Hawking says there are no gods

[Skeptic Ginger]

Fail.

No.

3point14 had a valid description.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... 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.

No the OP did not say that highlighted part of your post.


Precise language is important in this thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Extinction: the state or process of being or becoming extinct. If 95% of adults are delusional, how come the human race has survived?...

Since when is delusional incompatible with life? Hell, it's not even incompatible with being elected POTUS.

 

[David Mo]

It is psychology, not hard science, nor philosophy or religion.
It is a question of personality in the sense of how you understand certainty and confidence.

No. It is epistemology. It is about how we manage the world. If my car is blue and I say "my car is blue" I can communicate with my mechanic. If my car is pink and I say "my car is blue", I will get a flop.

Although the definition of "fact" is not easy, truth is a problem of matching propositions with facts. Objectivity is the success.

Tommy, I cannot always read your long comments. Can you be a little more concise? Thank you.

 

[David Mo]

Hawking is not actually saying that. He is saying that that there is no possibility of a creator who existed in time, "because there is no time for a creator to have existed in". Theists don't propose that there was a creator who existed in time.


I'm being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I wonder to whom Hawking is grateful? As Sarek says to his wife in Star Trek, "One does not thank logic, Amanda."

I have read other Hawking's books and articles. On this ground I think that Hawking presents his argument as a proof of God's inexistence. Anyway, to say that the idea of God is superfluous is a blow against theism.

Hawking also defends the existence of a cosmic design without designer. I don't understand it very well. It is a provocative idea, more than a rigorous one, I am afraid. We have to note that The Grand Design is a book for general public.

 

[GDon]

It is possible to be simply, generally thankful, grateful, without necessarily being grateful to someone. Have you never felt this way? This former is far more satisfying than the feeling of being beholden to someone.

Sure, it's called 'cognitive dissonance'. When the traffic light turns green just as you reach it, do you thank the traffic light? If so, what are you actually thanking? More consistent for the atheist to shrug his/her shoulders than offer thanks.

I suppose when a theist feels this way, they would offer their thanks to God, as well as attribute the beauty of this ... feeling, again to God.

For full disclosure, I am a theist. If something good happens, thank you God! If something bad happens, it must be God's plan. So thank you God as well!

 

[GDon]

I have read other Hawking's books and articles. On this ground I think that Hawking presents his argument as a proof of God's inexistence. Anyway, to say that the idea of God is superfluous is a blow against theism.

Yes, but he is describing a God who exists in time. It is only a blow against those theists who regard God as existing in time. It might affect some deists perhaps, but no theists IIUC.

Hawking also defends the existence of a cosmic design without designer. I don't understand it very well. It is a provocative idea, more than a rigorous one, I am afraid. We have to note that The Grand Design is a book for general public.

I don't understand it well also. AFAIK, the "nothing" proposed by Hawkings is a quantum flux, which is a "something" rather than a "nothing". But an eternal quantum flux from which time emerges does counter the Kalam Cosmological Argument. But I don't understand the science involved, and reducing it to a philosophical statement may take away the sense of it.

 

[Roboramma]

Is that quote from Hawking real, Roborama? If so, I find it a shame that he misrepresented science in his final book.

I don't know if it's real either, I only saw it in the article (because Thor2 quoted it earlier in the thread), but if it is then, yeah, I agree with you about your second sentence.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No. It is epistemology. It is about how we manage the world. If my car is blue and I say "my car is blue" I can communicate with my mechanic. If my car is pink and I say "my car is blue", I will get a flop.

Although the definition of "fact" is not easy, truth is a problem of matching propositions with facts. Objectivity is the success.
Tommy, I cannot always read your long comments. Can you be a little more concise? Thank you.

Hi

If "Objectivity is the success" is a proposition, what makes it true and what is the fact?
If it is not a proposition, then it can't be true, because truth is the matching of propositions with facts.

As concise as I can do it.

 

[David Mo]

Yes, but he is describing a God who exists in time. It is only a blow against those theists who regard God as existing in time. It might affect some deists perhaps, but no theists IIUC.


I don't understand it well also. AFAIK, the "nothing" proposed by Hawkings is a quantum flux, which is a "something" rather than a "nothing". But an eternal quantum flux from which time emerges does counter the Kalam Cosmological Argument. But I don't understand the science involved, and reducing it to a philosophical statement may take away the sense of it.

It is surprising that al-Kalam's argument is said to be a "new" and "sophisticated" argument. It is the umpteenth version of Aristotle's argument of First Cause, christianized by Thomas Aquinas. It was demolished by Kant three centuries ago.

Anyway, the reference to the beginnig of time is not the only Hawking's attack against the candidature of a creator god.

 

[David Mo]

Hi

If "Objectivity is the success" is a proposition, what makes it true and what is the fact?
If it is not a proposition, then it can't be true, because truth is the matching of propositions with facts.

As concise as I can do it.

It is a definition of "objective". That is to say, how the word objective is used.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

It is a definition of "objective". That is to say, how the word objective is used.

The word "objective" has not just one definition, it has many, but not that objectivity is success. That is not a definition, that is an evaluation. Is an evaluation a proposition? If yes, then what fact is it about?

 

[GDon]

Anyway, the reference to the beginnig of time is not the only Hawking's attack against the candidature of a creator god.

What are some of the other Hawking's attacks on a creator god?

 

[David Mo]

What are some of the other Hawking's attacks on a creator god?

Perhaps this page will give you an idea of Hakwking's reasons for not believing in God.

https://owlcation.com/humanities/Stephen-Hawking-Says-There-Is-No-God-Heres-Why

 

[David Mo]

The word "objective" has not just one definition, it has many, but not that objectivity is success. That is not a definition, that is an evaluation. Is an evaluation a proposition? If yes, then what fact is it about?

Success in prediction, control and communication is what you find when trying to precise what objective propositions are. I have explained it to you whith the example of my car.

 

[dann]

What are some of the other Hawking's attacks on a creator god?

That He put him in a wheelchair?! No, then he would have actually believed in Him!

 

[dann]

Like I said, you don't understand the point. It's hard to have a discussion with someone that isn't grasping the concepts.

Psion: "IF something is fictional THEN no evidence can be found for it."
No, that is not the argument at all. Try debating the argument without changing it to your straw man.

We observe people writing and making up fictional gods.
Let that sink in before you move on.

We don't observe any stories about any real gods and we don't see any evidence of any real gods.
What does that lead you to conclude?

Psion, most fictional characters are people. You don't really need to look for evidence that people are also to be found in the real world. On the other hand, specific people, Harry Potter, for instance, aren't. If you start trying to find him in the real world, it's because you don't understand what literature is.
Some characters of fiction may based on people in the real world. That doesn't make them any more real. My students sometimes have a hard time grasping this concept and use fiction as documentation about what the real-life person was like.
f you start looking for Zeus outside of the myths about him, it's because you don't understand what religion is.

 

[psionl0]

Psion:"IF something is fictional THEN no evidence can be found for it."

No, that is not the argument at all. Try debating the argument without changing it to your straw man.

We observe people writing and making up fictional gods.

And what is that supposed to prove? That ALL gods are the creation of authors of fiction?

Since you returned to this thread late, let me remind you of a post that you may have missed.

There may be very good reasons for believing that gods are a work of fiction but being created by a well known writer of fiction is not one of them.

"Let that sink in before you move on".

We don't observe any stories about any real gods and we don't see any evidence of any real gods.
What does that lead you to conclude?

That you can't distinguish between evidence and proof?.

 

[psionl0]

Quit repeating the lie or cite the quote exactly that you are referring to.

If you are going to deny what you quoted in your own OP ................

 

[dann]

And what is that supposed to prove? That ALL gods are the creation of authors of fiction?

Yes, in principle. What else are they supposed to be? It doesn't always have to be actual authors, but even the boy who turned Harry Potter into a god, got that character from a writer of fiction.

Since you returned to this thread late, let me remind you of a post that you may have missed.

It's a dishonest trick when you quote yourself saying that "there may be very good reasons for believing that gods are a work of fiction but being created by a well known writer of fiction is not one of them."

Who claimed that the writer of fiction would have to be well known? When did that suddenly become a requirement? What's wrong with anonymous writers like (most of) those who wrote the Bible? Or the much better known people who edited it, thus having the more or less final say in deciding what God was going to be like?

"Let that sink in before you move on".

That you can't distinguish between evidence and proof?.

It's your choice to consider the Bible to be an observational report and documentation, but that ideas isn't exactly scientific ...