Hawking says there are no gods

[theprestige]

So you don't do humour. OK.

If it makes you feel any better, your "weeping willow" did get a sensible chuckle out of me.

But you also raised what I thought was an interesting point about who needs proof, and why. So I went ahead and responded to that point.

But yeah, you're not entitled to have people acknowledge your jokes. If I want to have a more serious discussion and you don't, the appropriate response is to find another audience for your humor. Not complain that nobody is LOLing at your funny.

 

[Steve]

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



I agree with that part, but not with this:



"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.



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.

Thanks for all this. You have clarified a lot for me. I actually think we are in agreement on these issues. The written English language can sometimes get in the way of clear communication

 

[TragicMonkey]

Thanks for all this. You have clarified a lot for me. I actually think we are in agreement on these issues. The written English language can sometimes get in the way of clear communication

Let's pray to St Jerome for guidance on language.

 

[Craig4]

I don't necessarily want to end hunger in the world. So stop talking for me and using an universal we. You don't speak for all humans. If you actually think that, then you are irrational, because no single human can speak for all humans.

Out of curiosity, how's the view from the cheap seats? It occurs to me that no one who had seen real hunger in the developing world would say such a thing.

 

[Chanakya]

Roboramma :

If it turns out that there was no time prior to t=0, then :

(a) Do we at all try to parse this information in terms of our everyday thinking? Or do we simply "shut up and do the math" (or "let people do the math, and don't try to make sense of the math", as the case may be!)?

(b) If the answer to (a) is "Shut up and do the math", then fine. That sounds like a cop-out, but okay, if that's the consensus of actual physicists. But if the answer to (a) is not this, then : What does no-time-prior-to-time-zero even mean? Not just mathematically, but in terms of how we are to 'use this particular squiggle on the map to make sense of our territory'?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

You might want to review the definition of scientific hypothesis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

For the record one must be careful how one states one's conclusion. You need the conclusion to be supported by the evidence.

There is overwhelming evidence people make up god beliefs (i.e. human generated fiction).
There is no credible evidence that any gods exist.

We have sufficient evidence to conclude all gods are human generated fiction.

We can make a prediction based on that conclusion that new gods might also be generated fiction. And sure enough the Cargo cults did indeed fit the prediction. That is the last step in Popper's postulates.

Science doesn't 'prove' theories. Proofs are for math. So there is no reason, not a sliver of evidence, that contradicts the conclusion all gods are human generated myths.

In Hawking's wording, there is no room for gods in the universe. Or something like that, I probably should find an actual quote.

 

[TragicMonkey]

There is overwhelming evidence people make up god beliefs (i.e. human generated fiction).

Which does not affect whether gods exist or not. Belief in gods doesn't make them more likely to exist, nor does it make them less likely to exist. A thing exists or not regardless of what people think of it.

 

[psionl0]

Yes we do. How many myths do you need to see before you recognize a pattern?

Irrelevant. A pattern isn't proof.

Where god myths originated was from story telling that then led to texts being written down as humans moved on with the technology of writing.

Is it your contention that ALL god legends began as fictional stories that became viewed as factual in the re-telling over passing generations?

Sure he was. But a lot of people need a paradigm shift before they will understand.

Not he wasn't. There is nothing scientific about saying "I believe" (that the laws of nature are fixed) and he didn't establish that his conclusion (that there is no room for a god) must follow from this premise. However, throw in a few buzz words like "quantum", "gravitational", "relativity" and add in his legendary status as a scientist and suddenly a lot of people have been sucked in to believing that it has been scientifically proven that gods can't exist.

 

[qayak]

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.

The Gnostics are quite interesting and their books, which became part of the New Testament, help put the bible into context, making it more understandable.

God for the Gnostics lived in the divine realm, outside our universe. He cloned his characteristics so they became entities as well. One of these entities fell from the divine realm and cloned itself leading to a flawed being. This flawed being created other flawed beings and together they created our universe. Because the flawed being had been born ourside the realm, he did not know there were other gods more powerful than him. He declared himself to be the only god. He created good, evil, and man. The battle between good and evil rages inside man.

The Gnostics believed the flawed god was the Jewish god. Christian Gnostics believe that Jesus Christ is not the son of the flawed god but the son of the original god sent to Earth to clean up the mess.

Because the universe is flawed, they believe there is no value in studying the material world, that salvation can only come from a connection with the original god, through an aeon (Jesus).

Like atheists, all Gnostics did not believe the same things.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which does not affect whether gods exist or not. Belief in gods doesn't make them more likely to exist, nor does it make them less likely to exist. A thing exists or not regardless of what people think of it.

That's absurd in this context. Fiction is fiction. Evidence is evidence. You can't conflate them because you aren't ready to call god beliefs fiction yet.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Irrelevant. A pattern isn't proof.

First, I made a specific point I was talking about overwhelming evidence and proofs are for math, not scientific theory.

Second, we use patterns all the time to confirm theories. Evolution is based on a pattern. We have spelled out every genome on the planet. At some point however, you can conclude DNA and RNA are the basic building blocks of life on Earth.

Is it your contention that ALL god legends began as fictional stories that became viewed as factual in the re-telling over passing generations?

Pretty much yeah. And most of them fall out of favor at some point like we no longer believe in Greek gods.

Not he wasn't. There is nothing scientific about saying "I believe" (that the laws of nature are fixed) and he didn't establish that his conclusion (that there is no room for a god) must follow from this premise. However, throw in a few buzz words like "quantum", "gravitational", "relativity" and add in his legendary status as a scientist and suddenly a lot of people have been sucked in to believing that it has been scientifically proven that gods can't exist.

You're wrong. I agree to disagree because we aren't going to get anywhere with this.

 

[psionl0]

Pretty much yeah. And most of them fall out of favor at some point like we no longer believe in Greek gods.

Since you were personally present at each and every original telling of a god story I must bow to your superior knowledge.

You're wrong. I agree to disagree because we aren't going to get anywhere with this.

I disagree.

 

[Cheetah]

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.

Obviously you are technically correct. Maybe your standards of proof differ and you want to be 100% certain before committing.
In my opinion that is not a rational position and also impractical in the real world. You can never get the 100% certainty even if you know you made up the fictional character yourself.

Are you arguing from a purely logical position to make your point, or do you truly think there is a possibility, however remote, some type of god or gods might exist? What does your gut tell you.
My gut says it can't prove it, but it's actually 100% sure all gods are made up.
It feels exactly the same about Harry etc.

 

[psionl0]

Obviously you are technically correct. Maybe your standards of proof differ and you want to be 100% certain before committing.
In my opinion that is not a rational position and also impractical in the real world. You can never get the 100% certainty even if you know you made up the fictional character yourself.

"No (scientific) test has established the existence of a god" is different to saying "gods don't exist". You can say that "it is highly probable that gods don't exist" if you like but don't say that it is a scientifically proven fact.

My gut says it can't prove it, but it's actually 100% sure all gods are made up.
It feels exactly the same about Harry etc.

Again, the authors of fiction want you to believe that their characters don't exist. Religious preachers want you to believe that their gods are real.

To say that God doesn't exist because Harry Potter doesn't exist is unscientific nonsense.

 

[David Mo]

But you can't use reason and logic to show that I should care for other humans.
That is the limit; I can care or don't care.
So now show only using reason and logic that I should care.

If you want to communicate with other people you need the tools of rationality and language.

If you don’t want, goodbye.

This is my argument. I think it is rational.

 

[David Mo]

I think it is to vague, it is an appeal to emotion and has nothing to do with rationality or reason or logic.
So you use rationality when it suits you and emotion what that suits you.

That's not vague. I am telling you that killing children is bad and you understand me perfectly. Don't start looking for strange exceptions.

If that's rational or emotional I don't care. I think it's a starting point to launch a debate on morality. If you go that way, you will surely find others principles as far as possible. The result will be the intersubjectivity of the rules. Once the main propositions had been established, rationality has a major role in order to set facts up and consequences.

The debate between objectivity and subjectivity is a dead end.

 

[David Mo]

You made a claim they don't. On what evidence do you base that claim?

Two thousand years of constant failures to find an evidence that gods exist. I think it is more than sufficient.

 

[David Mo]

I'm agnostic.

Are you claiming they don't?

Of course. Only (humans only?) brains are depressed. Metaphors no, please.

I think you don't really think that the trees can be depressed. It is absurd. But if you want to play, let us play.

 

[David Mo]

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.

You are pushing the burden of proof to the absurd. If negative existential propositions had to be proven we would spend all our time proving that millions of absurdities don't exist. If you think that elephants can fly, show it.