Hawking says there are no gods

[Tommy Jeppesen]

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?

How does one determine that an undetectable god exists? You don't!!!
You either believe in one or not. But what does reason have to do with that?
I would like an answer to that. I am honestly questioning how your reasoning determines/causes there not to be a god?

I reason that there is no god, seems to imply that my reasoning determines/causes there to be no god and that further how I think/reason can cause/determine how the universe is?!!
Do you think, that how you think/reason is the cause of how the universe is?

 

[Darat]

Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush

 

[Roboramma]

Here it is again.

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

We don't actually know anything about the universe at t=0 and before. We don't know that there was a before, but we also don't know that there wasn't.

 

[TragicMonkey]

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?

Some of the Greeks tried pure reason to posit the 'Unmoved Mover' sort of deity, and much later the Rationalists did the same. For something like the Tao or Gnosticism the approach was through mysticism. Neither approach is scientific, but that's my point: the existence of the divine is an inherently unscientific question, so a scientific approach is useless. A mystic doesn't want or need scientific proof of gods any more than a scientist wants or needs mystical proof of scientific facts.

Every question has an appropriate arena. I don't ask my lawyer for programming tips, I don't ask my pool boy for legal advice, I don't ask a physicist for theological ideas, and I don't ask a mystic for an explanation of how gravity works. Well, actually I do because the answers are funnier, but I don't accept them as authoritative.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush

Science can describe how you eat. So here is a test for you. You are not allowed to eat in any manner, you are only allowed to read about the science of eating as it connects to medicine and biology. Now do this test and get back to us in a year.

Your claim that science can describe ethics, doesn't mean that science can do ethics in the same manner as science can describe eating is not the same as eating.

So your claim fails in the following manner: Everything in the universe is not just the process of describing, humans do other things than describing, and while science is a human process/behavior, it is not the only one and you can't live only be doing science.

 

[TragicMonkey]

We don't actually know anything about the universe at t=0 and before. We don't know that there was a before, but we also don't know that there wasn't.

From the little I grasp of the physics, that's the wrong question. Since time itself is involved there was no 'before'. It's natural to us to think of time as always being around, like a space for events to happen in in order, but in this kind of physics time is one of the actors and not the stage on which the other actors act. So Hawking et all are quite plausible when they find no need for divine involvement, as there is nothing yet observed or theorized that suggests or requires it. Not even time as brain-straining as it is to think about.

 

[Darat]

Science can describe how you eat. So here is a test for you. You are not allowed to eat in any manner, you are only allowed to read about the science of eating as it connects to medicine and biology. Now do this test and get back to us in a year.

Your claim that science can describe ethics, doesn't mean that science can do ethics in the same manner as science can describe eating is not the same as eating.

So your claim fails in the following manner: Everything in the universe is not just the process of describing, humans do other things than describing, and while science is a human process/behavior, it is not the only one and you can't live only be doing science.

The mulberry bush,

 

[Darat]

Some of the Greeks tried pure reason to posit the 'Unmoved Mover' sort of deity, and much later the Rationalists did the same. For something like the Tao or Gnosticism the approach was through mysticism. Neither approach is scientific, but that's my point: the existence of the divine is an inherently unscientific question, so a scientific approach is useless. A mystic doesn't want or need scientific proof of gods any more than a scientist wants or needs mystical proof of scientific facts.
...snip...

Way too much of a sweeping generalisation and ignores the vast majority of believers in the world who believe in a god.

I struggle to understand why folk keep wanting talk about "god/s" that people don't actually believe in (or at the very best a very tiny percentage of the world's population who claim to believe in a god or gods believe in)?

What's wrong with discussing the gods that people say do exist or historically claimed did exist?

These aren't vague gods, these are gods some religions have spent literally millenia defining and describing and believing in.

 

[Darat]

Ethics isn't meant to describe how people do behave, it's meant to show them how they ought to behave.

And does it work?

 

[The Sparrow]

How does one determine that an undetectable god exists? You don't!!!
You either believe in one or not.

What reason would I have to believe in one?

But what does reason have to do with that?
I would like an answer to that. I am honestly questioning how your reasoning determines/causes there not to be a god?

My reasoning tool does not affect whether god actually exists, it affects whether I believe or accept god exists.
If god is undetectable, why should I believe he exists? Why should I not believe 300 gods exist? Why should I not believe invisible undetectable unicorns exist?

I reason that there is no god, seems to imply that my reasoning determines/causes there to be no god

Absolutely not.

and that further how I think/reason can cause/determine how the universe is?!!
Do you think, that how you think/reason is the cause of how the universe is?

Absolutely not. Not sure where you are getting all this.
Hawking seems to be saying he sees no evidence of gods actions therefore HE concludes there are no gods.
His conclusion does not somehow "kill" god suddenly (if he exists)

 

[The Sparrow]

Some of the Greeks tried pure reason to posit the 'Unmoved Mover' sort of deity, and much later the Rationalists did the same. For something like the Tao or Gnosticism the approach was through mysticism. Neither approach is scientific, but that's my point: the existence of the divine is an inherently unscientific question, so a scientific approach is useless. A mystic doesn't want or need scientific proof of gods any more than a scientist wants or needs mystical proof of scientific facts.

This statement is only true if the divine is by its nature undetectable or deliberately hiding.
If he is detectable (why is this so absurd a concept) then he falls into the domain of science.

Every question has an appropriate arena. I don't ask my lawyer for programming tips, I don't ask my pool boy for legal advice, I don't ask a physicist for theological ideas, and I don't ask a mystic for an explanation of how gravity works. Well, actually I do because the answers are funnier, but I don't accept them as authoritative.

So god is absolutely by definition undetectable? How did you determine this?

 

[Dancing David]

Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush

Define Mulberry Bush!

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

The mulberry bush,

I like that you use effectively emotions and not reason, logic, evidence and so on. It confirms that you are a human, who do other things than science. And thus that science can describe what you do, is not the same as you doing it. Your answer is not science, Darat.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Way too much of a sweeping generalisation and ignores the vast majority of believers in the world who believe in a god.

I struggle to understand why folk keep wanting talk about "god/s" that people don't actually believe in (or at the very best a very tiny percentage of the world's population who claim to believe in a god or gods believe in)?

What's wrong with discussing the gods that people say do exist or historically claimed did exist?

These aren't vague gods, these are gods some religions have spent literally millenia defining and describing and believing in.

For my part I can't understand why you seem to believe reality operates by majority consensus. Either the divine exists or it doesn't, and whichever it is has nothing to do with how many people agree with either position. Likewise the nature of the divine is not settled by majority opinion. Just because you can't credit anybody believing in a divinity that's not your notion of a cartoon caricature of this century's Semitic god most popular with the peasantry doesn't mean I have to argue on behalf of that particular theology.

And if you think that cartoon caricature is an accurate reflection of Christian theology past or present then your education is sadly limited. There are much more sophisticated views than you realize.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

What reason would I have to believe in one?

...

None, as long as you accept it doesn't tell us if there is such a god. It only tells us that you don't believe in such a god.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

There are versions of deism, which can be held by an atheist without turning it into theism. In other words it is possible to believe in a natural god, who created this universe and there is no Heaven, souls and what not.

 

[Dr. Keith]

So god is absolutely by definition undetectable? How did you determine this?

I think his actual point is that there is no way to rule out an undetectable god, but there is also no need to worship an undetectable god and, in fact, it would be silly to worship an undetectable god.

Or to put it another way: Science has pushed gods so far out of the room that there are no substantial gaps for them anymore. Such that any gods filling the remaining minor gaps are not worth considering in the daily lives of humans.

When gods controlled the weather there was a reason for prayer. But, when gods have to exist completely outside of the known universe, then that reason is gone. Whether the gods are or not.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And does it work?

That's a matter of philosophical debate, of course. Again, if your expecting absolute 'final answers', settled and done, you're looking in the wrong garden. Philosophy doesn't give you that. Science might, although it makes no promises and all conclusions are tentative and presumptive no contrary further evidence surfaces.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I think his actual point is that there is no way to rule out an undetectable god, but there is also no need to worship an undetectable god and, in fact, it would be silly to worship an undetectable god.

Or to put it another way: Science has pushed gods so far out of the room that there are no substantial gaps for them anymore. Such that any gods filling the remaining minor gaps is not worth considering in the daily lives of humans.

When gods controlled the weather there was a reason for prayer. But, when gods have to exist completely outside of the known universe, then that reason is gone. Whether the gods are or not.

Not quite. You can believe in a deism god which makes it certain as a feeling/belief that you are not a Boltzmann Brain.
I am an atheist, but in effect I believe in such a god. This god created the universe as it appears and there are no Heaven, souls and so on (to me as how I believe.)

 

[TragicMonkey]

This statement is only true if the divine is by its nature undetectable or deliberately hiding.
If he is detectable (why is this so absurd a concept) then he falls into the domain of science.

If a divine action is detectable by scientific means, then yes, I'll agree you could scientifically prove a divinity. But the inverse is not true; failure to scientifically detect divine action doesn't disprove divinity, at most it can conclude 'there is no evidence found to suggest there is divinity'.

So god is absolutely by definition undetectable? How did you determine this?

I didn't say that. I'm the one arguing he can't/I] assert the nature or qualities of the divine. You're the one insisting you can. I'm merely stating that undetectability is one of the theoretical possibilities, should the divine exist.

 

[theprestige]

The moral values have not been arrived at scientifically, they are like the temperature of a spring day. It isn't warm or cold, it just is. The measure of the temperature is scientific and whether it is warm or cool is decided by the context. Same with certain moral values. All cultures believe killing is wrong. Science can put a value on the specific act and then each culture decides if it is good or bad based on the context.

This is exactly the derived-from-assumptions crap I said I wasn't interested in.

The question is whether science can inform the foundational ethical assumptions that everything else is derived from. We agree that science can inform the derivation. I understood your claim to be that science can also inform the base ethical assumptions themselves.

I now see that I misunderstood your claim, and that science has not actually established a new ethical basis.

Please tell me you don't think we are talking about my personal ethics here? How can we hold a discussion when you can't even sort out the subject?

Your ethics seemed like as good a place to start as any. I'm assuming that you've reasoned from some general ideas about ethics to a specific ethical application that works for you. Since this discussion is in part a discussion of reasoning about ethics, I expected your reasoning about your own ethics to be a helpful example for discussion. Certainly more helpful than your reasoning about thermometers.