Hawking says there are no gods

[theprestige]

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

The two statements aren 't actually contradictory, so resolving them is not strictly necessary.

On the other hand, the two statements aren't actually scrutable to science anyway, so resolving them is not really possible.

 

[Darat]

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'.


I didn't say that. I'm the one arguing he can't 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.

Er no it is the vast majority of believers that say they believe in a god that say they can (and oh how they do) assert the nature of the divine. Can't think of one of the organized religions that doesn't assert the nature of the divine. Be interested to know of one that doesn't. (Genuinely as it would be interesting.)

 

[Darat]

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.

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
On a cold and frosty morning.


Hopefully you will get my point sooner or later.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Er no it is the vast majority of believers that say they believe in a god that say they can (and oh how they do) assert the nature of the divine. Can't think of one of the organized religions that doesn't assert the nature of the divine. Be interested to know of one that doesn't. (Genuinely as it would be interesting.)

Here is one that is close if not in fact one.
https://www.uua.org/

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Here we go round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush.
Here we go round the mulberry bush
On a cold and frosty morning.


Hopefully you will get my point sooner or later.

Yes, I get your point. You believe that describing something is the same as doing it. It is not.
To describe in scientific terms a human eating food is not the same as eating.
To describe in scientific terms a human doing ethics is not the same as doing ethics.

I get you! You think that if science can describe something, what is being described is science/scientific itself. That is not the case. If it were then a scientist describing religion, would mean that religion is science.

 

[Darat]

For my part I can't understand why you seem to believe reality operates by majority consensus.

And I've no idea what that has to do with anything I have posted.

Either the divine exists or it doesn't, and whichever it is has nothing to do with how many people agree with either position.

I'm assuming you are using the word divine the way say a RC would to mean their god? If so then I agree with you.

Likewise the nature of the divine is not settled by majority opinion.

Again if you are using the word divine like a RC does to talk about their god then I agree.

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 I've never said you did. I am just wondering why you wish to discuss something you have no definition for when there are plenty of gods that we can discuss sensible because those that believe in those gods have been kind enough to tell us what those gods are.

All you seem to be saying is "something could exist, I don't know what that it is, I don't know what properties it may have but it could exist". Which of course is quite true, the problem of course is that such a definition of "divine" has nothing to do with anything anybody actually believes in.

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.

What cartoon caricature are you talking about? I've not brought into the conversations the actual official definitions of gods the likes of the RCC has.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Er no it is the vast majority of believers that say they believe in a god that say they can (and oh how they do) assert the nature of the divine. Can't think of one of the organized religions that doesn't assert the nature of the divine.

A lot of people think the phases of the moon are caused by the earth's shadow. Doesn't make them right. The religious are no more authorities on the nature of the divine than the nonreligious.

Be interested to know of one that doesn't. (Genuinely as it would be interesting.)

Then I'll start you off with a familiar one. Christianity. Look up 'The Cloud of Unknowing'. Every Christian church from Coptic to Nestorian, and every Christian theology from Chalcedonian to Marcionism has a mystical tradition. And oddly enough most of them eventually veer around to the same ideas, which are also found in completely different religions like Gnosticism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and even Islam.

Religions may be completely wrong about absolutely everything but they are interesting things to study!

 

[Darat]

Yes, I get your point. You believe that describing something is the same as doing it. It is not.
To describe in scientific terms a human eating food is not the same as eating.
To describe in scientific terms a human doing ethics is not the same as doing ethics.

I get you! You think that if science can describe something, what is being described is science/scientific itself. That is not the case. If it were then a scientist describing religion, would mean that religion is science.

No you don't get my point. My point is that all you will be doing is going to go around the mulberry bush again and nothing will change and, it's boring to do so.

 

[The Sparrow]

Perhaps if the OP/Hawking had stated
There is no detectable god that leaves evidence of his actions behind?

Not sure why we would create a set of things called "supernatural" and then attempt to add members to the set?

I concede we cant rule out undetectable gods.
I also concede we cant rule out invisible weightless silent unicorns.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And I've no idea what that has to do with anything I have posted.


I'm assuming you are using the word divine the way say a RC would to mean their god? If so then I agree with you.



Again if you are using the word divine like a RC does to talk about their god then I agree.



And I've never said you did. I am just wondering why you wish to discuss something you have no definition for when there are plenty of gods that we can discuss sensible because those that believe in those gods have been kind enough to tell us what those gods are.

All you seem to be saying is "something could exist, I don't know what that it is, I don't know what properties it may have but it could exist". Which of course is quite true, the problem of course is that such a definition of "divine" has nothing to do with anything anybody actually believes in.



What cartoon caricature are you talking about? I've not brought into the conversations the actual official definitions of gods the likes of the RCC has.

See my later post. The belief in gods is a lot less rigid than you think it is. It's not science so everyone doesn't start by agreeing on a definition. What god/s are like is a question religions and philosophies have been debating since prehistory, there's not a single 'Religion Side' to be argued against on behalf of the 'Science Side'!

 

[psionl0]

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.

Hawking was arguing that currently known laws can explain the origins of the universe without the need for a god. He goes so far as to say that he believes that the laws of nature are fixed so there is no room for a god. You paraphrased that in a "begging the question" format.

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 don't see a contradiction here. A child might not need a baby sitter but that doesn't mean that the parents didn't employ one before going out.

 

[The Sparrow]

...
I don't see a contradiction here. A child might not need a baby sitter but that doesn't mean that the parents didn't employ one before going out.

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying god DID create the universe or not?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Perhaps if the OP/Hawking had stated
There is no detectable god that leaves evidence of his actions behind?

Not sure why we would create a set of things called "supernatural" and then attempt to add members to the set?

I concede we cant rule out undetectable gods.
I also concede we cant rule out invisible weightless silent unicorns.

I agree in principle, but I'd water to down to Hawking saying he did not detect any evidence of gods in this matter. That leaves open the possibility that future research might be able to detect more than he could with technological and theoretical advances. I'd hate to be the one to announce an official disproving of gods the day before the god-detector was invented and found some!

 

[The Sparrow]

How can any attributes be known about an undetectable god? Including its existence?
How does philosophy provide any utility in answering these questions if it can not establish any premises?

 

[The Sparrow]

I agree in principle, but I'd water to down to Hawking saying he did not detect any evidence of gods in this matter. That leaves open the possibility that future research might be able to detect more than he could with technological and theoretical advances.

I can live with that

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No you don't get my point. My point is that all you will be doing is going to go around the mulberry bush again and nothing will change and, it's boring to do so.

Some people use words in a way that doesn't match the universe. I get it!

You use the words "describe" and "model" in such a way. That scientists can make a model of weather, doesn't mean that the model is weather.
You don't understand that describing and modeling is not always the same as that which is described and modeled.
To describe and model ethics is not the same as doing ethics.

Now start using reason, logic and so on, Darat.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

How can any attributes be known about an undetectable god? Including its existence?
How does philosophy provide any utility in answering these questions if it can not establish any premises?

Okay, philosophy can teach you than in practice there is no one universal, objective and absolute set of pre-determined premises, when it comes to what matters to humans and that includes religion, but is not limited to religion. It is possible to have different sets of premises, which are not contradictory.

More can follow, if you want.

 

[TragicMonkey]

How can any attributes be known about an undetectable god? Including its existence?
How does philosophy provide any utility in answering these questions if it can not establish any premises?

Philosophy establishes premises. They're just not scientific ones. And different philosophies disagree on their premises. And there's never really a way to conclusively prove anything. These characteristics may explain why philosophy lacks the appeal of science for many people. But it's good exercise and offers lovely views.

 

[theprestige]

How can any attributes be known about an undetectable god? Including its existence?
How does philosophy provide any utility in answering these questions if it can not establish any premises?

You had me at "how does philosophy provide any utility?"

 

[psionl0]

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying god DID create the universe or not?

What's not to understand? I am not making a claim either way.

Even if we accept that the universe can spring into existence without the need of a god, that doesn't prove that no god was involved in its creation.

It's simple logic. The truth or falsity of a conditional statement says nothing about the truth or falsity of its converse.

P ==> Q doesn't mean that ~P ==> ~Q

IF a god is needed to create the universe THEN God created the universe.
IF no god is needed to create the universe THEN ???