Hawking says there are no gods

[Chanakya]

Hi Chanakya

I know I owe you a post, but I fell into a "hole" and now I am ashamed that I haven't answered you or read your PM

Sorry

Hello, Tommy.

No, you don't "owe me a post"!

If you would enjoy the process of engaging with that now-months-old topic again, why then I'll be happy to check back myself.

But if for whatever reasons you don't, that's cool too!

Cheers!

 

[dann]

Hawking says, beware of aliens and AIs!

It just occurred to me that Stephen Hawking didn't really say anything for the past 30 years. His chair was the one doing the talking.

I don't really find it all that important to know if he (or the chair) said that there are no gods. As I've made it clear in earlier posts, I don't really think that it's a question that we need cosmology to answer. But in recent years I was wondering if Hawking might be losing his marbles when he started rambling about AIs and aliens:
Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind (BBC)
Stephen Hawking Warns Us to Stop Reaching Out to Aliens Before It's Too Late (Science Alert)

On the other hand, tied to his AI chair as he was, I can't deny that he was connected to the digital world in a much more intimate way than I am, so maybe I should begin to take his (or the chair's ) warnings seriously!

 

[Chanakya]

The Hard/Soft nonsense is meaningless gibberish hiding special pleading.

No, it isn't.

This post's a classic Poe. Theists specialize in this sort of thing, but evidently they haven't patented this approach.

Your "argument" is nonsensical. It's bare-faced assertion, no more. Couching it in less than civil terms does not magically make it convincing.

Now here's what I'm not sure about: Are you intentionally talking nonsense, for humorous effect, a parody of aggressive fanaticism as it were? Or not?

 

[JoeMorgue]

No, it isn't.

This post's a classic Poe. Theists specialize in this sort of thing, but evidently they haven't patented this approach.

Your "argument" is nonsensical. It's bare-faced assertion, no more. Couching it in less than civil terms does not magically make it convincing.

Now here's what I'm not sure about: Are you intentionally talking nonsense, for humorous effect, a parody of aggressive fanaticism as it were? Or not?

No I'm 100% serious.

"Is there a chair in the room?" If there's no chair in the room that's where the discussion ends.

Nobody is expected somehow prove that the chair isn't in the room.

Nobody yells and screams until we stop and reinvent the language from scratch "for clarity."

It doesn't get hairsplit to Narnia and back over whether or not "There is no chair" or "I can't prove there's not a chair" or "I believe or don't believe there is a chair."

Nobody is expected to be Chairnostic or put some form of ass covering "But I could be wrong" addendum to their statement.

Nobody demands you somehow define whether or not it's a Eames Lounge Chair, a Emeco 1006 Navy Chair, or Arne Jacobson Egg Chair that's not in the room before saying "There's no chair in the room."

Nobody goes "Well what if it's a magic chair we just can't see, feel, or sit in?"

Nobody demands a side tangent where we debate a person's right to say there's a chair in the room.

Nobody brings up famous chairs in fiction for any reason.

Nobody goes "Well this famous philosopher born in a time when we still thought maggots could spontaneously generate from rotten meat says the question doesn't have an answer..."

Nobody questions whether or not the question of whether or not there is a chair falls under another epistemology.

There is no chair is where the discussion stops.

Now you, the Word Salad Bobbsey Twins, and probably multiple other people are all going to dump paragraph after paragraph of noise at me about why God is different but I don't care because it's all going to be pure, distilled special pleading. It's all going to be "God is different because I'm defining him differently" and pleading doesn't get any more special than that.

And that's assuming I get a response that isn't just loud, angry incredulity.

 

[Chanakya]

In other words, that they agree with you and shut up. You're pretty totalitarian, aren't you?

Theists have their reasons -- they don't convince me. Atheists have theirs. Let them say them. You listen to them and say why you don't like them instead of throwing anathemas left and right. That's how freedom of speech and the search for truth work.

That was a ... well, surprising response to my post!

Those "other words" you refer to are yours, David Mo, not mine. A strawman.

You do see, on re-reading my post and yours, that you've been playing with straw, don't you?

If you realize your error, no more need be said!

But if you don't, then I must ask you to explain to me how on earth you've found a way to think of me as "totalitarian".

 

[theprestige]

JoeMorgue, nobody bothers much about the chair question because the stakes are so low. Burden of proof is different from standards of evidence. Burden of proof is an unavoidable responsibility imposed by logical reasoning.

But the standard of evidence we apply to claims is influenced by all kinds of things, including but not limited to our interest in the question and the opportunity cost of imposing a very high standard of evidence to the question.

"Is there a chair in the room?" becomes a very different kind of question when the answer decides a murder trial. Suddenly we're motivated to apply a very high standard of evidence to the question. And if the decision can be affected by a hair-split, then the question will get rightly split to Narnia and back - and beyond, if possible.

But the burden of proof never changed. The only thing that changed was how much we care about making sure the person with the burden actually carries it.

It's no great insight to posit a scenario where nobody cares much about the answer, and then point out that nobody cares much about the answer. But theists and atheists alike seem to care quite a bit about the answer to the god question. You have made a false analogy. We cannot apply the careless standard of evidence to a question that people actually care about. Nor can we arbitrarily shift or dismiss the burden of proof that arises from a claim.

 

[dann]

I tend to disagree. The important thing isn't if there's a chair or not. What's important is what is says!

 

[Chanakya]

Either a strong or weak atheist may be a proselytizer (or not).

I agree. Of course, it's theists who most often do this. But I agree, it isn't as if they alone have some monopoly on this sort of thing.

Now, depending upon what you mean by proselytizing - how aggressive etc. - I would strongly disagree with you.

Ah, I see. Perhaps I should have made my meaning clearer.

You're a theist, so perhaps you may disagree (on the other hand, you seem to be a skeptic, so perhaps you may agree) : What the theist (often) does is to misrepresent their subjective belief as objective truth, and this putative objective truth is what they seek to proselytize. You may be an exception, perhaps: but many/most theists do that. That is what I object to.

And I would object to it if an atheist -- wheter hard, or soft, or poached -- did it too.

Are we on the same page now, or do you still disagree with my stance?

 

[3point14]

JoeMorgue, nobody bothers much about the chair question because the stakes are so low. Burden of proof is different from standards of evidence. Burden of proof is an unavoidable responsibility imposed by logical reasoning.

But the standard of evidence we apply to claims is influenced by all kinds of things, including but not limited to our interest in the question and the opportunity cost of imposing a very high standard of evidence to the question.

"Is there a chair in the room?" becomes a very different kind of question when the answer decides a murder trial. Suddenly we're motivated to apply a very high standard of evidence to the question. And if the decision can be affected by a hair-split, then the question will get rightly split to Narnia and back - and beyond, if possible.

But the burden of proof never changed. The only thing that changed was how much we care about making sure the person with the burden actually carries it.

It's no great insight to posit a scenario where nobody cares much about the answer, and then point out that nobody cares much about the answer. But theists and atheists alike seem to care quite a bit about the answer to the god question. You have made a false analogy. We cannot apply the careless standard of evidence to a question that people actually care about. Nor can we arbitrarily shift or dismiss the burden of proof that arises from a claim.

I don't think any of that matters in the slightest.

 

[Chanakya]

JoeMorgue, I would agree with what theprestige said.

Further, and more fundamentally: You preface your argument by saying "If there's no chair in the room". Do you realize you're begging the question?

Whether there is a chair or not is the question!

Because you seem to think that your subjective answer to that question is objectively true, that is why this appears to you to be semantics and hair-splitting.

 

[Chanakya]

I tend to disagree. The important thing isn't if there's a chair or not. What's important is what is says!

 

[JoeMorgue]

JoeMorgue, nobody bothers much about the chair question because the stakes are so low. Burden of proof is different from standards of evidence. Burden of proof is an unavoidable responsibility imposed by logical reasoning.

But the standard of evidence we apply to claims is influenced by all kinds of things, including but not limited to our interest in the question and the opportunity cost of imposing a very high standard of evidence to the question.

"Is there a chair in the room?" becomes a very different kind of question when the answer decides a murder trial. Suddenly we're motivated to apply a very high standard of evidence to the question. And if the decision can be affected by a hair-split, then the question will get rightly split to Narnia and back - and beyond, if possible.

But the burden of proof never changed. The only thing that changed was how much we care about making sure the person with the burden actually carries it.

It's no great insight to posit a scenario where nobody cares much about the answer, and then point out that nobody cares much about the answer. But theists and atheists alike seem to care quite a bit about the answer to the god question. You have made a false analogy. We cannot apply the careless standard of evidence to a question that people actually care about. Nor can we arbitrarily shift or dismiss the burden of proof that arises from a claim.

I fundamentally disagree that intellectual standards change based on how important the question is, and certainly disagree that the standards go down instead of up.

My whole point is "Is there a chair in the room" and "Is there a God" are the same. They are objective statements of fact about the state of the universe that either are or are not correct and should be judged the same.

Questions of... efficiency in how much mental energy we waste on what question aren't the same thing as saying "Stuff literally becomes true or not true with differing levels of evidence based on how important it is."

 

[JoeMorgue]

JoeMorgue, I would agree with what theprestige said.

Further, and more fundamentally: You preface your argument by saying "If there's no chair in the room". Do you realize you're begging the question?

Whether there is a chair or not is the question!

Because you seem to think that your subjective answer to that question is objectively true, that is why this appears to you to be semantics and hair-splitting.

Because the chair isn't there if we can't see it, touch it, measure it, interact with it or in anyway show its existence.

It's doesn't magically become there because people think it is, because people want it to be, or people "believe it" to be.

Sure you could, if you wanted, sit down and after the fact make up any number of excuses and special pleadings as to why we can't prove the chair couldn't still be there... but you don't.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I don't think any of that matters in the slightest.

Interesting that you have no argument to support your case and it is telling that you start with "I don't think...".
You are aware the limitation of just thinking, right? You also have check and question your thinking and try to make an argument to support your case.
Further that you then end with "...any of that matters in the slightest" could point to that there are feelings/emotions involved. Have you checked that out?

 

[3point14]

Interesting that you have no argument to support your case and it is telling that you start with "I don't think...".
You are aware the limitation of just thinking, right? You also have check and question your thinking and try to make an argument to support your case.
Further that you then end with "...any of that matters in the slightest" could point to that there are feelings/emotions involved. Have you checked that out?

No, I think, as Joe does above, that the question stands alone, totally separate from the the consequences of the answer. The logical standards don't change just because lots of people think the question is important. The standards for the existence of the chair and for the fictional entity god are exactly the same. How important the answer to the question is does not matter one jot to the logical process of deciding that an empty room contains no chair and an empty sky contains no god.

Just because some people think the answer is really important, that doesn't change the logic required to answer the question.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Because the chair isn't there if we can't see it, touch it, measure it, interact with it or in anyway show its existence.

It's doesn't magically become there because people think it is, because people want it to be, or people "believe it" to be.

Sure you could, if you wanted, sit down and after the fact make up any number of excuses and special pleadings as to why we can't prove the chair couldn't still be there... but you don't.

But that doesn't matter to those, who believe.
Further we can't interact with "if it matters" in the following sense: We can't see that it matters, touch it, measure it or interact with it and it only matters subjectively. It is not a real scientific fact, if something matters. It is a non-factual belief.
If something matters to you, it is all in your head and others will only agree, if they believe so too.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No, I think, as Joe does above, that the question stands alone, totally separate from the the consequences of the answer. The logical standards don't change just because lots of people think the question is important. The standards for the existence of the chair and for the fictional entity god are exactly the same. How important the answer to the question is does not matter one jot to the logical process of deciding that an empty room contains no chair and an empty sky contains no god.

Just because some people think the answer is really important, that doesn't change the logic required to answer the question.

Thank you for your sort out answer.

 

[Chanakya]

Because the chair isn't there if we can't see it, touch it, measure it, interact with it or in anyway show its existence.

That's 'lack of evidence', not 'evidence of lack'. They're not the same things, these two. This difference is exactly what the soft-hard distinction is all about.

It's doesn't magically become there because people think it is, because people want it to be, or people "believe it" to be.

Sure you could, if you wanted, sit down and after the fact make up any number of excuses and special pleadings as to why we can't prove the chair couldn't still be there... but you don't.

This portion, you aren't really addressing me, but some straw theist you've conjured up.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's 'lack of evidence', not 'evidence of lack'. They're not the same things, these two. This difference is exactly what the soft-hard distinction is all about.

And it's a distinction we never make in any other discussion.

 

[Chanakya]

And it's a distinction we never make in any other discussion.

Actually we do this whenever precision is important.

In court cases, e.g., as theprestige points out. In police investigations. In detective stories.

Even in scientific matters! For example, the question: Did life come to earth via meteors, specifically asteroids? We don't have evidence, so no one claims it did. But nor do we say it didn't.