Hawking says there are no gods

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Hi David

Something about facts and non-factual beliefs.
What I have found over the years, is that there is a sub-group of humans, who have problems separating the 2 in some cases.
Now I will state a fact common to all humans - no human on the surface of earth can fly solely by their own power/means. We can debate the induction problem, universal, absolute, objective and yet. But stay with me. That is an example of something, which is common to all humans. I will called it a hard fact.
So is the universe made up of hard facts alone?
That is testable and the outcome is no!
The test goes like this:
Human one: The universe is made up of hard facts alone!
Human two: Yes!
Human three: No!
Now what happens here is the outcome is not the same as with as with hard facts.
If this where the case of only hard facts, then the "no" should not take place, but it does.
The trick is to understand that the "no" is wrong according to the rule of only hard facts; "the universe is made up of hard facts alone!", but since the "no" actually takes place, there is more than hard facts. If there were only hard facts, then there would be no "no", it would be impossible just like it is impossible that a human on the surface of earth can fly solely by their own power/means.

So there is several correlates.
"The universe is made up of hard facts alone!" is not a hard fact itself, but it is a fact, that it can be believed, just as the "yes". Now the "no" states a fact, namley that there are other fact than only hard facts.

How is that important: Any beliefs in a cosmological claim or indifference in/lack of such beliefs are in all cases not hard facts.
If any on of them was a hard fact, then the other ones wouldn't be possible.
I.e in a natural world explanation neither "there are no cosmological gods" nor "there is at least one cosmological god" are cases of hard facts.

QED

Now comes the funny part. If someone then claims one of the assertive claims is a fact and the contradictory one is false/factually wrong, then how is the other one false/factually wrong if, if at all?

Hi JoeMorgue. I am looking at you and the rest of the strong/hard atheists.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

Oh so there's a "Chair in the Gaps" you say?

 

[Darat]

Oh so there's a "Chair in the Gaps" you say?

And the only way to get one of those is to redefine what the word chair means.. so it no longer means something large enough to sit on, that is visible and so on.

In other words labeling it as a "chair" means chair can mean absolutely anything you want it to be but 100% for certain it isn't what anyone else has ever called a chair.

 

[David Mo]

Hi David

Something about facts and non-factual beliefs.
What I have found over the years, is that there is a sub-group of humans, who have problems separating the 2 in some cases.
Now I will state a fact common to all humans - no human on the surface of earth can fly solely by their own power/means. We can debate the induction problem, universal, absolute, objective and yet. But stay with me. That is an example of something, which is common to all humans. I will called it a hard fact.
So is the universe made up of hard facts alone?
That is testable and the outcome is no!
The test goes like this:
Human one: The universe is made up of hard facts alone!
Human two: Yes!
Human three: No!
Now what happens here is the outcome is not the same as with as with hard facts.
If this where the case of only hard facts, then the "no" should not take place, but it does.
The trick is to understand that the "no" is wrong according to the rule of only hard facts; "the universe is made up of hard facts alone!", but since the "no" actually takes place, there is more than hard facts. If there were only hard facts, then there would be no "no", it would be impossible just like it is impossible that a human on the surface of earth can fly solely by their own power/means.

So there is several correlates.
"The universe is made up of hard facts alone!" is not a hard fact itself, but it is a fact, that it can be believed, just as the "yes". Now the "no" states a fact, namley that there are other fact than only hard facts.

How is that important: Any beliefs in a cosmological claim or indifference in/lack of such beliefs are in all cases not hard facts.
If any on of them was a hard fact, then the other ones wouldn't be possible.
I.e in a natural world explanation neither "there are no cosmological gods" nor "there is at least one cosmological god" are cases of hard facts.

QED

Now comes the funny part. If someone then claims one of the assertive claims is a fact and the contradictory one is false/factually wrong, then how is the other one false/factually wrong if, if at all?

Hi JoeMorgue. I am looking at you and the rest of the strong/hard atheists.

There is a different alternative: The question about the origin of the universe is meaningless. It's like asking what color the isosceles triangle is or how a galaxy tastes.

It seems that asking about the origin of the universe makes sense because we are used to wondering about the origin of concrete things: the solar system, the Ku-Klux-Klan, the Manchester United, etc... They are parts of the universe that we can perceive or explain by means of observations. But we do not have a single possibility of perceiving the universe as a Whole. The concept of Totality of the Universe is empty.

To ask oneself about the origin of an empty idea is like asking oneself about the colour of isosceles triangles. It doesn't make sense.

Something similar happens with the idea of God. We think we know what it means, but it is false. All we know is certain incomplete representations of what God might be. Therefore, the idea of God is empty and anything we say about him is a language trap. Even that he exists.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And the only way to get one of those is to redefine what the word chair means.. so it no longer means something large enough to sit on, that is visible and so on.

In other words labeling it as a "chair" means chair can mean absolutely anything you want it to be but 100% for certain it isn't what anyone else has ever called a chair.

1. There's a Flubberdilillypicker in my pantry.
2. I define "Flubberdilillypicker" as "The object in my pantry."

There. Airtight, inarguable evidence for the existence of a Flubberdilillypicker.

Now that I've got my foot in the door I just every so slightly modify what a Flubberdilillypicker is for each situation until it's also the thing that tells grown adults how to rub their genitals together and put its rules up outside our courthouse but whenever I'm asked to intellectually defend it, I run back behind points 1 and 2 and stay there.

 

[dann]

"Can you bring a chair from the hall?" "There is not any chair in the hall". "Why do you say so?"

"That's what the chair told me to say!!!"

 

[epeeist]

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.



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?

I believe what I believe is true, or else I wouldn't believe it... So I don't think I'm as skeptical as you hope I am, at least not in the religious context. So, I do see my beliefs as objectively true (the substantive religious ones I mean). I just don't expect that other people will instantly (nor necessarily ever) see what I believe as objective truth, nor are they rejecting God because they don't believe etc. It would be just as unreasonable for me to expect adherence to my beliefs as it would be for them to expect me to adhere to their beliefs just because they believe it.

That's one thing I've never really understood, how some people (not just Christian) expect that, hey, you've heard the truth of our religion, now you must believe and if you don't you're rejecting God. As if belief is a pure choice (behaviour perhaps, but not belief). Some consider atheism (or non-Christianity with the possible exception of Judaism? Or similarly to oversimplify Islam considers other religions a problem with the possible exception of Christianity and Judaism, etc.) to be rejection of God, whereas I and most of those I've discussed it with in a religious context see it more as just, having different beliefs. You can't reject God unless you believe, therefore an atheist isn't rejecting God (or a non-Christian monotheist isn't rejecting Jesus, because they don't believe in him).

An example that comes to mind that I read about a few years ago in a Catholic bioethics newsletter, this is all from memory and simplified. At a conference with all sorts of Christians, the author was one of the few Catholic speakers and was speaking was discussing ethical and philosophical (aka natural law) arguments about various things that might be persuasive to non-Christians and the non-religious generally. Most other speakers were more, the Bible says this, therefore X. He raised the point in discussion, why should a non-Christian be persuaded by what the Bible says, if you want to persuade use more universal arguments, which seemed to befuddle a number of others present.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Anywho, re: Hawkings opinion. I think it was based on the "No boundary Proposal" by him and James Hartle. In this model of the cosmos there really isn't any place for a creator interferring with us.

 

[Thor 2]

I believe what I believe is true, or else I wouldn't believe it... So I don't think I'm as skeptical as you hope I am, at least not in the religious context. So, I do see my beliefs as objectively true (the substantive religious ones I mean). I just don't expect that other people will instantly (nor necessarily ever) see what I believe as objective truth, nor are they rejecting God because they don't believe etc. It would be just as unreasonable for me to expect adherence to my beliefs as it would be for them to expect me to adhere to their beliefs just because they believe it.

That's one thing I've never really understood, how some people (not just Christian) expect that, hey, you've heard the truth of our religion, now you must believe and if you don't you're rejecting God. As if belief is a pure choice (behaviour perhaps, but not belief). Some consider atheism (or non-Christianity with the possible exception of Judaism? Or similarly to oversimplify Islam considers other religions a problem with the possible exception of Christianity and Judaism, etc.) to be rejection of God, whereas I and most of those I've discussed it with in a religious context see it more as just, having different beliefs. You can't reject God unless you believe, therefore an atheist isn't rejecting God (or a non-Christian monotheist isn't rejecting Jesus, because they don't believe in him).

An example that comes to mind that I read about a few years ago in a Catholic bioethics newsletter, this is all from memory and simplified. At a conference with all sorts of Christians, the author was one of the few Catholic speakers and was speaking was discussing ethical and philosophical (aka natural law) arguments about various things that might be persuasive to non-Christians and the non-religious generally. Most other speakers were more, the Bible says this, therefore X. He raised the point in discussion, why should a non-Christian be persuaded by what the Bible says, if you want to persuade use more universal arguments, which seemed to befuddle a number of others present.

Yes I have been on the receiving end of this crap many times. Just because you have been made aware of the existence of Christianity, you become eligible for a one way ticket to Hell.

"You have seen the truth and rejected it."
"You do not disbelieve in God you reject and hate Him."

Somehow the question of the fate of those who have not "Heard the Word" is not so easy to dismiss. Some believers are honest enough to accept there is injustice here, but somehow the fault lies with faithful, who have not carried the word to those unfortunates. Others, more honest still, find a way to grant entry to Heaven for these although it undermines the fundamental "Truth" of Christianity..... That we are unworthy sinners and the only way to get salvation, is to accept this and you get a free ride on Christ's back. A can of worms is what we have here.

 

[Roboramma]

Oh so there's a "Chair in the Gaps" you say?

The "god in the gaps" is generally used as a way to argue for a positive statement that a god exists. That clearly doesn't work, because not knowing something doesn't mean that you know something. You can't point at a hole in our knowledge and use that to claim that you know that a god goes there. But that's not what I'm doing.

I am making the extremely obvious statement that we don't know about the things we don't know about.

The chance that a random space will turn out to be filled by a chair is extremely small and for all practical purposes I'm happy to ignore that chance, but I'm not going to claim that it doesn't exist.

 

[Roboramma]

And the only way to get one of those is to redefine what the word chair means.. so it no longer means something large enough to sit on, that is visible and so on.

In other words labeling it as a "chair" means chair can mean absolutely anything you want it to be but 100% for certain it isn't what anyone else has ever called a chair.

In the post that Joe was responding to I already made the distinction between religious statements that we can show to be false and those that are simply unevidenced and for which we have no reason to believe them (and these are very likely to be false).

I agree with you that many things fall into the former category.

 

[Roboramma]

1. There's a Flubberdilillypicker in my pantry.
2. I define "Flubberdilillypicker" as "The object in my pantry."

There. Airtight, inarguable evidence for the existence of a Flubberdilillypicker.

Now that I've got my foot in the door I just every so slightly modify what a Flubberdilillypicker is for each situation until it's also the thing that tells grown adults how to rub their genitals together and put its rules up outside our courthouse but whenever I'm asked to intellectually defend it, I run back behind points 1 and 2 and stay there.

Yeah, that's one of the really annoying things about this. The way that some theists argue for god from some flawed but not so obviously flawed argument, like the Prime Mover or something, and then somehow they act like if there's an unmoved mover they've just proved that it is the God of the Bible, rather than the Flying Spaghetti Monster or anything else.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The "god in the gaps" is generally used as a way to argue for a positive statement that a god exists. That clearly doesn't work, because not knowing something doesn't mean that you know something. You can't point at a hole in our knowledge and use that to claim that you know that a god goes there. But that's not what I'm doing.

I am making the extremely obvious statement that we don't know about the things we don't know about.

The chance that a random space will turn out to be filled by a chair is extremely small and for all practical purposes I'm happy to ignore that chance, but I'm not going to claim that it doesn't exist.

And we're right back to the "We must place an ass covering 'But I could be wrong' statement" thing.

No you don't. You, I, and every other Tom, Dick, and Harry don't walk around constantly amending some "I hereby officially acknowledge the homeopathic sliver of chance I could be wrong" disclaimer to every statement you make.

I call this the "The day your significant other specifically tells you they will not cheat on you today" problem.

Everyday after breakfast you tell your significant other goodbye, kiss them on the cheek, wish them a good day, tell them you love them, and see them out the door.

And this goes on, day in, day out, for years. Same routine.

Then one day, out of the blue and seemingly at random as they walk out the door your significant other turns to you and upon leaving reassures you that "Don't worry, today I won't cheat on you."

Did the possibility that your SO is cheating on you go up or down?

TL : DR, making clarifying statements only in specific scenarios carries with it an implicit message.

 

[Roboramma]

Did the possibility that your SO is cheating on you go up or down?

Yep.

TL : DR, making clarifying statements only in specific scenarios carries with it an implicit message.

I am basically a strong atheist. If you ask me if God (or god) exists, I'll generally say no.

If we are having a discussion about whether or not it's correct to admit that we don't actually know with certainty, then I'm also going to admit that, for at least some versions of what people are talking about when they say "god", we aren't actually certain,

 

[dann]

The chance that a random space will turn out to be filled by a chair is extremely small and for all practical purposes I'm happy to ignore that chance, but I'm not going to claim that it doesn't exist.

The chance is probably much bigger than you might think:

Maureen
A bookcase on back wall where mirror is, floor lamp and comfy chair or chaise lounge for reading.
Need Help with random space in wall (Houzz.com, Nov. 7, 2014)

 

[David Mo]

I am basically a strong atheist. If you ask me if God (or god) exists, I'll generally say no.

If we are having a discussion about whether or not it's correct to admit that we don't actually know with certainty, then I'm also going to admit that, for at least some versions of what people are talking about when they say "god", we aren't actually certain,

What "versions" are you speaking of? Could you be more concrete? Thanks.

 

[Roboramma]

What "versions" are you speaking of? Could you be more concrete? Thanks.

For instance, a Deist god.

I still find such a concept so unlikely that in general I'll just say it doesn't exist, but I'm happy to admit that we can't rule it out completely.

 

[David Mo]

For instance, a Deist god.

I still find such a concept so unlikely that in general I'll just say it doesn't exist, but I'm happy to admit that we can't rule it out completely.

First of all, there is not a single Deism. There are different deisms that only differ in that their god is more or less blurred and abstract.

I don't concede the slighest possibility to such an evident artificious construction. It is just the last wall that religions set up against reason.
Of course, you can stretch the word "possibility" till it means nothing. I am speaking of real possibility.

 

[Roboramma]

First of all, there is not a single Deism. There are different deisms that only differ in that their god is more or less blurred and abstract.

I don't concede the slighest possibility to such an evident artificious construction. It is just the last wall that religions set up against reason.
Of course, you can stretch the word "possibility" till it means nothing. I am speaking of real possibility.

I'm not a fan of the idea that the universe is a simulation, but I don't put it as an impossibility based on what we know, and if the universe is a simulation, whatever designed and runs that simulation would in some sense be a god, so that's another of the class of thing I'm talking about.

 

[Darat]

I'm not a fan of the idea that the universe is a simulation, but I don't put it as an impossibility based on what we know, and if the universe is a simulation, whatever designed and runs that simulation would in some sense be a god, so that's another of the class of thing I'm talking about.

And it's this I keep coming back to, god is used to mean so many different classes of things that it is rendered meaningless.

A "deist god" bears no resemblance to the god that the RCC states exists, to use the word "god" for both is an unnecessary confusion.

And of course a ""deist god" is again just stating "something no idea what could exist and could have created the universe" and that is best answered with a "duh!" whilst we remember that is not a god in the sense the vast majority of the world's religious folk use the word god.