Hawking says there are no gods

[dann]

I am indifferent to theoretical physics, which can't be tested.
If we don't know, then we don't know.

Theoretical physics can be tested. Some of it hasn't been tested yet. There may be specific theories that we are never able to test, but there are experiments going on every day and new angles for testing these theories are being thought of all the time.

There are some things that we don't know. There are other things that we do know.

And theoretical physics that can't (yet) be tested is usually referred to as hypotheses, which indicates that theoretical physicists are aware of the fact that they are not yet considered to be actual knowledge, but might be.
It's also important that even these hypotheses are deduced from what is already known and considered to be actual, tested knowledge about the world we live in.
The belief in gods isn't.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

And theoretical physics that can't (yet) be tested is usually referred to as hypotheses, which indicates that theoretical physicists are aware of the fact that they are not yet considered to be actual knowledge, but might be.
It's also important that even these hypotheses are deduced from what is already known and considered to be actual, tested knowledge about the world we live in.
The belief in gods isn't.

I learned something new and yes, we agree. Though (yet) is not known to be certain, but I don't think we disagree.

 

[dann]

There are no gods, therefore it is morally wrong to believe in a god/gods.

It has nothing to do with morals. There just are no gods.

 

[dann]

Though (yet) is not known to be certain

No, I only added "(yet)" to emphasize that it would be wrong to claim that they can't be tested at all, but for the time being, some of them can't. And yes, I also think that we agree.

 

[TragicMonkey]

There just are no gods.

Evidence?

 

[Cheetah]

Evidence?

Don't be irrational.

 

[Steve]

Evidence?

The return of CFLarsen!!!

Anyway, the exact same evidence as for the existence of:
- unicorns
- Cthulu
- fairies
- dragons
- centaurs
- Vogons
- etc.

The evidence of existence is the same for each. If you apply that same evidence to the existence of gods you cannot honestly reach a different conclusion. So, in your opinion, does the evidence show that they all exist, or that none of them (including gods) exist?

 

[TragicMonkey]

The return of CFLarsen!!!

Anyway, the exact same evidence as for the existence of:
- unicorns
- Cthulu
- fairies
- dragons
- centaurs
- Vogons
- etc.

The evidence of existence is the same for each. If you apply that same evidence to the existence of gods you cannot honestly reach a different conclusion. So, in your opinion, does the evidence show that they all exist, or that none of them (including gods) exist?

But I'm not making a claim that gods exist. You made a claim they don't. On what evidence do you base that claim? Judging from the above it appears you base your claim on incredulity. That seems to me to be a logical fallacy. Can you support your claim with anything better?

 

[Steve]

But I'm not making a claim that gods exist. You made a claim they don't. On what evidence do you base that claim? Judging from the above it appears you base your claim on incredulity. That seems to me to be a logical fallacy. Can you support your claim with anything better?

Ok I now understand that you have no actual opinion on the existence of gods. Seems you spend a lot of time discussing them anyway. I guess the
debate and/or mental exercise can be satisfying on it's own without actually having an opinion on the topic. That's cool.

I am quite prepared to accept the existence of anything where there is reliable and repeatable physical evidence supporting it. I am also prepared to provisionally accept the existence of some unproven things that are supported by valid scientific hypotheses with supporting data subject to future experimentation. I am not prepared to accept the existence of anything for which there is no evidence presented beyond a person's ideas or convictions or illusions (delusions?) that the thing exists.

You may call this incredulity if you wish. I prefer to call it sanity. I have no real interest in convincing others that my approach is correct. I have ample real world experience to know that no god believer is going to be rationalized into changing their beliefs.

Bottom line - Show me reliable and repeatable evidence and I will accept the existence of gods. Without that they do not exist.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Ok I now understand that you have no actual opinion on the existence of gods. Seems you spend a lot of time discussing them anyway. I guess the
debate and/or mental exercise can be satisfying on it's own without actually having an opinion on the topic. That's cool.

I am quite prepared to accept the existence of anything where there is reliable and repeatable physical evidence supporting it. I am also prepared to provisionally accept the existence of some unproven things that are supported by valid scientific hypotheses with supporting data subject to future experimentation. I am not prepared to accept the existence of anything for which there is no evidence presented beyond a person's ideas or convictions or illusions (delusions?) that the thing exists.

You may call this incredulity if you wish. I prefer to call it sanity. I have no real interest in convincing others that my approach is correct. I have ample real world experience to know that no god believer is going to be rationalized into changing their beliefs.

Bottom line - Show me reliable and repeatable evidence and I will accept the existence of gods. Without that they do not exist.

The point (of about nine pages of this thread) is that the best you can say is that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of gods. That is distinctly different from saying the existence of gods has been scientifically disproven. Failure to grasp that distinction indicates ignorance of what science actually does, and is 'scientism' rather than science.

 

[theprestige]

Do you think that trees suffer from depression?

I'm agnostic.

Are you claiming they don't?

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm agnostic.

Are you claiming they don't?

Many trees feel a deeprooted sense that they are constantly leafing things behind. Does that make them depressed, or just saps? It all stems from early treeauma.

 

[Thor 2]

Do you think that trees suffer from depression?
I have not any intention to demonstrate the opposite. To find some psychiatrist that treat a tree is your problem.

I'm agnostic.

Are you claiming they don't?

Weeping willows.

How much evidence do you need?

 

[theprestige]

Weeping willows.

How much evidence do you need?

The whole point of the burden of proof is that you're the one who needs the evidence, not me. You need enough evidence to falsify the null of whatever your claim is.

On the other hand, if you're not making a claim, then you don't need any evidence at all.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think this thread is evidence of a god. A very vengeful god with great disdain for his creation.

Or maybe it is evidence that there is no god, and the universe is just awful.

One of those, your pick.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think this thread is evidence of a god. A very vengeful god with great disdain for his creation.

Or maybe it is evidence that there is no god, and the universe is just awful.

One of those, your pick.

You might enjoy Gnosticism. One of the tenets is that while a higher God exists, the universe was created by a flawed lower being called the Demiurge. Some traditions hold the Demiurge to simply have been incompetent, others consider it to be outright evil. Several other religions share this idea.

 

[Dr. Keith]

You might enjoy Gnosticism. One of the tenets is that while a higher God exists, the universe was created by a flawed lower being called the Demiurge. Some traditions hold the Demiurge to simply have been incompetent, others consider it to be outright evil. Several other religions share this idea.

It sounds a bit too complex. "Universe doesn't care" seems to be holding water right now, but I'll let you know if I feel the urge to find something more.

 

[Steve]

The point (of about nine pages of this thread) is that the best you can say is that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of gods.
That is distinctly different from saying the existence of gods has been scientifically disproven. Failure to grasp that distinction indicates ignorance of what science actually does, and is 'scientism' rather than science.

Yes it is. In fact science has never actually disproven anything. What science does is to provide evidence to a level where the object of study is provisionally accepted as true, but always subject to further evidence that could change that provisional acceptance. In his regard the evidence science has provided to date for the existence of gods is zero. With zero evidence the provisional position it that these things do not exist

Your comment "the best you can say" is misleading. It is in fact the only thing you can say. Looking at the total scientific evidence for and against gods there is zero reason to conclude that they exist and significant reason to conclude that they do not. Reaching that conclusion is not ignorant, scientism, incredulous, a logical fallacy, or any other disparaging words you may choose to use.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with your position on the existence of gods and the methods you used to reach that position.

 

[Thor 2]

Weeping willows.

How much evidence do you need?

The whole point of the burden of proof is that you're the one who needs the evidence, not me. You need enough evidence to falsify the null of whatever your claim is.

On the other hand, if you're not making a claim, then you don't need any evidence at all.

So you don't do humour. OK.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Yes it is. In fact science has never actually disproven anything. What science does is to provide evidence to a level where the object of study is provisionally accepted as true, but always subject to further evidence that could change that provisional acceptance. In his regard the evidence science has provided to date for the existence of gods is zero. With zero evidence the provisional position it that these things do not exist

Depending on how you are defining "provisional position". It seems to mean "definitely proven conclusion" to some, which is what I'm arguing against.

Your comment "the best you can say" is misleading. It is in fact the only thing you can say. Looking at the total scientific evidence for and against gods there is zero reason to conclude that they exist

I agree with that part, but not with this:

and significant reason to conclude that they do not. Reaching that conclusion is not ignorant, scientism, incredulous, a logical fallacy, or any other disparaging words you may choose to use.

"There is no reason to suppose A" is completely acceptable and scientific. "Therefore definitely Not-A" is not. The end effects may be the same-- act as if there is no A. But it is not the same thing.

Perhaps you could enlighten us with your position on the existence of gods and the methods you used to reach that position.

I don't believe in gods because I'm unaware of any plausible evidence for their existence. I do not make the mistake of asserting that my lack of awareness of plausible evidence is conclusive proof of their nonexistence, because that would be a) unscientific, b) intellectually unrigorous, and c) hella arrogant. I don't operate on faith-based plausibility while cloaking it in the mantle of science.