Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chanakya said:
As I was saying in my post just preceding, addressed to you (that would be post #539 -- thread's moving fast!), unless I misunderstand you when you say this, that's not quite what I meant.

I was wondering if it's correct -- even if/when this is true -- to translate the math into everyday thinking, and say/think that time actually 'began' at some point.
Click to expand...

No, i don't think it's correct to say that time began at t=0, even if it turns out that there is no time before t=0. But that's just a semantic issue, really.
 
Roboramma said:
The problem with "time began" is that the language suggests a process there. If, as Hawking suggests, there is no past-boundary then it's not that there was "a situation where there was no time", it's just that the universe's temporal extent is finite. It's really not much different from a universe whose spacial extent is finite but unbounded. For instance a universe that curved back on itself so that if you travelled far enough in one direction you'd end up back where you started.

This is not a problem of translating math to the real world: to whatever extent the math means anything it must be talking about something real.

As to the Copenhagen Interpretation, it doesn't directly apply here but I see why you bring up Bohr's philosophical position. I am not a fan, to be honest.
Click to expand...

Now explain how scientists can test that and get it outside theoretical physics. It is a fact that Hawking could think it(theoretical physical math), but that doesn't make it a fact.
 
Chanakya said:
I guess. It is my understanding -- and I may be wrong, because I'm not a scientist, and don't actually do science -- that if you set out to 'prove' God's existence, by conducting experiments or whatever, then that is when your n=0 reads 'there's no God', which via your experiments you seek to disprove.

But it would be an error in reasoning to assume that, generally speaking, 'there's no God' is necessarily the default position always. It isn't.

That is why, generally speaking, soft atheism makes sense, and hard atheism isn't logical, isn't reasonable. (Although hard atheism may work for some specific God claims.)

Surprisingly, many atheists seem to make this error, and veer unthinkingly towards hard atheism.
Click to expand...


Are you a hard or a soft apotterist? How do you feel about the existence of Hogwarts?
 
3point14 said:
Are you a hard or a soft apotterist? How do you feel about the existence of Hogwarts?
Click to expand...

The analogy doesn't work.
A creator god is not the same as Hogwarts.
A creator god is not a part of the universe in the same sense as Hogwarts would be, that is how the analogy fails.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
The analogy doesn't work.
A creator god is not the same as Hogwarts.
A creator god is not a part of the universe in the same sense as Hogwarts would be, that is how the analogy fails.
Click to expand...

Both are fictional characters invented by human beings. The properties of such beings aren't really relevant to my point.

There is no need to quibble about how certain one is about the existence of a character invented by a human being. The same debate can be had about the existence of, say, the fictional character Superman than can be had about any fictional character labelled 'god'

I really don't feel the need to apply any more thought to dismissing god as I do dismissing Mickey Mouse. There's exactly the same evidence for both.

Nobody is a 'soft amickeyist'. There's no need to be a soft atheist either.
 
3point14 said:
Nobody is a 'soft amickeyist'. There's no need to be a soft atheist either.
Click to expand...

There's really no need for a lot of things. For almost everyone, almost all the time, there's no need to know that the Earth is round, nor that it orbits the Sun.

There's no need to be a soft atheist. It is, however, the rational thing to do.
 
theprestige said:
There's really no need for a lot of things. For almost everyone, almost all the time, there's no need to know that the Earth is round, nor that it orbits the Sun.

There's no need to be a soft atheist. It is, however, the rational thing to do.
Click to expand...


It follows then that the rational thing to do is to assert one's uncertainty regarding the non-existence of every other fictional character ever created by man.

Which is just absurd.
 
theprestige said:
There's no need to be a soft atheist. It is, however, the rational thing to do.
Click to expand...


How is it rational to seriously consider god to be real?


Anyone who seriously thinks Harry Potter might be real would be nuts.


Edit: Oops, same as ninja 3point14.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
You're conflating burden of proof and standards of evidence.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not.

You're applying special pleading to the fictional entity (entities) called 'god'.

'God' is a fictional character. We need apply no more nor less rigour to investigating his existence than we do to the existence of Fred Flintstone.

EDIT: That is, of course, unless you accept that the logical thing to do is sit on the fence regarding the existence of Fred, in which case you're being logically consistent.
 
Last edited:
3point14 said:
Both are fictional characters invented by human beings. The properties of such beings aren't really relevant to my point.

There is no need to quibble about how certain one is about the existence of a character invented by a human being. The same debate can be had about the existence of, say, the fictional character Superman than can be had about any fictional character labelled 'god'

I really don't feel the need to apply any more thought to dismissing god as I do dismissing Mickey Mouse. There's exactly the same evidence for both.

Nobody is a 'soft amickeyist'. There's no need to be a soft atheist either.
Click to expand...
You really need to stop comparing a popular belief with an author's creation. There is no similarity between them
 
psionl0 said:
You really need to stop comparing a popular belief with an author's creation. There is no similarity between them
Click to expand...

Why do you think the fictional character 'god' requires any more mental gymnastics than any other fictional character?

What, for you, separates out 'god' as worthy of any more thought given that the entity only exists in the writings of man. Just like Harry Potter or Clark Kent.

What makes the invention 'god' worthy of any less doubt than, for instance Xenu?
 
Last edited:
It would be really cool if Harry or Clark were real, but if god were real...

Whoopee AFTERLIFE!!!

Money talks. It's the huge (possible) payout that makes the difference.
 
psionl0 said:
You really need to stop comparing a popular belief with an author's creation. There is no similarity between them
Click to expand...

There is a great similarity in the evidence for their existence. And the primary source for each comes from a book.
 
Last edited:
3point14 said:
What, for you, separates out 'god' as worthy of any more thought given that the entity only exists in the writings of man. Just like Harry Potter or Clark Kent.
Click to expand...
Unlike J.K Rowling or Siegel/Shuster, nobody is saying "I made God up". (Even Russel didn't claim that his teapot was real).
 
psionl0 said:
Unlike J.K Rowling or Siegel/Shuster, nobody is saying "I made God up". (Even Russel didn't claim that his teapot was real).
Click to expand...


Different gods were made up by different people numerous times into the distant past, what difference does it make that we cannot identify the specific author?
Sounds almost like you are saying people could not have made up god, so the concept of god must have had a godly origin.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom