Hawking says there are no gods

[dann]

We never went back to church again.

So that experience (or your argument) convinced your parents, too?!

 

[Darat]

Are you serious??? How could you possibly get that from the post you quoted. Is your horse so high that you can't read the text?

Itsimply follows from what you said, you've reduced the word god to simply mean "something that could exist".

 

[Darat]

Mostly they haven't thought it through. They haven't thought about the ramifications of god having this power and using it. That a god, or its actions, are undetectable means little. Any use of the power allows it to be detected through violations in the laws of the universe.

For example, a god puts a new planet into our solar system. If the planet interacts naturally we see it throwing our solar system out of its current balance. Obviously we detect the changes and ask, "How did that planet just appear because it can't happen like that anymore. That violates the laws." If the planet doesn't interact with our solar system we ask, "How did that planet just appear and why doesn't it interact with the bodies around it? That violates the laws."

Religions are reduced to invisible gods doing invisible things that have no effect on anything in the universe. Applying Occam's Razor to that you get "Gods don't exist."

And of course they are having to invent a new definition for the word "god", one that isn't used by those that actually believe in a god. Because all those believers in gods (and past believers in now no longer considered "real" gods, for example Zeus) all claim their god/s interact with the world in very observable ways.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

And of course they are having to invent a new definition for the word "god", one that isn't used by those that actually believe in a god. Because all those believers in gods (and past believers in now no longer considered "real" gods, for example Zeus) all claim their god/s interact with the world in very observable ways.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Deism

Read more in the link

In Lord Herbert’s treatises five religious ideas were recognized as God-given and innate in the mind of man from the beginning of time: the belief in a supreme being, in the need for his worship, in the pursuit of a pious and virtuous life as the most desirable form of worship, in the need of repentance for sins, and in rewards and punishments in the next world.

Here is a version of deism, which at least one human has believed in:
God created the world and only interacts after death. There are no miracles, revelations and what not.
You get to God through reason and looking at the natural world. There is nothing supernatural in the world. The supernatural is that God created the natural universe and after death (supernatural) you receive rewards and punishments in the next world (supernatural).

Your bias is showing, Darat.
It is possible to believe in a creator god, which only intervenes after death and there has been at least one such human to believe so. And further it is upon you to show that there is no such human currently.

 

[psionl0]

Itsimply follows from what you said, you've reduced the word god to simply mean "something that could exist".

"something that could exist" is your own strawman.

I said "god or gods" (meaning all gods). Since Hawking ruled them all out, I don't see anything bad in doing that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Then take the straw away then. Put some qualities, characteristics, determining factors, or anything else on "God" or else is it just "Something that could exist."

This is all nonsense. "God" isn't this incredibly nebulous and vague idea, people just pretend it is because "If you can't pin down what I'm talking about I can't be proven wrong" has become the go to tactic for the theists and their apologists.

The endless round robin of "Nuh-uh, that's not my God!" retorts and "No True Scottish God" argumentatives is nothing but a shell game.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Then take the straw away then. Put some qualities, characteristics, determining factors, or anything else on "God" or else is it just "Something that could exist."

This is all nonsense. "God" isn't this incredibly nebulous and vague idea, people just pretend it is because "If you can't pin down what I'm talking about I can't be proven wrong" has become the go to tactic for the theists and their apologists.

The endless round robin of "Nuh-uh, that's not my God!" retorts and "No True Scottish God" argumentatives is nothing but a shell game.

All gods try to explain something about the universe as such and/or element(s) of it. There is a variant, which does not interact through revelations, prayers, miracles and what not. The exact minimal version is the first unmoved mover. This god is the creator of the universe but doesn't intervene. You can then add that after death you go to Heaven/Hell or are reincarnated.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The scientific process is not only formulating and testing hypotheses.

Yes but a lot of people maintain a very narrow view of what "science" is and get set off bad if you apply it to anything that isn't beakers and labcoats.

The point is regardless of what you want to define what Jane Goodell did as, it most certainly wasn't "faith."

But that's not what Hawking said. He specifically referred to the laws of physics being fixed. If you want to change that you have to describe the new forces, identify which particles carry them, and show how they intereact.

Because the God-botherers need to make it so somehow God has a huge effect on the world without leaving any evidence that his existence can be judged by which isn't how reality works.

That's how they've argumentatively watered God down to a vague vague vaguness that vaguely does vague things in a vague vague way while still having to retain the conceptual point that he's still somehow the most important and powerful force in the Universe.

 

[The Sparrow]

...because wandering through nature is a hell of a lot more interesting than sitting in a damp and dingy basement listening to stories with weak characters and terrible plot lines. We never went back to church again.

******* eh!

 

[Chanakya]

You are arguing against the argument no one is making except the people arguing this straw man.

I don't think so, actually. People -- you too, unless I'm mistaken -- did present this argument. Likening all religions to Potter and cargo cults, and implying (perhaps actually saying outright, I can't recall, and can't be bothered to check back) that since Potter and cargo cults can be dismissed outright, so can all religions. That's a false analogy, an (implicit) argument based on a false equivalence.

Hogwarts was merely cited as an example of fiction just like invisible garage dragons (Sagan?) or invisible pink unicorns (author unknown?) that one makes no bother to disprove.

Right. And I'm saying religions don't fall into quite that category. (That is, I believe religions are fictions, but we can't reject them -- that is, some/many of them, and therefore religions in general -- quite as easily, and certainly not using the exact same reasoning, that we might for Hogwarts, or for cargo cults.)

Why treat god fiction differently than those other fictions? Why the double standard?

People often ask this, rhetorically as it were. I think this is a valid question, one that comes with a very reasonable answer.

We've discussed this already, 3point14 and I, but since that was in a different thread, here's the gist of what I'd said there:

Yes, I agree this is a double standard. But no, I don't agree that simply pointing out that this is a double standard is a valid argument. I think, in this instance, the double standard is perfectly apt.

We treat religions differently than other fictions, simply because vast numbers of people believe in the former.

Like I said in the post that you've quoted: Think of a post-apocalyptic world, where much of our knowledge has been wiped out, and some tattered copies of Rowling's works have survived. And large numbers of people start actually believing that all of that is based on truth.

How would you treat the Potter books, in that scenario? Surely one would be justified, in that scenario, in analyzing it in all earnestness, and painstakingly working out why it is (or isn't) 'true'.

But that is not the evidence all gods are mythical. It is only an argument against the claim I must prove gods don't exist in order to make the case.

But that stands to reason. Any claim you make, you must be prepared to defend. (Provided you care to be rational, that is.)

The fact that negatives are difficult to prove -- and sometimes impossible to prove -- does not take away the burden of proof. It only means that you must not make claims that you cannot back up.

No I do not need to prove such a thing as I have already presented overwhelming evidence gods are fictional beings.

You personally? Sure, I agree. If you don't wish to engage with this any further -- because you believe you've already presented overwhelming evidence against religions in general, or for any other reason -- then absolutely, you are under no compulsion. Sure, you don't need to prove anything unless you want to.

But if you make a statement basis something that you haven't backed up, then I'm afraid that won't be quite ... well, reasonable, rational.

BTW, older more complex religions is not an argument from evidence.

Agreed.

And the provenance of the Bible is not mysterious. There certainly isn't evidence it was magically produced.

Again, agreed.

 

[Chanakya]

I agree but It is not the most usual case. The most usual case is that people sincerely affirm that their favourit football team is the best of the world. Objectively speaking.

I agree, that is how things actually tend to be, in general.

But might we not expect more within these forums, given that we expend so much energy here in trying to decide what is rational and what isn't, and so on?

The only thing to do is to try to bring the debate to the ground of facts. If possible.

Absolutely. That is, that may not be the "only thing to do", one may just as effectively point out how someone's opinion on their favorite sporting team is merely subjective: but sure, nothing beats actually discussing facts.

 

[Darat]

"something that could exist" is your own strawman.

I said "god or gods" (meaning all gods). Since Hawking ruled them all out, I don't see anything bad in doing that.

It's not a strawman; you have no definition for the word god so it is exactly the same as saying "something" exists.

 

[Chanakya]

Sorry for barging in on this conversation without having followed all of it, but basis this last post:


If someone claims hrgzhchyzzzs exist, then surely it is the one making the claim who must explain what hrgzhchyzzzs are?

Rejecting this claim is one thing: But should someone make the claim that hrgzhchyzzzs do not exist, then again, surely it is the person making the claim (the negative claim this time) on whom rests the onus of providing the definitions (as well as providing convincing evidence)?

If it so happens that hrgzhchyzzzs cannot be defined at all, then that does not take away the burden of proof (or the burden of providing the definition, if I may call it that), does it? That only means no claims, positive or negative, must be made about hrgzhchyzzzs.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Yes but a lot of people maintain a very narrow view of what "science" is and get set off bad if you apply it to anything that isn't beakers and labcoats.

The point is regardless of what you want to define what Jane Goodell did as, it most certainly wasn't "faith."



Because the God-botherers need to make it so somehow God has an effect on the world without leaving evidence which isn't how reality works.

That's how they've argumentatively watered God down to a vague vague vaguness that vaguely does vague things in a vague vague way while still having to retain the conceptual point that he's still somehow the most important and powerful force in the Universe.

Take an example - no human can fly off from the ground on earth solely using their own body. That is common to all humans as immutable, universal, absolute, objective, physical and so on.
It is not common to all humans, immutable, universal, absolute, objective, physical and so on, what they claim, reality is.
If any one claim of what reality is, is common to all humans as immutable, universal, absolute, objective, physical and so on, then no other claims would be possible.
Since other claims are possible, no one claim is immutable, universal, absolute, objective, physical and so on. All claims are in effects changeable, individual, relative, subjective, mental and so on.
What reality is, is that it is a word, which depends on beliefs. Not all parts depends on beliefs, but some do and what reality is in toto, is a case of beliefs.

Here is the test:
Human 1: Reality is one factor and one factor alone.
Human 2: Yes!
Human 3: No!
The problem is that reality is the set of all time, space and factors and these factors can't be reduce down to one. Now matter how much you want to, you can't reduce reality down to one of the following factors: immutable, universal, absolute, objective, physical, rational, reasonable, logical, only with scientific evidence and so on.

So how reality works, includes that some humans believe in a religious manner.
So the question is this: Since there are non factual beliefs and if that matters in any sense, can that it matters be shown to be a fact?
The problem is that any version of how it matters, is changeable, individual, relative, subjective, mental and so on.
That includes you, I and everybody else.
Any version in any variant of what matters, is important, is useful, must work, must make sense, be meaningful and so on in the end is changeable, individual, relative, subjective, mental and so on.
Humans are for some parts different and how you deal with that, is changeable, individual, relative, subjective, mental and so on. That goes for all humans.

There are facts, but that they matter, is not a fact!!!

 

[The Sparrow]

You would think so Chanakya, but "god" is special. All one has to do is imagine the concept, then make you aware of it. Then suddenly, if you dare say 'there is no such thing' you bear the burden of proof. You must prove the negative.

Example in point. You have mentioned hrgzchyzzzs. (Damn you!!)
I must now take the position of agnostic, or at least weak a-hrgzchyzzzs, else I inherit burden of proof on a negative.

 

[Chanakya]

Heretic! You speak without realizing the full consequences of not embracing hrgzchyzzzs within your heart! Repent and recant, before it is too late!

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Really? You're that non-committal about T-rex being extinct? Think one is going to come back to life when we drop a bomb on Antarctica?

No, that would be stupid. Just like reading my post and thinking that's a worthwhile question.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Sorry for barging in on this conversation without having followed all of it, but basis this last post:


If someone claims hrgzhchyzzzs exist, then surely it is the one making the claim who must explain what hrgzhchyzzzs are?

Rejecting this claim is one thing: But should someone make the claim that hrgzhchyzzzs do not exist, then again, surely it is the person making the claim (the negative claim this time) on whom rests the onus of providing the definitions (as well as providing convincing evidence)?

If it so happens that hrgzhchyzzzs cannot be defined at all, then that does not take away the burden of proof (or the burden of providing the definition, if I may call it that), does it? That only means no claims, positive or negative, must be made about hrgzhchyzzzs.

With everything that actually exists and people want to argue for honestly, yes.

God is different. Not defining him isn't a bug, it's a feature.

God isn't the answer to a question no one asked or a question no one can answer, he's an answer to a question that can't be answered defined as a question that can't be answered. The second you clearly define God to even normal discussional level ceases to exist, which is why in modern times all effort from the theists and apologist has gone into making sure God stays Jello we can't nail to the wall.

This is why I bristle at theists and apologists comparing God to placeholder concepts like (to various degrees, often over simplified or outright misconstrued) gravity, dark matter, the "God Particle" and so forth.

The difference is everyone who's actually interested in those things wants there to be a concrete, real thing, process, or phenomenon to eventually plug into those concepts. We don't want them to stay vague fluid mysterious we can say whatever about. Nobody at MIT or Fermi Labs or CERN is content invoking "belief" about any of those things.

Dark Matter is something we currently can't define. It's a vague, generic placeholder term we use just so we can talk about it until such time as we come up with something better. It's not something we're defining as undefinable.

That's why Dark Matter is a "placeholder" and God is a "of the gaps." Because when people say "Oh I hope we learn more about Dark Matter" soon they aren't lying.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

With everything that actually exists and people want to argue for honestly, yes.

God is different. Not defining him isn't a bug, it's a feature.

God isn't the answer to a question no one asked or a question no one can answer, he's an answer to a question that can't be answered defined as a question that can't be answered. The second you clearly define God to even normal discussional level ceases to exist, which is why in modern times all effort from the theists and apologist has gone into making sure God stays Jello we can't nail to the wall.

This is why I bristle at theists and apologists comparing God to placeholder concepts like (to various degrees, often over simplified or outright misconstrued) gravity, dark matter, the "God Particle" and so forth.

The difference is everyone who's actually interested in those things wants there to be a concrete, real thing, process, or phenomenon to eventually plug into those concepts. We don't want them to stay vague fluid mysterious we can say whatever about. Nobody at MIT or Fermi Labs or CERN is content invoking "belief" about any of those things.

Dark Matter is something we currently can't define. It's a vague, generic placeholder term we use just so we can talk about it until such time as we come up with something better. It's not something we're defining as undefinable.

That's why Dark Matter is a "placeholder" and God is a "of the gaps." Because when people say "Oh I hope we learn more about Dark Matter" soon they aren't lying.

Evidence of that please. BTW that is not possible, so you believe in a non-fact.
You actually believe that one day science can explain everything. It can't today and there is no evidence for that ever to be the case, because it is unknown today. You are a believer in a non-factual claim.

 

[Darat]

Sorry for barging in on this conversation without having followed all of it, but basis this last post:


If someone claims hrgzhchyzzzs exist, then surely it is the one making the claim who must explain what hrgzhchyzzzs are?

Rejecting this claim is one thing: But should someone make the claim that hrgzhchyzzzs do not exist, then again, surely it is the person making the claim (the negative claim this time) on whom rests the onus of providing the definitions (as well as providing convincing evidence)?

If it so happens that hrgzhchyzzzs cannot be defined at all, then that does not take away the burden of proof (or the burden of providing the definition, if I may call it that), does it? That only means no claims, positive or negative, must be made about hrgzhchyzzzs.

Sorry for barging in on this conversation without having followed all of it, but basis this last post:


If someone claims hrgzhchyzzzs exist, then surely it is the one making the claim who must explain what hrgzhchyzzzs are?

Rejecting this claim is one thing: But should someone make the claim that hrgzhchyzzzs do not exist, then again, surely it is the person making the claim (the negative claim this time) on whom rests the onus of providing the definitions (as well as providing convincing evidence)?

If it so happens that hrgzhchyzzzs cannot be defined at all, then that does not take away the burden of proof (or the burden of providing the definition, if I may call it that), does it? That only means no claims, positive or negative, must be made about hrgzhchyzzzs.

No. Because if something isn't described or defined all you are saying is "something" exists or could exist, which as I mentioned earlier is answered with a "duh of course something exists".

And the word "god" is not used by the religious who claim to believe in a god to label something that is not described nor defined. One wonders why apparently non religious folk want to repurpose the word god to mean simply "something".

In English we can have a word that can mean two different things depending on how it is used, but to use this new definition for god "something that could/does exist" seems to be nothing but an attempt to confuse and render discussion pretty pointless.

So to your question when you ask what can we say about hrgzhchyzzzs, when hrgzhchyzzzs simply means "something" then yes there is nothing to discuss or claim about hrgzhchyzzzs.