Hawking says there are no gods

[JoeMorgue]

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.

When we can show evidence for a God, we can split the hair over how it got it here. Hypothesizing about how something that we've shown exists got here isn't even close to the same thing.

And no scientist is going "I have a metaphysical, evidence-less faith Panspermia."

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

When we can show evidence for a God, we can split the hair over how it got it here. Hypothesizing about how something that we've shown exists got here isn't even close to the same thing.

And no scientist is going "I have a metaphysical, evidence-less faith Panspermia."

So what is metaphysics?
You seem to know?

 

[Chanakya]

When we can show evidence for a God, we can split the hair over how it got it here. Hypothesizing about how something that we've shown exists got here isn't even close to the same thing.

But we do have this world. And so we split hair about how it came to be.

God ideas are all hypotheses towards this end. Some brutish, oafish ideas we reject, because we do have "eveidence of lack". Other more sophisticated ideas we do not directly reject, but nevertheless do not accept because of "lack of evidence".

And no scientist is going "I have a metaphysical, evidence-less faith Panspermia."

Nor do scientists reject it.



And also: by bringing up "faith", I'm afraid you're veering off, again, towards straw. True, theists take that tack. But I never have.

 

[Darat]

Lack of evidence, primarily. As well as all of the other arguments, all valid, that people have put up.

Except, with me, it leads to soft atheism. It leads to : 'I believe the ancient Potter series is fiction, as are those lovely rituals in there.' With the accent on "I believe".

And nor is this just semantics.

For instance, I am open to changing my mind, if given good reason to. Also : I am more accommodative of subjective beliefs of theists (and of hard atheists), as long as they realize the subjectivity of their stance, and provided they do not attempt to proselytize those personal subjective opinions and beliefs.

But we do have evidence that for example Christianity as represented by the RCC made up their religion.

 

[3point14]

But we do have evidence that for example Christianity as represented by the RCC made up their religion.

And nicked lots of bits from religions that had come before.

 

[theprestige]

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."

"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a strawman."

- Charles Babbage, probably

 

[dann]

Who says there's no life after death? The chair doesn't! (The Times of India)

 

[Thor 2]

.

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.

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."

Joe.

Just because something is really, really, important to some people, does not mean it's veracity is exempt from being tested in the same way, as other phenomena that don't have the same degree of importance to folk.

 

[Steve]

Joe.

Just because something is really, really, important to some people, does not mean it's veracity is exempt from being tested in the same way, as other phenomena that don't have the same degree of importance to folk.

"The idea of a god is really, really important to me, so you have to work extra hard to show me that none exist".

Denial of reality.

 

[Chanakya]

But we do have evidence that for example Christianity as represented by the RCC made up their religion.

Agreed.

And nicked lots of bits from religions that had come before.

That too.

 

[Thor 2]

But we do have evidence that for example Christianity as represented by the RCC made up their religion.

And nicked lots of bits from religions that had come before.

But if they really believed it when they were making it up it was OK ..... right?

 

[Roboramma]

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.

There are parts of the room that we haven't looked in. There's probably no chair there, but to say that you are certain that there isn't one is just wrong.

Some types of chair wouldn't even fit through the door, so you can be pretty sure they aren't there.

 

[dann]

Or it could just be hiding ... or invisible and still actually there, right?


Or are we still talking about gods?
That would make them really silly and childish, wouldn't it?
Or if we are talking about the God, I still recommend that you look Him up in the Old Testament where He's neither invisible nor hiding!

 

[ynot]

There are parts of the room that we haven't looked in. There's probably no chair there, but to say that you are certain that there isn't one is just wrong.

Some types of chair wouldn't even fit through the door, so you can be pretty sure they aren't there.

Perhaps it's a magical, invisible chair that works in mysterious ways.

 

[David Mo]

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".

In the sense that you had stated that you only sympathizeswith those who recognize their errors -error is what doesn't agree with your subjectivism- and don't like to discuss the beliefs that bother you.

This is what you mean with "as long as they realize the subjectivity of their stance" and "do not attempt to proselytize".

I have not problem to debate with persons that "don't realize" that I am right and I don't consider that to debate on beliefs is "to proselitize".

NOTE: "Totalitarian" was a joke/irony. The one that only wants to hear his truth.

 

[Roboramma]

Perhaps it's a magical, invisible chair that works in mysterious ways.

Sure, or maybe it's very small chair, like a LEGO chair. There might be one of those that we've overlooked. If a religious person says that there is a chair that I could sit on that interacts with the world in the same way as my dining room chair (so I know I'd see it if it were there), then we can look for one, and if we look everywhere and account for everything and still don't find one we can say there is no chair fitting that description.

That doesn't mean that there aren't other things fitting a different description. But if we have no reason to think that any particular thing is in the room then for any particular thing chances are that that particular thing isn't there.

 

[psionl0]

They may have believed in their own falsehoods the same way that Jesus believed in his own parables, the prodigal son, for instance: Not that this alleged prodigal son actually existed in the real world; he was fictional, intended to convey a 'deeper' truth, but he wasn't meant to be thought of as somebody that you would go looking for in real life to hear his side of the story.

Yes, Jesus reportedly spoke in parables. Since the individuals in those parables are not named we don't know if they were about actual persons or totally made up. It was irrelevant since the purpose of a parable was to convey a message.

This is in a different category to the authors who wrote or contributed to the bible which is in a different category to authors who wrote fiction.

Yes, it's far more likely that religious writers are deluded and believe in what they're writing than authors of fiction. J.K. Rowling doesn't believe that Harry Potter is real.

I like the way I put it better.

 

[dann]

Yes, Jesus reportedly spoke in parables. Since the individuals in those parables are not named we don't know if they were about actual persons or totally made up. It was irrelevant since the purpose of a parable was to convey a message.

This is in a different category to the authors* who wrote or contributed to the bible which is in a different category to authors who wrote fiction.

* According to Billy Graham there were 40 of them!

And, yes, that's why we distinguish between non-fiction, fiction and religion, science, art and the word of gods, apparently channelled through the many authors.

I guess a talking chair would be able to do that, too.

 

[dann]

Sure, or maybe it's very small chair, like a LEGO chair. There might be one of those that we've overlooked. If a religious person says that there is a chair that I could sit on that interacts with the world in the same way as my dining room chair (so I know I'd see it if it were there), then we can look for one, and if we look everywhere and account for everything and still don't find one we can say there is no chair fitting that description.

That doesn't mean that there aren't other things fitting a different description. But if we have no reason to think that any particular thing is in the room then for any particular thing chances are that that particular thing isn't there.

I think that we, each and everyone one of us, have to look for the chair inside ourselves. Swallowing a LEGO chair doesn't count! And it won't last!

 

[David Mo]

The burden of proof falls on every existential statement since someone expresses doubts about it. This is valid for chairs, natural laws or gods.
But it is not advisable to compare chairs and gods because the level of rigour is not the same.
"Can you bring a chair from the hall?" "There is not any chair in the hall". "Why do you say so?"
"The universe is in expansion". "Why do you say so?"
"God exists". "Why do you think so?"

They are different levels. Perhaps in the first case we can demand an explanation to the one that says no. Not in the other cases. In ordinary discussions it is a little pretentious demanding the proof of everything. Not so in more serious debates.