Hawking says there are no gods

[qayak]

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.

So philosophy is kinda like cheap porn. It allows you to stay home and pleasure yourself while saving you the real work of getting a real girlfriend.


That explains a lot actually!

 

[theprestige]

So philosophy is kinda like cheap porn. It allows you to stay home and pleasure yourself while saving you the real work of getting a real girlfriend.


That explains a lot actually!

Terrible metaphor. It explains nothing.

Philosophy is an interesting contradiction. It is a rational approach to building a pre-rational framework for reasoning. Philosophy is, in essence, the exploration of axioms and their implications.

Some people seem to have made such a fetish of "science" that they have completely forgotten that all reasoning starts from axioms.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

So philosophy is kinda like cheap porn. It allows you to stay home and pleasure yourself while saving you the real work of getting a real girlfriend.


That explains a lot actually!

And philosphy teaches you that the word "real" is not science. This word is subjective and rests on assumptions. So you are doing porn.

BTW the word "real" can't be observed, seen, touched, tasted, heard or smelled. It is not objective and can't be derived from the methodology of science.
So you believe in something, which is not based on science and only takes place in your brain as subjective.
Try again.

 

[Chanakya]

Is that distinction not merely semantics?

 

[qayak]

I agree in principle, but I'd water to down to Hawking saying he did not detect any evidence of gods in this matter.

Watering it down would be a mistake considering his words.

We have finally found something [the universe] that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in, For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in.
(Hawking)

I think Hawking has a point that theists, and philosophers, are going to find rather tough to refute. The universe didn't have a creator so any god in the universe is a product of the Big Bang and is just as limited by the laws of physics as we, or any other part of the universe. Gods are not possible in this universe.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Is that distinction not merely semantics?

No. it is used by some people to claim that only some humans are really real and others are not really humans.
E.g. to be a real human, you have to be able to care for yourself. If you can't, you might as well die, because you are not a real human.

A more philosophical/scientific claim is this: Only that which can be tested by science is real. The problem is that the sentence itself is not science, since it can't be tested using science.

So no, the word "real" can have actual consequences for how humans treat each other.

 

[qayak]

And philosphy teaches you that the word "real" is not science. This word is subjective and rests on assumptions. So you are doing porn.

BTW the word "real" can't be observed, seen, touched, tasted, heard or smelled. It is not objective and can't be derived from the methodology of science.
So you believe in something, which is not based on science and only takes place in your brain as subjective.
Try again.

A perfect example of amateur philosophy . . . a lot of meaningless words about one word that means nothing to the idea. No wonder science tossed philosophy aside long ago.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

A perfect example of amateur philosophy . . . a lot of meaningless words about one word that means nothing to the idea. No wonder science tossed philosophy aside long ago.

Try using reason, logic and so on. Because there is no kind of reasoning in your answer.
It amounts to nothing but empty words.
Try to reason!!!

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

A perfect example of amateur philosophy . . . a lot of meaningless words about one word that means nothing to the idea. No wonder science tossed philosophy aside long ago.

Your idea is subjective and based on emotions. I.e. you don't like philosophy.

 

[qayak]

No. it is used by some people to claim that only some humans are really real and others are not really humans.
E.g. to be a real human, you have to be able to care for yourself. If you can't, you might as well die, because you are not a real human.]/QUOTE]

I never said "really real" just real. You know, like the distinction between the real Mona Lisa and a knock off. I would love you to tell a collector that the knock off is real if he just changes his assumptions.

A more philosophical/scientific claim is this: Only that which can be tested by science is real. The problem is that the sentence itself is not science, since it can't be tested using science.

Error of logic. "Testing a sentence" has the same meaning as "testing a language" because sentences only exist in the language they come from. Languages are meant to express and exchange ideas between speakers. So in fact there are at least two ways to test the sentence. You can do a study to see if the speakers of the language understand the idea being exchanged and you can do a test to see if the idea the sentence is expressing is true.

So no, the word "real" can have actual consequences for how humans treat each other.

All words can and that is the point of them. So I guess we tested that.

 

[psionl0]

I think Hawking has a point that theists, and philosophers, are going to find rather tough to refute. The universe didn't have a creator so any god in the universe is a product of the Big Bang and is just as limited by the laws of physics as we, or any other part of the universe. Gods are not possible in this universe.

If you are going to prove that gods are not possible in this universe then you can't do so by assuming that God didn't create the universe. That's circular reasoning.

 

[qayak]

Your idea is subjective and based on emotions. I.e. you don't like philosophy.

Definitely subjective but not based on emotion, based on the idea expressed on a discussion forum being open to refutation.

I like the part where you claim to be psychic though.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I never said "really real" just real. You know, like the distinction between the real Mona Lisa and a knock off. I would love you to tell a collector that the knock off is real if he just changes his assumptions.



Error of logic. "Testing a sentence" has the same meaning as "testing a language" because sentences only exist in the language they come from. Languages are meant to express and exchange ideas between speakers. So in fact there are at least two ways to test the sentence. You can do a study to see if the speakers of the language understand the idea being exchanged and you can do a test to see if the idea the sentence is expressing is true.



All words can and that is the point of them. So I guess we tested that.

There is no just one kind of truth.
There is scientific truth; e.g. gravity or rather the law of gravity.
There is logical truth; e.g. correct deduction.
There is no objective, scientific and logical truth possible, because it is subjective; e.g. I hold humans to be scared.

The way you used real was in the last sense. You made an evaluation of subjective worth/value.
The way you used the word real can't be derived from science nor logic. It is subjective and dependent on how you feel.

It is an assumption if you like. Now it is real that you feel that way, but that doesn't mean that I feel the same about philosophy.
That is what you don't understand; you are being subjective and using emotions/feelings. Hence the way you used the word "real" was not derived from science nor logic.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Definitely subjective but not based on emotion, based on the idea expressed on a discussion forum being open to refutation.

I like the part where you claim to be psychic though.

It is telling that you use That is an emotion. So now present evidence for the fact that your usage of real above had nothing to do with emotions. You linked it to cheap porn. That is evoking an emotion. So too is real work and real girlfriend. It is an emotional evaluation.

Try again and this time don't use or what ever. Use reasoning and logic.

 

[qayak]

If you are going to prove that gods are not possible in this universe then you can't do so by assuming that God didn't create the universe. That's circular reasoning.

No one assumed they didn't, Hawking offered up a point about the laws of the universe and showed that there could be no god prior to the Big Bang.

The issue you are having is with the understanding of the laws of physics. When Hawking first made this claim back in the 1980's religions changed their tack and started claiming their god existed outside of time. Outside of time means outside the universe with no ability to interact with the universe without violating the laws of it. The laws of physics allow for this universe but nothing else.

 

[qayak]

It is telling that you use That is an emotion. So now present evidence for the fact that your usage of real above had nothing to do with emotions. You linked it to cheap porn. That is evoking an emotion. So too is real work and real girlfriend. It is an emotional evaluation.

Try again and this time don't use or what ever. Use reasoning and logic.

I'll take "Philosophical Word Salad" for 1000, Pat!

 

[qayak]

There is no just one kind of truth.
There is scientific truth; e.g. gravity or rather the law of gravity.
There is logical truth; e.g. correct deduction.
There is no objective, scientific and logical truth possible, because it is subjective; e.g. I hold humans to be scared.

The way you used real was in the last sense. You made an evaluation of subjective worth/value.

No, clearly you misunderstood my meaning. I was not evaluating girlfriends, I was simply saying that blow up dolls are not "real" girlfriends. A girlfriend by definition must be a female human being that you are in a relationship with. I thought that was clear when I mentioned the work.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No, clearly you misunderstood my meaning. I was not evaluating girlfriends, I was simply saying that blow up dolls are not "real" girlfriends. A girlfriend by definition must be a female human being that you are in a relationship with. I thought that was clear when I mentioned the work.

And what does philosophy have to do with blow up dolls???
Remember no emotions. No - I don't like philosophy.
Without any emotions what does philosophy have to do with blow up dolls???

 

[psionl0]

No one assumed they didn't,

Come off it! It's the first statement of yours in the post I quoted: "The universe didn't have a creator so . . . ".

Hawking started off with a similar premise: "I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science,"

The issue you are having is with the understanding of the laws of physics.

That seems to be more your problem. Even if I assume that you understand quantum mechanics, you are still unaware of the limitations of our current scientific knowledge.

 

[The Sparrow]

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 ???

Ok I got it now, sorry, sometimes I am a bit dense.

Though it seems to me then, that the existence of the universe CANNOT be evidence FOR or against the existence of god because we cannot tell the difference between:
a) god created the universe in such a way that happens to look like it was not created by god.
and
b) the universe was not created by god.