Hawking says there are no gods

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

That is an old fallacious argument. You didn't strike me as a Christian evidence denier. Perhaps I missed something.

It is no more necessary than it is for a biologist to have seen every genome to draw a conclusion about evolution.

 

[Cheetah]

"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.

Did you miss the bit where I said it's technically correct but nonetheless irrational and explained why?

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.

Did you just say that if someone wants you to believe in something, it's good enough reason to? Now that is irrational.

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

Well, they have something fundamental in common. They were made up by humans without any evidence for their existence.
Treating them differently is what is irrational.

 

[psionl0]

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.

You may not be able to prove a negative. That doesn't mean that you can lower the burden of proof. You can't say, "Let's say that the negative is true and we proved it". This is Science, not Law.

BTW If you are posting this way then I guess that you are not arguing that Stephen Hawking proved that there are no gods.

 

[qayak]

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.

With that type of reasoning Evolution and The Big Bang aren't proved either. There maybe evidence that disproves them somewhere, sometime we just haven't found it yet.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Exactly.

 

[qayak]

You may not be able to prove a negative. That doesn't mean that you can lower the burden of proof. You can't say, "Let's say that the negative is true and we proved it". This is Science, not Law.

We don't say that. We say, "The negative is true because no one has been able, in thousands of years of searching, to show any evidence of any god."

 

[psionl0]

Did you just say that if someone wants you to believe in something, it's good enough reason to? Now that is irrational.

No, I said "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". That is a completely different thing.

Well, they have something fundamental in common. They were made up by humans without any evidence for their existence.
Treating them differently is what is irrational.

No, I said "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". That is a completely different thing.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You may not be able to prove a negative. That doesn't mean that you can lower the burden of proof. You can't say, "Let's say that the negative is true and we proved it". This is Science, not Law.

BTW If you are posting this way then I guess that you are not arguing that Stephen Hawking proved that there are no gods.

You really should stop repeating that highlighted lie.

As for needing to prove the negative to conclude there are no gods, I say shift that paradigm sir, what evidence best explains god beliefs?

 

[psionl0]

You may not be able to prove a negative. That doesn't mean that you can lower the burden of proof. You can't say, "Let's say that the negative is true and we proved it". This is Science, not Law.

We don't say that. We say, "The negative is true because no one has been able, in thousands of years of searching, to show any evidence of any god."

What you say and what you do are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[psionl0]

You really should stop repeating that highlighted lie.

I have quoted the relevant sentence often enough to show that it isn't a lie.

As for needing to prove the negative to conclude there are no gods, I say shift that paradigm sir, what evidence best explains god beliefs?

So you want to change the scientific method because it doesn't unreservedly support your beliefs?

 

[Cheetah]

No, I said "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". That is a completely different thing.

I get that, you were very clear. What I don't get is what it has to do with the discussion.
What does the intent of the author have to do with the truth of the fiction?

 

[Cheetah]

So you want to change the scientific method because it doesn't unreservedly support your beliefs?

No one want's to change the scientific method, but it should be employed rationally.

 

[psionl0]

I get that, you were very clear. What I don't get is what it has to do with the discussion.
What does the intent of the author have to do with the truth of the fiction?

You are trying to conflate an intended fiction with an intended fact. This is illogical.

Your reasoning is:
IF something is fictional THEN no evidence can be found for it.
No evidence of a god can be found THEREFORE God is fictional (and it is exactly the Harry Potter scenario).

You know the age old fallacy:
ALL cats have 4 legs
My DOG has 4 legs
. . . . . . . . . . ...

 

[qayak]

No, I said "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". That is a completely different thing.

What? Do you not read books? The authors of fiction want you to think their characters are real because if you don't you won't buy into the story and tell your friends how good the book is and buy more books by the same author. Religions are the same way. They want you to buy in and buy.

 

[psionl0]

No one want's to change the scientific method, but it should be employed rationally.

That's changing the scientific method. There are plenty of other ways that you can argue the non-existence of gods. You just can't say that it has been arrived at through the scientific method.

 

[psionl0]

What? Do you not read books? The authors of fiction want you to think their characters are real because if you don't you won't buy into the story and tell your friends how good the book is and buy more books by the same author.

They want you to suspend disbelief so that you can imagine that the story could be real. They don't want to alter your entire belief system.

Religions Some purveyors of religion are the same way. They want you to buy in and buy.

ftfy.

 

[Pixel42]

I have quoted the relevant sentence often enough to show that it isn't a lie.

I for one do not agree that "Stephen Hawking proved that there are no gods" is a remotely accurate paraphrase of

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

 

[psionl0]

I for one do not agree that "Stephen Hawking proved that there are no gods" is a remotely accurate paraphrase of

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

So according to you, Hawking is allowing that there may be a god but he has nothing to do with the universe?

 

[Pixel42]

I'm saying that Hawking does not claim to have proved anything.

 

[Cheetah]

You are trying to conflate an intended fiction with an intended fact. This is illogical.

Your reasoning is:
IF something is fictional THEN no evidence can be found for it.
No evidence of a god can be found THEREFORE God is fictional (and it is exactly the Harry Potter scenario).

You know the age old fallacy:
ALL cats have 4 legs
My DOG has 4 legs
. . . . . . . . . . ...

You don't seem to read my posts, yet you answer them.
I already admitted a fictional character cannot be proven not to exist.
What I find irrational is that you assume existence until proven otherwise.
The default should be assume fiction until proven otherwise.