• 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:
Concepts of the good and assigning values of good to things is philosophy, not science.
Click to expand...

As you are aware from the discussion of the subject from years ago, I disagree with your statement and many others do as well. Many years ago you could say that ethics and morals were philosophical because science hadn't gotten around to it yet. However, that can't be said anymore. Because philosophy moves so slowly scientists have been forced into aspects of it because of the swift advancement of scientific discoveries and they have begun assigning values. We also use a crude ethics/moral value system in our courts for sentencing.
 
TragicMonkey said:
....But I have yet to see anybody's proposed experiment on how to determine if gods exist or not.
Click to expand...
That's because you are in denial. We don't need to do that experiment unless you can show one shred or sliver of evidence that gods exist. Otherwise we should be concerned with any and everything one can imagine such as invisible pink unicorns.
 
ynot said:
...Unsubstantiated claims and definitions are of no value to science.
Click to expand...
Nor are they of value in the real world except the part about the god beliefs which can be investigated using the scientific process in fields like archeology and sociology.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
There is no known scientific test that can determine whether any gods exist.
Click to expand...


Aren't crucifixion and resurrection considered to be proof that Jesus was an actual God?!
It must be possible to design a scientific test based on that assumption ...
 
Darat said:
Which religion is that? That is of course a rhetorical question as his is not a god people actually believe in so has nothing to do with how the word god is used when believers use that word. He liked the comfort of his cultural religion but realised that the god that involved was of course a god that does not exist so tried to get the best of both worlds.

We shall have to agree to disagree - the whichness of the why isn't at all interesting to me.
Of course not - fiction is fiction after all, and I like fiction, but I try not to confuse fiction with reality. Which is why I know Zeus doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I get it. You only want to discuss the existence of God with people of low intellectual level.
But if the existence of God is a problem that can be solved scientifically also the solution will serve for the defense of God made by educated people. Or is it only for those who do not think too much? That they don't interest you doesn't seem like a reason to me.

And the best way to know if a question is scientific is to go to the science departments of the universities and consult scientific journals. Which one do we go to?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the fact that all the scientist claims cannot be probed by the experimental method. How can they be "scientific"? This is what merite to be thought.
 
Last edited:
dann said:
Aren't crucifixion and resurrection considered to be proof that Jesus was an actual God?!
It must be possible to design a scientific test based on that assumption ...
Click to expand...
Scientific tests are based on credible evidence, not "considered to be proof" and "assumption". Why is that so hard for some people to understand?
 
qayak said:
You need to define your use of proven and science in this context.
Click to expand...

Science: The human knowledge based on the experimental method, also known as "hypothetical-deductive". I am not speaking of formal sciences now.

Poof: Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement. In science the proof is based on the hypothetical-deductive method.
 
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...
What scientific department is charged to? In what scientific journal are publied the results of the scientific refutation of gods? HOw can be scientific a problem that is not scientifically studied?

Think a little about that, please.
 
dann said:
Aren't crucifixion and resurrection considered to be proof that Jesus was an actual God?!
It must be possible to design a scientific test based on that assumption ...
Click to expand...
How do you think we might go about designing a scientific test of whether a particular human was crucified and resurrected 2,000 years ago?
 
ynot said:
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)
Click to expand...

I beg your pardon. I can show thousand of scientific journals about extint species. In what scientific journal is published those "tousand years of evidence" about god? A specific answer, please.
 
Jodie said:
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?
Click to expand...

I did't know that Hume was a scientist! No, he was not and his opinion is a philosophical opinion. And note that the inexistence of miracles doesn't show the inexistence of God. And all this is philosophy.

I am a little tired of people that are not able to distinguish science from philosophy. Please attend a philosophy of science course where they will explain the difference to you.
 
Last edited:
Since anyone can just define god so as to be unobservable (either all the time or only when anyone is looking) the question "Does god exist?" is stupid.
No person in their right mind would insist that [insert fictional character] is real since no concrete evidence fan be found for it's non existence.


But there is a question I think science can answer:

Why do god(s) exist?

Two options:

  1. They are real - Since proving the non-existence of a god is impossible and all evidence for it's existence has been negative I'll let you reach your own conclusion on this option (just make it rational :D).
  2. They are made up - This one has been conclusively answered. Seeking to explain the functioning of the natural world is part and parcel of human nature. Giving these explanations agency, is also part and parcel of human nature. We are social animals, that is how we instinctively interpret the world. We constantly perceive agency, even in inanimate objects we know possess none.
Given the above, in my mind there is only one rational explanation.
 
TragicMonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why would one need to do that to disprove the existence of the gods people claim to believe in?
 
David Mo said:
I am a little tired of people that are not able to distinguish science from philosophy.
Click to expand...
Considering that the mere mention of the words "quantum mechanics" gives most members here a headache, I don't know what else you expected. Did you think that the scientifically illiterate were going to keep their mouths shut? :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom