Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Sparrow said:
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.
Click to expand...

Evidence please for the existence of the universe, if you mean that you are in a real universe. Or do you accept that the existence of the universe is a core assumption for which no evidence can be given?
 
Dr. Keith said:
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.
Click to expand...
"Undetectable" is indistinguishable from "doesn't exist".
 
Thor 2 said:
Huh? :confused::confused::confused:
Click to expand...

"Undetectable" could also be unknown, but this doesn't mean non-existent.
It is unknown what is before the Big Bang.

We live in time and we need time to know, so we can't know if something can exist without time and we can't test it, because we need time. Thus it is unknown, but doesn't lead to non-existence, unless you assume that all forms of existence require time. But that is not possible to test, thus to claim that all forms of existence require time, is not a scientifically testable claim.

Science is based on a set of assumptions, which can't be tested.
E.g. the cosmological principle.
 
qayak said:
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!
Click to expand...
Well said! Philosophy is porn for brain-wanking. I like it!
 
ynot said:
Well said! Philosophy is porn for brain-wanking. I like it!
Click to expand...

And there qayak, you see, that it is connected to emotions.

I accept that you emotions. Now I like brain-wanking. Now only using science show that it is wrong to like brain-wanking, besides any emotions you might have.

Come on. No liking or don't like. Only reason, logic and so on.
 
TragicMonkey said:
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'!
Click to expand...
It is not my belief that is rigid it's the religions you mention themselves that have rigid definitions. The RCC is quite clear as to the nature, the description, the definition of its divine god. You seem to be confusing theology with doctrine. Some theology of course ends up as doctrine but not much and it (in the case of the RC at least) can easily take a century or so to make it from theology to doctrine. (Unless a king wishes to be rid of a wife he no longer wants, then it can move from theology to burning at the stake doctrine in a matter of months. )
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
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.
Click to expand...
And around the mulberry bush we go again...
 
Darat said:
And around the mulberry bush we go again...
Click to expand...

Please restate your argument and back it up with reasoning.

To state that scientists can make a model of a human doing ethics, doesn't mean that scientists can do ethics.
"Scientists can make a model of a human doing ethics"
is not the same as
"scientists can do ethics".

Now explain what I get wrong.

And please explain this:
Science doesn't make moral judgments
Click to expand...
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
 
Darat said:
It is not my belief that is rigid it's the religions you mention themselves that have rigid definitions. The RCC is quite clear as to the nature, the description, the definition of its divine god. You seem to be confusing theology with doctrine. Some theology of course ends up as doctrine but not much and it (in the case of the RC at least) can easily take a century or so to make it from theology to doctrine. (Unless a king wishes to be rid of a wife he no longer wants, then it can move from theology to burning at the stake doctrine in a matter of months. )
Click to expand...

I shall quickly alert the Trappists to let them know that Thomas Merton wasn't a Catholic!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom