of 'what caused that turtle' suddenly becomes a 'philosophical' question, but the immediate turtle above it was a 'scientific' question.
What changed between turtle 8,000,000,002 and 8,000,000,001?

Who are you talking to? If it's me, I'm not stuck on the universe being created by gods. It's not a necessary property of deities that they must be creator gods. I'm not responsible for "most western definitions of god". I'm only arguing that the question of divine existence is not a scientific one, and that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

 

[The Sparrow]

....I'm only arguing that the question of divine existence is not a scientific one....

Again then, I will repeat myself.
"How the universe came to be" is a scientific question.
If god is defined as THE creator of the universe (amongst other things) then that particular attribute of god is a scientific question.
If the universe 'coming to be' is shown to not have required a god (I am not saying it has or not) then either the definition of god has to change, or there is no god.
Remove that attribute from god, then that god's existence falls out of the realm of science.

That is why in this specific regard, the existence of god (with an attribute of 'creator of the universe') is a scientific question.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Again then, I will repeat myself.
"How the universe came to be" is a scientific question.
If god is defined as THE creator of the universe (amongst other things) then that particular attribute of god is a scientific question.

I don't agree that all gods must necessarily be creator gods, or involved in the universe or its creation in any way.

If the universe 'coming to be' is shown to not have required a god (I am not saying it has or not) then either the definition of god has to change, or there is no god.

Not necessarily. I can build a birdhouse. That I didn't build this particular birdhouse you're looking at doesn't prove I don't exist or that I can't build birdhouses. The best you can conclude is that you find no evidence I built this particular birdhouse you're studying.

Remove that attribute from god, then that god's existence falls out of the realm of science.

I'm glad you admit that something is outside the realm of science.

That is why in this specific regard, the existence of god (with an attribute of 'creator of the universe') is a scientific question.

See above. In reference to the OP, Hawking could say "there is no evidence of divine involvement in the universe's beginnings, nor is there any scientific reason to suppose there was such involvement or are such beings." That is not the same thing as a declaration that gods do not/cannot exist.

 

[Chanakya]

Ah, the soft atheism, hard atheism argument revisited, in SH's memory.

When applied to the god question in general (as opposed to certain specific god questions) :

Soft atheism good. Hard atheism bad. Hard atheism illogical. Hard atheism as untenable as outright theism.

 

[The Sparrow]

I don't agree that all gods must necessarily be creator gods, or involved in the universe or its creation in any way.

ok no objections here. I think we agree though that the abrahamic God is a creator god?

Not necessarily. I can build a birdhouse. That I didn't build this particular birdhouse you're looking at doesn't prove I don't exist or that I can't build birdhouses. The best you can conclude is that you find no evidence I built this particular birdhouse you're studying.

Sure. It doesn't exclude a god that built other universes, but not this one.

I'm glad you admit that something is outside the realm of science.

um, sure. I don't think I ever claimed there was nothing outside the realm of science.
If you want to argue that something with no attributes or effects would be un-measurable by science, sure I could see that.

See above. In reference to the OP, Hawking could say "there is no evidence of divine involvement in the universe's beginnings, nor is there any scientific reason to suppose there was such involvement or are such beings." That is not the same thing as a declaration that gods do not/cannot exist.

It is for the gods defined as 'creator of the universe'.
For the other gods that are not defined as 'creator of the universe' you are correct.