Hawking says there are no gods

[TragicMonkey]

Is there any brain actrivity that can't be defined as philosophy?

Sure. Just none that involves assessing good and bad and deciding how to pursue it.

 

[ynot]

Assigning values to characteristics and deciding what course of action to take are not scientific questions. Your personal philosophy is what determines the values you assign, because it's your personal view of what is good and what is bad. Which course you pursue is based on your philosophy, whether you use the term or not.

I frequently apply the scientific (type) method to deciding what course of action to take and deciding what is good and bad. I make a concerted effort to make my decisions and actions more intellectual than emotional. Call that philosophy if you want to.

 

[theprestige]

Unjustified killing is wrong.
Justified killing is not wrong.
“Wrong” and “justified” are defined by a particular, subjective set of moral principles. What’s “wrong” and “justified” for one set of subjective moral principles may not be wrong” and “justified” for another. There’s no universal/intrinsic set of moral principles.

Now you're beginning to understand.

 

[ynot]

Sure. Just none that involves assessing good and bad and deciding how to pursue it.

Are you defining philosophy as - "assessing good and bad and deciding how to pursue it"?

 

[ynot]

Now you're beginning to understand.

That beginning may have begun before you began.

 

[ynot]

deleted

 

[TragicMonkey]

Are you defining philosophy as - "assessing good and bad and deciding how to pursue it"?

It's one part of philosophy. The first line of one of Aristotle's more famous books is "All human endeavors aim at some good", and then proceed to attempt to define what is good.

The book is called Ethics.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I frequently apply the scientific (type) method to deciding what course of action to take and deciding what is good and bad. I make a concerted effort to make my decisions and actions more intellectual than emotional. Call that philosophy if you want to.

I don't know why you're contrasting "intellectual" and "emotional". They are not opposites, nor is philosophy "emotional" in contrast to science.

 

[ynot]

It's one part of philosophy. The first line of one of Aristotle's more famous books is "All human endeavors aim at some good", and then proceed to attempt to define what is good.

The book is called Ethics.

The Crusades and Spanish Inquisition were human endeavors aimed at what the perpetrators perceived as being good. Good is what people subjectively perceive good to be. Catchall definition achieved. No deep and meaningful philosophical brain-wank required. Next . . .

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Well that's not true. The BS that there are questions that cannot be addressed by the scientific method goes back to the non-overlapping magisteria, and that nonsense fails on every level except rationalizing god beliefs.

 

[David Mo]

Well that's not true. The BS that there are questions that cannot be addressed by the scientific method goes back to the non-overlapping magisteria, and that nonsense fails on every level except rationalizing god beliefs.

What do you mean "BS"?

The assertion that science has limits concludes that science has limits and does not prove the validity of any alternative method. I am not arguing that there is an alternative method for what science does or for what science fails to do.

In my opinion religion is an illusory and socially pernicious way of thinking. I hope it is clear and I am not accused again of saying what I do not say.

 

[David Mo]

The Crusades and Spanish Inquisition were human endeavors aimed at what the perpetrators perceived as being good. Good is what people subjectively perceive good to be. Catchall definition achieved. No deep and meaningful philosophical brain-wank required. Next . . .

Are you saying that you only know if a knowledge is correct if you can assign a specific portion to it in the brain?

No one here pretends that philosophy is more or less "deep" than other branches of thought.

TragikMonkey is trying to make you understand that you are making statements that cannot be proven empirically and that have been discussed by philosophy since time immemorial.
To affirm that man always decides for subjective reasons is not to affirm that man ought to decide for one reason or another. Neither is scientific. I do not know of any scientific experiment that demonstrates the first one. And the second is impossible to decide with a scientific experiment. If you know one, you can say it now. In the meantime, know that, whether you are upset or not, you are doing philosophy.

 

[ynot]

Are you saying that you only know if a knowledge is correct if you can assign a specific portion to it in the brain?

Can't decipher that. Are you saying something other than brains are capable of knowing.

No one here pretends that philosophy is more or less "deep" than other branches of thought.

Yeah right

TragikMonkey is trying to make you understand that you are making statements that cannot be proven empirically

Science is more than empirical proofs (theory, logic, etc)

and that have been discussed by philosophy since time immemorial.

And yet still no progress or consensus. Hardly time well spent.

 

[David Mo]

Are you saying something other than brains are capable of knowing.

Science is more than empirical proofs (theory, logic, etc)


And yet still no progress or consensus. Hardly time well spent.

No. I am not saying that other than brains are capable of knowing.

Science is more than empirical tests but science is nothing without empirical tests. This is how Stephen Hawking was speaking of science in the open post. I don't know other theoricist of science that says different.

I am not pretending that philosophy works by absolute consensus or objectivity. It is you who have said that your philosophical concepts of ethics are objective and scientifically testable. It is your turn to put here those hypothetical scientifical tests.

 

[The Sparrow]

No, it's not. I'm not claiming gods exist and purporting to have evidence. Hawking, per the OP, observed a phenomenon and didn't see evidence of gods in it, and people are therefore trying to extrapolate from that the nonexistence of gods. Hawking probably didn't (I didn't read the paper so correct me if I'm wrong) find evidence of goats in his research either. Does that mean goats do not exist?.....

Ugh. Back to this again. Still not answered.
If a particular god BY DEFINITION is "the creator of the universe" and Hawking says the universe "did not have a creator",

What conclusion can Hawking reach?

How do we resolve
"God is the creator of the universe"
with
"The universe did not require a creator"

Goats do not have the attribute the "creator of the universe" so Hawking' statement does not apply to goats, nor to gods who's attributes do not include "creator of the universe".

 

[psionl0]

Ugh. Back to this again. Still not answered.
If a particular god BY DEFINITION is "the creator of the universe" and Hawking says the universe "did not have a creator",

What conclusion can Hawking reach?

How do we resolve
"God is the creator of the universe"
with
"The universe did not require a creator".

With defenders like this Hawking sure didn't need any enemies. You have basically accused him of begging the question.

ie: "IF there is no god THEN <yadda> <yadda> <yadda> THEREFORE there is no god".

 

[The Sparrow]

With defenders like this Hawking sure didn't need any enemies. You have basically accused him of begging the question.

ie: "IF there is no god THEN <yadda> <yadda> <yadda> THEREFORE there is no god".

Nonsense. Hawking is not setting out to disprove god, he is setting out to determine information about the universe.
His findings cause a conflict with the most popular western versions of god.

Can you address the contradiction I clearly spelled out or are you going to also just dance around it?

Here it is again.

How do we resolve
"God is the creator of the universe"
with
"The universe did not require a creator"

 

[TragicMonkey]

Ugh. Back to this again. Still not answered.
If a particular god BY DEFINITION is "the creator of the universe" and Hawking says the universe "did not have a creator",

What conclusion can Hawking reach?

How do we resolve
"God is the creator of the universe"
with
"The universe did not require a creator"

Goats do not have the attribute the "creator of the universe" so Hawking' statement does not apply to goats, nor to gods who's attributes do not include "creator of the universe".

I disagree with the implication that a being could exist with sufficient powers and sagacity to create the universe but be unable to conceal its work from humans, either intentionally or not.

Secondly, 'does not require' is not the same as 'did not have'.

I'm not saying there are gods or that anything created the universe, I'm only saying that not finding evidence of creation is not the same as proving there are no gods. There is no need to assume there are any, lacking evidence for them, but that is not the same as disproving them.

I have no reason to believe there's a burglar in my house right now, there has been no noise or anything to suggest there is. That doesn't mean I have proved there are no burglars here. Obviously I will act as if there are no burglars present, as that is the sensible course.

 

[The Sparrow]

I disagree with the implication that a being could exist with sufficient powers and sagacity to create the universe but be unable to conceal its work from humans, either intentionally or not.
...

Ok thanks for at least answering the question.

If I understand you then the way to resolve the contradiction is that god could have created the universe in a way that is undetectable, or in a way that looks just like a naturalistic process.
I would imagine that Hawking does not consider that option as reasonable. That one is perhaps intent on defining god in such a way as to keep him alive in the face of advancing science. Especially when in the past (at least in a christian sense) he has had no issue with making himself VERY known.

I will agree that it is pretty much impossible to disprove a god that acts in undetectable ways. That being said, I am not sure why one would ever believe in a god.
This pretty much sums up my atheism. Just like for Zeus, or the Kami of shinto, I remain a non believer due to lack of evidence.
Adding the attribute of 'undetectable' to the god gives me no reason to start believing in him.
How does one determine that an undetectable god exists?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Nonsense. Hawking is not setting out to disprove god, he is setting out to determine information about the universe.
His findings cause a conflict with the most popular western versions of god.

Can you address the contradiction I clearly spelled out or are you going to also just dance around it?

Here it is again.

How do we resolve
"God is the creator of the universe"
with
"The universe did not require a creator"

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

You start by asking how do you explain that Hawking used the words "think" and "accept". Further how come he didn't say that "I know that the laws of nature are fixed".
While you are at it, you ask yourself, how this site written by scientists claims the following:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

So how could Hawking draw the conclusion that there is no creator god and this site claim that science can't answer supernatural questions?