Hawking says there are no gods

[ynot]

If god is defined as THE creator of the universe (amongst other things) then that particular attribute of god is a scientific question.

Wrong! The unsubstantiated claim that a god exists and is the creator of The Universe is an unscientific claim, not a scientific question. Unsubstantiated claims and definitions are of no value to science.

 

[TragicMonkey]

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

Interestingly enough, while the modern religions say he is, there is good evidence the ancient Hebrews did not. The term is "monolatry": it means when many gods are believed to exist but you only worship one of them. Hence "you will have no other gods before me", et al.

um, sure. I don't think I ever claimed there was nothing outside the realm of science.

You didn't, but others here are.

 

[Chanakya]

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

Surely it is that?

Some specific god-claims that have been actually made over the years can be actually disproved, so that heavy-handed hard atheism might be appropriate.

Others may not yield to this method, and may need to be rejected indirectly, via soft atheism.

In either case, surely the question can be adequately answered by science?

absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

Agreed. That's why hard atheism has limited validity, and is untenable as a general position.

 

[The Sparrow]

Wrong! The unsubstantiated claim that a god exists and is the creator of The Universe is an unscientific claim. Unsubstantiated claims and definitions are of no value to science.

Sure I guess.
Perhaps there is a hypothesis of a "creator god". But scientific inquiry concludes there is no reason to further entertain that hypothesis
a) as no evidence can be found to support it
b) alternate explanations have evidence (I'm not saying this well but you get the idea)

 

[TragicMonkey]

Wrong! The unsubstantiated claim that a god exists and is the creator of The Universe is an unscientific claim, not a scientific question.

I don't completely agree. I think that examining the universe scientifically can't disprove the existence of gods, but if we came across "I, Mighty Osiris, done built this universe to reflect unto my glory and also, hello TragicMonkey, thanks for believing in me!" written in the arrangement of galaxies and also the gazillionth digits of pi it might indeed be scientific evidence in favor of a creator god. Science is much better equipped to prove a positive than disprove a negative, after all.

 

[Chanakya]

Science is much better equipped to prove a positive than disprove a negative, after all.

Not necessarily? After all, all scientific 'proofs', either way, are tentative.

Russel was right about his teapot, for his time and for ours as well, but not necessarily for the technology of year 2500. After all, he couldn't say what he did about his teapot, not without being pedantic, if he limited himself to my house and garden.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Not necessarily? After all, all scientific 'proofs', either way, are tentative.

Russel was right about his teapot, for his time and for ours as well, but not necessarily for the technology of year 2500. After all, he couldn't say what he did about his teapot, not without being pedantic, if he limited himself to my house and garden.

And not necessarily the technology of the year 2500, either: the teapot could have a cloaking device, or have self-destructed ten seconds before they found it, or exercised a hypnotic control over any who view it and made them forget seeing it. Finding the teapot is there would be far more certain a conclusion than you could ever have in finding it isn't.

 

[Chanakya]

You agree Russel would be wrong, if he limited himself to my house and garden, except in some pedantic sense?

Same argument about 2500 AD. Sure, by then we might be using stone tools again, and trying to discover fire. But that is just a detail.



Hence why I said hard atheism is sometimes valid. But not in generl, no.

 

[Jodie]

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.

I've never known of an organism to just spring into being, it evolved from something, but nothing has established what that something is be it religion, philosophy, or science. Therefore, we don't have enough information to explain how an organic organism evolved to develop consciousness, or to truly define consciousness as we know it.

The only evidence that we have that we might possibly be unique is that no other planet has been found with life. Yet here we sit having a conversation about why we exist on the internet. To deny that this is truly something special is asinine. It is the same thing that David Hume said, " that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish." We are here, there is your evidence.

 

[ynot]

absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

Sure, because - Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.

Evidence that a cup contains no liquid (evidence of absence of liquid in the cup) is not absence of evidence that the cup contains no liquid. Based on the evidence that the cup contains no liquid we can justifiably conclude that we know the cup contains no liquid.

Replace “cup” with “Universe (currently observable)” and “liquid” with “god(s)”.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sure, because - Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.

Evidence that a cup contains no liquid (evidence of absence of liquid in the cup) is not absence of evidence. Based on the evidence that the cup contains no liquid we conclude we know that the cup contains no liquid.

Replace “cup” with “Universe” and “liquid” with “god(s)”.

Argument by analogy. I don't agree that your analogy is apt. Unless you have surveyed the entirety of the universe and all liquids are immediately evident to your senses.

 

[ynot]

Argument by analogy. I don't agree that your analogy is apt. Unless you have surveyed the entirety of the universe and all liquids are immediately evident to your senses.

I added "(currently observable)" to Universe as you posted. All we can honestly say about what we can't currently observe is "We don't and can't know and have no rational justification for claiming therefore goddidit".

Obviously it's easier to observe and examine a cup than our currently observable part of The Universe. This doesn't mean we can't conclude that, within the limits of our current knowledge, god(s) don't exist.

I know you can't slam a revolving door and a human eye can't directly observe itself

 

[TragicMonkey]

I added "(currently observable)" to Universe as you posted. All we can honestly say about what we can't currently observe is "We don't and can't know and can't claim goddidit".

Using the scientific method, yes. There are no limits to the speculations of philosophy or theology, however, as they do not use the scientific method. That doesn't mean they will reach correct conclusions, of course.

 

[ynot]

Using the scientific method, yes. There are no limits to the speculations of philosophy or theology, however, as they do not use the scientific method. That doesn't mean they will reach correct conclusions, of course.

Yep, fantasies know no bounds. That's why I don't place any value on them other than entertainment value.

Has philosophy or theology ever reached any correct or useful conclusions?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yep, fantasies know no bounds. That's why I don't place any value on them other than entertainment value.

Has philosophy or theology ever reached any correct or useful conclusions?

What do you consider to be good? And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

 

[ynot]

What do you consider to be good? And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

I didn't use the word "good". I parroted your use of the word "correct". What do you consider to be "correct"? And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

I also added "useful" that I would define as being something like - Of value and benefit for practical usage purposes.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I didn't use the word "good". I parroted your use of the word "correct". What do you consider to be "correct"?

No, I was asking you a new question. The same I asked another poster earlier. Concepts of the good and assigning values of good to things is philosophy, not science. Ethics are philosophical positions, even for people who don't think of them that way. Science can be used to teach you how to build a weapon but it won't teach you when and why to use it, or not.

I also added "useful" that I would define as being something like - Of value and benefit for practical usage purposes.

Still philosophy. Utilitarianism. And again, 'of value' is a philosophical position: you're assigning qualities and states to actions, and these qualities and states to not arise from the physical forces and operations of the actions themselves.

You can't escape philosophy. Like history, you're involved in it whether you realize it or not.

 

[qayak]

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?

If the only evidence that Booboo exists is the claim that she makes thunder and it is shown she doesn't make thunder, she no longer exists. It's why we don't have thunder gods anymore . . . or fertility gods . . . of gods of war . . . or gods that created our universe, that created night and day, who control the seasons, or punish you for wearing wool and cotton. Your Booboo has a few more attributes that prove her existence, good on her.

The fact that there are more attributes given to the gods of Abraham means it takes more experiments and knowledge to show they don't exist but all the attributes are pretty much discredited at this point and we are left with the idea of some weird dude/entity setting the universe in motion and then booking on out. From my perspective that's infinitely unlikely.

 

[psionl0]

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.

As long as you insist that you are being scientific and not philosophical I am not creating any strawmen.

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.

This is the only question that should be considered in this thread and it is not quite an accurate interpretation of the article you linked.

Hawking was saying that the universe CAN come into existence spontaneously. Of course this is no more conclusive than saying that a god that can not be observed scientifically CAN exist (though this is just a philosophical observation).

The scientific part is that Hawking claims that the "laws" of quantum mechanics not only prove his contention but prove that there is no room for a god. Quantum mechanics does neither. It can only predict a range of outcomes and their probabilities. It doesn't explain HOW an outcome comes about. It is designed to paper over any gaps in our scientific knowledge.

 

[ynot]

No, I was asking you a new question. The same I asked another poster earlier. Concepts of the good and assigning values of good to things is philosophy, not science. Ethics are philosophical positions, even for people who don't think of them that way. Science can be used to teach you how to build a weapon but it won't teach you when and why to use it, or not.

Still philosophy. Utilitarianism. And again, 'of value' is a philosophical position: you're assigning qualities and states to actions, and these qualities and states to not arise from the physical forces and operations of the actions themselves.

You can't escape philosophy. Like history, you're involved in it whether you realize it or not.

I would rather people designing and building planes listen to what science has to say about what methods and materials are good/best to use than listen to what philosophy has to say.

Many people say strategy of warfare is a science - https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=Strategy+as+a+Science&oq=Strategy+as+a+Science&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j0l2.1079j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That a hammer is more “of value” to drive in a nail than a marshmallow is a reality, not “a philosophical position”.

Sorry but you're talking philosobabble.