Hawking says there are no gods

[psionl0]

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

So he is just stating a belief and using science to support it. Maybe he is not aware that just putting his name to a belief will be considered synonymous to "scientific proof".

 

[psionl0]

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.

I did read your posts. They had to do with equating intended fiction with unintended fiction.

I have been careful not to assume anything in these posts. I have even repeatedly pointed out that it can be claimed that there are "no gods". But I will not have science besmirched by having unsubstantiated claims being made in the name of science. (I have the same attitude to those who try to claim that God is scientifically proven).

 

[Pixel42]

So he is just stating a belief and using science to support it.

Exactly.

Maybe he is not aware that just putting his name to a belief will be considered synonymous to "scientific proof".

Hawking had every right to state his beliefs and use science to support them. He was not responsible for how silly people regarded him and misinterpreted what he said. That's on them.

 

[dann]

There just are no gods.

Evidence?

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?

My bad. I should, of course, have added: "... outside of fiction and religion.
Because there are gods, obviously, the same way that there is a Harry Potter. They are there alright, they just aren't real. And we know that. In the case of Harry Potter, we even know the woman who invented him. The ones who invented (the original versions of) the Christian God are long dead. However, that idea is reinvented, renewed and maintained on a regular basis by each and every Christian.
So there not only are gods, we also know what they are. And they are not of this world, i.e. outside of the imagination of believers.

By the way, this is the scientific, analytical, approach to deities, and it's not the same thing as trying to prove a negative. It's a question of dealing with the phenomenon that is actually there, and in the case of this specific phenomenon, it's a figment of imagination rather than non-existent.
So how do we know that the imaginary creatures that we make up aren't out there in the real world?
Because we made them up!
See the difference?

 

[psionl0]

Because there are gods, obviously, the same way that there is a Harry Potter.

It's not obvious to me but I know that a nice sounding argument will always trump logic in a forum like this.

 

[3point14]

3point14, haven't we already had this conversation before? And settled it to our mutual satisfaction?

Er, now you mention it...

 

[David Mo]

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.

It's not the same case. In science the defence of the thesis designs an experiment that can give the values of false or true. This is what is asked of the defenders of the existence of God. Since they cannot design such an experiment, their thesis cannot be proven or refuted and is rejected as metaphysics. To say that it has a 50% probability is a pseudoscientific assertion. It simply has no meaning for science. It is empty, scientifically speaking.

If we go to the field of philosophy, I believe that the thesis of the existence of gods can be refuted. But that is my philosophical opinion.

 

[dann]

It's not obvious to me but I know that a nice sounding argument will always trump logic in a forum like this.

You managed to read only the first line and misunderstand it completely.

 

[psionl0]

You managed to read only the first line and misunderstand it completely.

Your entire post was about how Harry Potter and God are exactly the same. I understood you perfectly.

 

[psionl0]

In science the defence of the thesis designs an experiment that can give the values of false or true. This is what is asked of the defenders of the existence absence of God. Since they cannot design such an experiment, their thesis cannot be proven or refuted and is rejected as metaphysics. To say that it has a 50% probability is a pseudoscientific assertion. It simply has no meaning for science. It is empty, scientifically speaking.

ftfy to fit the theme of this thread.

 

[epeeist]

Rituals have value without needing god beliefs behind them. More than a few Jews, for example, continue all their rituals despite rejecting the religion.

Family get togethers on Christmas is another example of a ritual one doesn't need god beliefs to find value in it.

I should first note, from a quick search Hawking had later in life had reconnected with his first ex-wife and children, and she was (at least in the past) observantly Christian, so it may be that his next of kin, his adult children, wanted a religious service? I don't know who his executor was. If so that makes some sense.

----------------------------------------
But on the more general point, someone choosing to follow rituals is very different from doing so in memory of someone who disagreed with them. I mean, if the value is in ritual, why not have a Jewish prayers service for someone, or Muslim, or Hindu, instead of Christian? Everyone who wants to can attend their own set. Or because it's Anglican and he was British, hey, it's the state religion (to use the term somewhat loosely) so that's the default? What if it was a Muslim who had written promoting atheism and was considered apostate, would the value of ritual mean that there should be a Muslim funeral or prayer service despite their beliefs? Or go to Christian Anglican again? Something else?


Also, there's a huge difference between a family get together at Christmastime, versus having a memorial service with all sorts of Christian prayers.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

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.

We have objectivity, subjectivity and intersubjectivity.
So let us check:
"That's not vague." - That is subjective, that is an interpretation.
"I am telling ..." - That is subjective as because you are stating your subjectivity next. ->
"... that killing children is bad ..." - That is a subjective emotion.
"Don't start looking for strange exceptions." - That is subjective, but philosophy is about looking everywhere and noting the limitations. Not ignoring them.
"... I don't care." - That is subjective as its core.
"I think ..." That is subjective and I, Tommy, think differently. I just admit that it is subjective. You deny it. ->
"The debate between objectivity and subjectivity is a dead end." - So subjectively you think that.

You are a philosopher. That means that you are able to catch, hold, examine and learn from your own thinking. Now do that!!!
E.g. - "If that's rational or emotional I don't care." - is not a case of rationality, it is a case of emotions, so you use emotions and not just rationality, yet you claim that it should be based on rationality. You are not consistent in your beliefs and you have to catch your own thinking, hold it, examine it and learn from it.

I don't demand that "you learn" of all humans. I demand it of you, because you are a philosopher.

Rationality is necessary in understanding reality. Rationality is not sufficient for living a life, because you can't live only in a rational sense. You need subjective feelings and you give evidence for that with your post.
You use subjectivity. Now admit it.

Now since I demand something of you, I will apply that to myself. I admit that in another thread, I made a mistake regarding cognitive relativism and Karl Popper and others. You pointed that out and I didn't answer you at that time.

 

[3point14]

Your entire post was about how Harry Potter and God are exactly the same. I understood you perfectly.

They are. At least as far as evidence for their existence goes.

They both exist only in fiction as both are the product of human imagination. Both have massive followings of uncritical supporters who really, really, really wish they were real.

 

[psionl0]

They are. At least as far as evidence for their existence goes.

They both exist only in fiction as both are the product of human imagination. Both have massive followings of uncritical supporters who really, really, really wish they were real.

Fail.

 

[3point14]

Fail.

Not even a little bit.

I'm afraid the only way one can believe there's any difference between the two is if one has been brainwashed into believing in magic.

I'm afraid that 'really, really wanting something to be true with all your heart and soul' just doesn't work. Even if lots of people do it at once.


I'm afraid I see no difference between those who believe in the Force, those who believe in Wicca, those who belive in fortune tellers and those who believe in god. It's all delusion.

 

[Cheetah]

I did read your posts. They had to do with equating intended fiction with unintended fiction.

I have been careful not to assume anything in these posts. I have even repeatedly pointed out that it can be claimed that there are "no gods". But I will not have science besmirched by having unsubstantiated claims being made in the name of science. (I have the same attitude to those who try to claim that God is scientifically proven).

So you did read them, yet every time you side-step my questions.

I could not get a straight answer form you, but I assume you don't consider every single piece of fiction ever written and every character therein to possibly exist until science can prove otherwise. That really would be nuts.

Why do you think there is a fundamental difference between god and any other fictional character?

I think you are the one besmirching science by not using your common sense. You seem to have double standards.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Not even a little bit.

I'm afraid the only way one can believe there's any difference between the two is if one has been brainwashed into believing in magic.

I'm afraid that 'really, really wanting something to be true with all your heart and soul' just doesn't work. Even if lots of people do it at once.


I'm afraid I see no difference between those who believe in the Force, those who believe in Wicca, those who belive in fortune tellers and those who believe in god. It's all delusion.

google: delusion - an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

Let us look at humanity: Currently the amount of religious people is properly above 80% if not 90%. But let be conservative and rate it as 75%. So 75% of all humans(adults) are delusional.
Now of 25%, since e.g. communism can't be true AND False, so of the 25% some are also delusional. Now that is not limited to communism and not only political ideologies. It also pertains to different contradictory versions of atheism, science, philosophy, non-religious woo/CT and so on.
So a major proportion of humanity is delusion right now and has been in the past.

So what is your point? It is natural and normal to be delusional and the human race hasn't gone extinct because of it.
Further I bet you that some of these humans have happy/content lives. They cope with life; they were born, grew up, fell in love, have children and so on.

Now the joke is that you can't show that being delusion is unnatural, abnormal or what not. It is a natural as it gets.

So let us look at it analytical: While there may be a correlation between being delusional and unhappy/not content, it seems it can't be a single strong causation.
Further as back to religion/woo and so on, it is not limited to that group alone. E.g. between the claim that be known versus not known if there are gods or not, that can be found among atheists. So it doesn't follow that being an atheist means that you are automatically not delusional.
In the end I bet that somewhere on the plus side of 95% of all adults are delusional in some form or another, and that those who cause harm are not limited to religion.

Indeed if we removed religion it doesn't seem to follow that people would become more non-delusional. And there might even be the danger of it getting worse in some sense. Look for some versions of communism, fascism and so on.

So back to "typically as a symptom of mental disorder". If 95% of humans are delusional and that is typically as a symptom of mental disorder, then what do you propose?

BTW I am one of them and not like you. I have 3 diagnosed psychiatric disorders.
So what is it that you want? Do you point it out to feel better? That is brain-wanking. Or do you actually now how to make it better? Or is it in fact about that it makes you feel better?

 

[3point14]

google: delusion - an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

Let us look at humanity: Currently the amount of religious people is properly above 80% if not 90%. But let be conservative and rate it as 75%. So 75% of all humans(adults) are delusional.

If your figures are accurate, yes.

Now of 25%, since e.g. communism can't be true AND False, so of the 25% some are also delusional. Now that is not limited to communism and not only political ideologies. It also pertains to different contradictory versions of atheism, science, philosophy, non-religious woo/CT and so on.
So a major proportion of humanity is delusion right now and has been in the past.

Not sure what communism has to do with it

So what is your point? It is natural and normal to be delusional and the human race hasn't gone extinct because of it.

My point is that the only argument for the existence of god that passes an muster is that the existence cannot be disproved. My point is that this argument is just as applicable to the tooth fairy.

Really not sure why you mention the extinction thing. What on earth does that have to do with the price of fish?

Further I bet you that some of these humans have happy/content lives. They cope with life; they were born, grew up, fell in love, have children and so on.

I'm really, really struggling with your point here. Why do you think the above is relevant?

Now the joke is that you can't show that being delusion is unnatural, abnormal or what not. It is a natural as it gets.

Again: So what?

So let us look at it analytical: While there may be a correlation between being delusional and unhappy/not content, it seems it can't be a single strong causation.
Further as back to religion/woo and so on, it is not limited to that group alone. E.g. between the claim that be known versus not known if there are gods or not, that can be found among atheists. So it doesn't follow that being an atheist means that you are automatically not delusional.

True. People who don't believe in god can believe in other stuff that's nonsense, yes.

In the end I bet that somewhere on the plus side of 95% of all adults are delusional in some form or another, and that those who cause harm are not limited to religion.

So?

Indeed if we removed religion it doesn't seem to follow that people would become more non-delusional. And there might even be the danger of it getting worse in some sense. Look for some versions of communism, fascism and so on.

Again, so what? I really, really doin't get your point.

So back to "typically as a symptom of mental disorder". If 95% of humans are delusional and that is typically as a symptom of mental disorder, then what do you propose?

What makes you think I'm proposing anything. I'm just saying that believing in god, tooth fairies, monsters in ones closet or any other fiction is a deluded.

BTW I am one of them and not like you. I have 3 diagnosed psychiatric disorders.

Still struggling with why on earth any of this is relevant.

So what is it that you want? Do you point it out to feel better?

I was just trying to point out the irrationality of believing in something on the basis that it can't be disproved.

As an aside, it would be nice to lower the chances of people flying planes into buildings, strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up schoolchildren, abusing their offspring or doing any of the other things that cause massive harm in the name of their delusion.

That is brain-wanking. Or do you actually now how to make it better? Or is it in fact about that it makes you feel better?

Why do you think I'm trying to make myself feel better? What gives you that impression?


I'm sorry, I really don't get the point of your post at all.

 

[David Mo]

ftfy to fit the theme of this thread.

The thread started where it started and then it has drifted to where it has drifted. This is habitual in these forums.

The statement we are now discussing is the existence of God. That affirmation must be demonstrated by he who affirms the existence of something. Reasons of this have been given on multiple occasions. I would like you to discuss the reasons I have given in the posts 535, 683 and 710. Otherwise there is no debate.

The open post didn’t put the proposition “God doesn’t exist”. This is a simple negative existential sentence. The open post discussed the proposition “Science proves that God doesn’t exist”. This is an affirmative sentence about what science does. Now is Hawking (allegedly) that has to prove his affirmative sentence. You can see they are very different sentences and must be undertaken in different ways.

 

[David Mo]

We have objectivity, subjectivity and intersubjectivity.
So let us check:
"That's not vague." - That is subjective, that is an interpretation.
"I am telling ..." - That is subjective as because you are stating your subjectivity next. ->
"... that killing children is bad ..." - That is a subjective emotion.
"Don't start looking for strange exceptions." - That is subjective, but philosophy is about looking everywhere and noting the limitations. Not ignoring them.
"... I don't care." - That is subjective as its core.
"I think ..." That is subjective and I, Tommy, think differently. I just admit that it is subjective. You deny it. ->
"The debate between objectivity and subjectivity is a dead end." - So subjectively you think that.

You are a philosopher. That means that you are able to catch, hold, examine and learn from your own thinking. Now do that!!!
E.g. - "If that's rational or emotional I don't care." - is not a case of rationality, it is a case of emotions, so you use emotions and not just rationality, yet you claim that it should be based on rationality. You are not consistent in your beliefs and you have to catch your own thinking, hold it, examine it and learn from it.

I don't demand that "you learn" of all humans. I demand it of you, because you are a philosopher.

Rationality is necessary in understanding reality. Rationality is not sufficient for living a life, because you can't live only in a rational sense. You need subjective feelings and you give evidence for that with your post.
You use subjectivity. Now admit it.

Now since I demand something of you, I will apply that to myself. I admit that in another thread, I made a mistake regarding cognitive relativism and Karl Popper and others. You pointed that out and I didn't answer you at that time.

I am so much philosopher as everyone in this forum. I don’t feel like some strange thing called “philosopher”. Don’t stick me labels, please.

I don’t care if my affirmation is subjective. I give reasons and I try to reach agreements. I am searching intersubjective propositions. In other cases I look for objective propositions supported by evidences. In both cases I search agreements by mean of common feelings or common reasons. In different ways.

Are you happy in being “subjective”? I am not. I am not happy in loneliness.