Hawking says there are no gods

[psionl0]

Who claimed that the writer of fiction would have to be well known? When did that suddenly become a requirement?

It became a requirement when it was claimed that all gods have the same status as Harry Potter in the fiction stakes.

I can't believe that I have to point out in a forum like this how stupid it is to say that gods are fictional because Harry Potter is fictional. It's like saying that one of the posters here is a "Nasty Woman" because Jack the Ripper was nasty.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

It became a requirement when it was claimed that all gods have the same status as Harry Potter in the fiction stakes.

I can't believe that I have to point out in a forum like this how stupid it is to say that gods are fictional because Harry Potter is fictional. It's like saying that one of the posters here is a "Nasty Woman" because Jack the Ripper was nasty.

Further ask him this: If so far all gods have been fictional, then how does he know that they will be so in the future? I believe that is called the problem of induction? And is huge in science in part because of it relationship with the model and the landscape?!!
Further how do we look for non-fictional gods?

 

[3point14]

I can't believe that I have to point out in a forum like this how stupid it is to say that gods are fictional because Harry Potter is fictional. It's like saying that one of the posters here is a "Nasty Woman" because Jack the Ripper was nasty.

Given that it was probably me that brought up Harry Potter, I feel the need to point out that the above is not at all the argument as it was made.

 

[qayak]

Given that it was probably me that brought up Harry Potter, I feel the need to point out that the above is not at all the argument as it was made.

Yeah, more of a weight and quality of evidence argument that got twisted instead of addressed.

 

[qayak]

Further ask him this: If so far all gods have been fictional, then how does he know that they will be so in the future? I believe that is called the problem of induction? And is huge in science in part because of it relationship with the model and the landscape?!!
Further how do we look for non-fictional gods?

I think when the score is thousands to nil, and there is still time in the clock but no players left on the god team, one can comfortably predict it's a shutout.

You look for supernatural things the same way you look for natural things, by their effect on the natural world. If you can explain how they can have an effect on the natural world without having an effect on the natural world then we have something to discuss. Until then we are just discussing delusions.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If there's no chair in the room does it matter if someone somewhere once wrote a story about the chair being in the room and whether or not it got filed under Fiction or Non-fiction in the Dewey Decimal System?

The chair is either there or it is not.

If there's no chair in the room does it matter of Professor Egghead VonSoandSo phrases it as "There is no chair" or "I believe there is no chair" or "I am of the opinion there is no chair" or "My worldview doesn't include a chair?

The chair is either there or it isn't.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Again don't use the word "Science" it just sets people off for some reason.

An intellectual framework that doesn't include:

- Falsefiability
- Repeatable results
- Methodologies to reduce factors/segregate factors so you can determine which factors are causing which results.

Is no better than random guessing.

So Jane Goodall's life observing chimps in the wild wasn't science because she didn't generate experiments from the data?

One can get too pedantic about the scientific process and miss a lot of good science.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Tommy, Tommy, you don't listen to me. I'm not saying that you can prove moral principles like you can prove that tomorrow there will be an eclipse. I call that statement objective. Morality doesn't work that way. If you want to call moral principles subjective, do so. But that hides an important characteristic of those principles. They can be shared. They demand to be shared. And the more shared they are, the more effective they are. Because morality is a collective task. And that is why reason has an important function in morality. It helps to share principles and consequences.

So you cannot say that morality is a matter of subjectivity. That's hiding how it actually works.

As I said upthread: The basis of morality is brain structure and function that you are born with. Yes, nurture has influence, but contrary to a lot of theists who think without God and fear of going to hell, all of society would break down, morality comes from within, not from the Bible (thank goodness).


We know this based on observing non-human primates and studying brain damaged people.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You are giving the bad answer to the bad question.

We are not speaking "of gods". You can find articles on gods in theology, history, anthropology, psychology, philosophy etc. from diverse outlooks.
We are speaking of a specific problem: the in/existence of gods. The proofs that gods exist or not exist. You will not find a single scientific article about that. You will find articles of philosophy and theology, of course.

Round and round the tunnel vision bush...

There are no articles on whether Hogwarts exists either.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So Jane Goodall's life observing chimps in the wild wasn't science because she didn't generate experiments from the data?

One can get too pedantic about the scientific process and miss a lot of good science.

Yeah she observed. She didn't just up and decide it by self realization.

I don't come close to getting what point you are making.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, that was the correct answer. Gods do exist, but they exist approximately the same way that Harry Potter exists: In people's imagination. This is where they are, this is where you can study them, and this is where it's being done! The study of gods is the study of human consciousness!

Or isn't this scientific enough for you?

Is the brain hardwired for religion? (Science: How Stuff Works)
Brain Scans on Mormons Show Religion Has a Similar Effect to Taking Drugs (Science Alert, Nov. 30, 2016)

Both those articles talk about the brain during religious experiences. That's quite different from the erroneous conclusion those centers exist at birth and predict the person will be religious.

It makes sense that one's brain during plasticity builds said hard wiring as it is exposed to religion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My point is that several people here are claiming they have scientific proof of the nonexistence of gods because some of the things people have claimed about gods in the past are not proven true. ....

Don't know who you are referring to, I hope it isn't me because I never said anything of the kind.

Like I said, precise wording in this case matters.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Like I said, precise wording in this case matters.

That's always the defense for pedantics and hairsplitting.

If there's no chair in the room we don't need to be "precise" about whether there is not a chair or proof there's no chair or belief there's no chair. Nobody ever gonna be chairnognstic. There's no weak and strong Achairtheism.

There just isn't a chair and we can leave it at that.

 

[Thor 2]

Further ask him this: If so far all gods have been fictional, then how does he know that they will be so in the future? I believe that is called the problem of induction? And is huge in science in part because of it relationship with the model and the landscape?!!
Further how do we look for non-fictional gods?

I think when the score is thousands to nil, and there is still time in the clock but no players left on the god team, one can comfortably predict it's a shutout.

You look for supernatural things the same way you look for natural things, by their effect on the natural world. If you can explain how they can have an effect on the natural world without having an effect on the natural world then we have something to discuss. Until then we are just discussing delusions.

"Have an effect without having an effect"...... boy, there's one to chew over.

Regarding Tommys question. If you start looking for non fictional gods you must have the fictional belief in their existence already.

 

[dann]

It became a requirement when it was claimed that all gods have the same status as Harry Potter in the fiction stakes.

I can't believe that I have to point out in a forum like this how stupid it is to say that gods are fictional because Harry Potter is fictional. It's like saying that one of the posters here is a "Nasty Woman" because Jack the Ripper was nasty.

The gods aren't fictional because Harry Potter is. That would be just as stupid as claiming that Harry Potter is fictional because there are no gods.
Gods, however, are fiction in the same way that Harry Potter is. And that some poor child in a hostage situation imagines that Harry Potter will put on his magic invisibility cloak and come to his rescue doesn't make Harry Potter any more real than he already is, i.e. not at all.

 

[ynot]

There is no scientific evidence that gods do actually exist.

There is no scientific method by which gods could actually exist.

There is no scientific reason why gods should actually exist.

There is no scientific hypothesis that gods might actually exist.

There is no scientific need to prove or disprove that gods actually exist.

There is no scientific conclusion other than gods don't actually exist, unless evidence is provided that they do (or even might).

If "scientific" offends you, please feel free to replace it with "credible" or "logical" (or "sane").

 

[epeeist]

TL;DR: was Hawking a strong or weak atheist, did he think atheism was provable?

Something may be true but not be provable (theism or atheism depending upon one's point of view). There have been more than enough arguments about theories, but I'll say that I believe both the theories of relativity and evolution to be true. And even if one believes either or both have been proven, they were true before being proven, and true before they were even formulated as hypotheses. Or if one prefers laws to theories, gravity existed and had effect before anyone knew what it was, before life existed (I'm giving the atheist view here and/or seeing God or gods for the polytheistic, as not being life per se...), before anyone formulated how it worked or why.

In quantum mechanics (uncertainty), mathematics (incompleteness), etc., rigid STEM fields, it's accepted that not everything can be known.

I have no problem with someone who takes the eminently reasonable position that there is no proof about various religious matters, nor who chooses to live their life that way (though I disagree... ). I do take issue with strong rather than weak atheists, however, those who claim that atheism is provably true. To me, that seems to be yet another form of unreasoning blind faith. And not that I think religion and science generally overlap, but it seems unscientific to claim such is provable. To claim it as true that is, what one believes, may be reasonable, though I think agnosticism is more logical, but I'm coming from the perspective of a theist so have my own biases.

 

[psionl0]

Given that it was probably me that brought up Harry Potter, I feel the need to point out that the above is not at all the argument as it was made.

As long as the argument is that there is absolutely no difference between an author who knows they are creating a work of fiction and somebody who believes they are telling the truth about a being this is exactly the argument as it was made.

 

[ynot]

As long as the argument is that there is absolutely no difference between an author who knows they are creating a work of fiction and somebody who believes they are telling the truth about a being this is exactly the argument as it was made.

What evidence do you have that the authors of The Bible believed they were telling the truth about a being?

 

[ynot]

TL;DR: was Hawking a strong or weak atheist, did he think atheism was provable?

Something may be true but not be provable (theism or atheism depending upon one's point of view). There have been more than enough arguments about theories, but I'll say that I believe both the theories of relativity and evolution to be true. And even if one believes either or both have been proven, they were true before being proven, and true before they were even formulated as hypotheses. Or if one prefers laws to theories, gravity existed and had effect before anyone knew what it was, before life existed (I'm giving the atheist view here and/or seeing God or gods for the polytheistic, as not being life per se...), before anyone formulated how it worked or why.

In quantum mechanics (uncertainty), mathematics (incompleteness), etc., rigid STEM fields, it's accepted that not everything can be known.

I have no problem with someone who takes the eminently reasonable position that there is no proof about various religious matters, nor who chooses to live their life that way (though I disagree... ). I do take issue with strong rather than weak atheists, however, those who claim that atheism is provably true. To me, that seems to be yet another form of unreasoning blind faith. And not that I think religion and science generally overlap, but it seems unscientific to claim such is provable. To claim it as true that is, what one believes, may be reasonable, though I think agnosticism is more logical, but I'm coming from the perspective of a theist so have my own biases.

You conflate (as theists tend to do) atheism and atheists.

Why is it okay to know extinct species don't exist because there's no evidence they do, but it's not okay to do so with gods? Special pleading writ large methinks.