Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
ynot said:
Also - practically, factually, logically, scientifically, rationally, actually, yes.


So - non-functionally, non-practically, non-logically, non-scientifically, non-rationally, non-actually, no.


Yep. Brain-wanking for egotistical pleasure.
Click to expand...

Now show how that is wrong or what ever.
You know "Yep. Brain-wanking for egotistical pleasure, therefore..."
What follows, ynot?
 
ynot said:
Those that regularly claim "I'm an atheist, I'm a sceptic, I'm using logic, I'm not being emotional, I'm open minded, I'm doing science, etc (read the posts) . . . well . . . usually just aren't.

Sometime you just have to give up trying with some people.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I am emotional, for e.g. that I hold humans to be scared is an emotion and when I do that I am doing science.

So are you doing science and not emotional, when you write this:
Well said! Philosophy is porn for brain-wanking. I like it!
Click to expand...
Further were you skeptical, using logic, being open-minded?
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
"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.
Click to expand...


So why didn't you say that before instead of "please explain".*

Many things are unknown and the logical default position is they don't exist. Whether they are orbiting teapots, green unicorns in the garden, or garage dwelling dragons.

* The words "please explain" have a special meaning in Australian culture. They were uttered by a certain racist and comprehensively ignorant person, who was not familiar with the word xenophobic.
 
Last edited:
Thor 2 said:
So why didn't you say that before instead of "please explain".*

Many things are unknown and the logical default position is they don't exist. Whether they are orbiting teapots, green unicorns in the garden, or garage dwelling dragons.
Click to expand...

But what is inside the universe is not the same as what is outside the universe.

We can test inside the universe, but we can't test outside the universe or rather outside time.

The logical default position is if something is unknown it can't be know if it exists or not.
To say something exist or not, you must know.
 
Thor 2 said:
I assume this is being said in Jest. Otherwise your inability to see the point has reached a hitherto unknown level.: D
Click to expand...

What was the point? That some Australian racist used a commonplace phrase once, and now the rest of us have to remember that and not use the phrase ever because it triggers Australians?

Please explain how you imagine that is supposed to work.
 
Thor 2 said:
Many things are unknown nd the logical default position is they don't exist. Whether they are orbiting teapots, green unicorns in the garden, or garage dwelling dragons.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It’s not a matter of assuming undetectable/unknown things exist or not (especially as if the odds were 50/50). It’s a matter of not assuming/concluding undetectable/unknown things do (or even could) exist until there is some credible evidence that they actually do. The logical and honest default position is not to assume undetectable/unknown things do or even could exist.
 
Last edited:
Thor 2 said:
I assume this is being said in Jest. Otherwise your inability to see the point has reached a hitherto unknown level.:D
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
What was the point? That some Australian racist used a commonplace phrase once, and now the rest of us have to remember that and not use the phrase ever because it triggers Australians?

Please explain how you imagine that is supposed to work.
Click to expand...


Alas, my second explanation seems to be the case. :boggled:

My "please explain" thing was a footnote that I thought some would find amusing - and then did.

Would you like me to write this in Thai or Swedish, (Only other languages I have some knowledge of unfortunately), for your benefit?
 
TragicMonkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's almost right. It is, as you say, entirely possible that there is no time before t=0. It's also possible that there is. Hawking has a model in which there is nothing before the big bang, but there are other possibilities and at the moment we really don't know.
 
From *my* limited understanding about physics, I have to say : Is any of this, about time and everything, actually true?

I know in QM the theories merely spell out the underlying math, and have little "meaning" qua explanations. Copenhagen interpretation and everthing.

This is cosmology, the exact inverse of QM (at least in terms of magnitude). Is it actually supposed to provide explanations, as far as time for instance, or is this also only about math and predictions (but not explanations as such)?
 
Last edited:
Whatever is "out" there or "in" us exists whether we believe it or not. Until we can reach our toes as infants we are unaware that we have toes.
 
Oh dear, the thread's moving too fast for my allotted forum time. Sorry.

David Mo said:
What observable evidence scientifically shows that gods don't exist? Where is published? A particular example of scientific journal, please.
Click to expand...

How many of you don't understand what I'm talking about? My posts are invisible because people can't take a step back and look at the problem in a different way.

Do you want me to do a literature search on the history of god beliefs?

What evidence best explains god beliefs and what does it say about god beliefs?

There is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are 100% human generated myths. Like Zeus, Neptune, and Péle, gods are part our storytelling.

In no case whatsoever is there evidence humans once walked with gods. In no case has an explanation for natural phenomena required gods.

You can keep insisting all you want, "We can never let go of god beliefs because one can't prove the negative."

I don't have to do that. Once all god beliefs are determined to be human generated myths, there's no evidence left to contemplate, or search out, or prove the non-existence of.

Gods are mythical. All gods are mythical. To suggest otherwise requires evidence for, not evidence against.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
I beg your pardon. I can show thousand of scientific journals about extint species. In what scientific journal is published those "tousand years of evidence" about god? A specific answer, please.
Click to expand...
You are looking in the wrong sciences.

It's not biology except maybe god delusions in mental illness.

Try searching the literature for god beliefs and the meaning of god stories and god rituals in [fill in the culture and time frame].

Look up the Cargo cults.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom