Hawking says there are no gods

[Chanakya]

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

I take your point. Not all discussions on God by theists and "apologists" are necessarily honest.

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

Sometimes, yes. Perhaps often. But not always.

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.

I think God is different from dark matter as dark matter refers to something very specific.

I think the question "Does God exist?" is like saying "Do things they discuss within Physics exist?" Or, more meaningfully, "Are the things that Physics tells us actually true?"

I don't think you can give one single answer, because the question encompasses a vast array of ideas.

In order to engage meaningfully with God-ideas (or Physics-ideas) one must -- must -- break up one's examination into individual God ideas (and individual subjects discussed within Physics).

Of course, in as much as one is looking at this from outside, and in as much as one might not have the time and/or the inclination to engage in such detail with this, sure, one can, at one's personal level, choose to make a blanket statement like "Yes, the ideas within Physics are correct", or "No, God ideas are bull". Or even "I don't care to waste my time on these abstractions."

That kind of broad generalization works well enough as a personal guideline, but only because these issues have already been settled satisfactorily.

If the intention is actual examination of these ideas, then I don't think such broad generalizations will be appropriate.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

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.

Answer this: What is reality?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Answer this: What is reality?

The thing you have an estranged relationship with.

Stop fishing Tommy nobody's gonna bite. You can stop flooding the thread with one sentence replies to multi-paragraph points so you can find someone to scream Subjective! at over and over until you admit that you don't "accept knowledge as a valid concept."

 

[Chanakya]

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".

Sure.

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".

If they're doing that, then I agree, that does not sound very reasonable. It they're actually doing that, then sure, I'd wonder that too.

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.

If that is how this is being defined, then I agree, this smacks of disingenuity.

Actually, I get where you're coming from. Theists sometimes do take this line, and when they do, the response you make here would be appropriate IMO.

However, generally speaking, I'd say that God-ideas are not so much nebulous as, well, encompassing of more than just one idea.

Like I'd been saying to JoeMorgue just now: Asking "Does God exist?" is akin to asking "Are the ideas discussed within Physics valid"? The only way to meaninfully answer this question is to take it piecemeal, that is, by unraveling individual strands of God-ideas from amongst the vast array we have in front of us, and examining each of them one by one.

(Of course, always provided one is drawn to invest time and energy in doing this. At a personal level, one can very well choose to simply not engage with the idea at all.)

The only way one can meaningfully make a 'large', all-encompassing statement about God-ideas (or Physics-ideas) is if it summarizes many individually examined ideas. Not otherwise.

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.

Agreed. If hrgzhchyzzzs are represented to simply mean "something", then there's nothing to discuss or claim.

Except that isn't how it is with God ideas. Not always. Sometimes, perhaps, but not always.

 

[dann]

Answer this: What is reality?

Exclusively for you, Tommy!
(The others can't read it, so this is for them.)
Gods obviously aren't real - except in fiction.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Agreed. If hrgzhchyzzzs are represented to simply mean "something", then there's nothing to discuss or claim.

Except that isn't how it is with God ideas. Not always. Sometimes, perhaps, but not always.

If you say so. From my POV that is how it always is with the God discussion.

Oh sure everyone is adamant that they'll actually discuss God any minute now, as soon as X, Y, and Z is "clarified" but oddly enough we never seem to actually get there. It's one of those perpetually always just around the corner moments.

So until somebody actually does put up a specific God to argue over this is all a Jabbian act of "We can't start the discussion until we agree on the discussion" with "agree on the discussion" usually meaning "Admit I'm right before we begin." It's the perfect way to keep the wheel spinning forever for people who think "We're still talking about it" is as good as "I'm right."

It's a game that the theist and the apologist have been content to play for thousands of years and one I no longer have the patience for.

If there's a Supreme Being who created the universe, who is the most power force in the universe, and who's desires potentially affect our very existence then after thousands of years we're not unreasonable to expecting a better argument than "You can't prove the negative of there not being an undefined vague vaguey vagueness of vaguery because of an epistemology that takes 'what if God makes magic happen when we aren't looking without somehow leaving any evidence for his existence' is something we have to seriously consider."

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Exclusively for you, Tommy!
(The others can't read it, so this is for them.)
Gods obviously aren't real - except in fiction.

That only for me as the 2 quotes: It is a combination.

So here is one only for you:
The other side.
There is never just one side or one factor.

The word "real":
https://www.iep.utm.edu/austin/

Austin highlights the complexities proper to the uses of ‘real’ by observing that it is (i) a substantive-hungry word that often plays the role of (ii) adjuster-word, a word by means of which “other words are adjusted to meet the innumerable and unforeseeable demands of world upon language” (Austin 1962a, 73). Like ‘good,’ it is (iii) a dimension-word, that is, “the most general and comprehensive term in a whole group of terms of the same kind, terms that fulfil the same function” (Austin 1962a, 71): that is, ‘true,’ ‘proper,’ ‘genuine,’ ‘live,’ ‘natural,’ ‘authentic,’ as opposed to terms such as ‘false,’ ‘artificial,’ ‘fake,’ ‘bogus,’ ‘synthetic,’ ‘toy,’ but also to nouns like ‘dream,’ ‘illusion,’ ‘mirage,’ ‘hallucination.’ ‘Real,’ is also (iv) a word whose negative use “wears the trousers” (a trouser-word) (Austin 1962a, 70).

I.e. i.e. the content of a hallucination is not real, but it is real that there are hallucinations.
In general unreal beliefs like witches can have real consequences.

 

[psionl0]

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

I'm beginning to suspect that I am being trolled here.

If Stephen Hawking wasn't required to define a god or gods before saying that there is no room in the universe for them then why do I need to do otherwise to take him to task?

 

[JoeMorgue]

If Stephen Hawking wasn't required to define a god or gods before saying that there is no room in the universe for them then why do I need to do otherwise to take him to task?

Is the elephant that doesn't exist in my garage African or Asian? Is the Corvette I don't own a ZR1 or Z06?

See? This ain't that hard. Am I required to define if I don't own a Corvette ZR1 or Corvette Z06 before making the statement "I don't own a Corvette" if I don't own any version of a Corvette? No. If you ask me if there's a an elephant in my garage I don't have to tell you "There's no Asian Elephants in my garage. There are no African Elephants in my garage." I can just say "There are no Elephants in my garage." And there aren't. They wouldn't get along with the invisible dragon.

If you are rejecting the broad concept of something you don't have define which specific version of it you are rejecting.

And again nobody is saying God isn't defined, we're saying people pretend he's "undefinable" to get out of arguing about him.

Our current understanding of physics and natural workings of the universe simply doesn't haven't any place for the existence of any being that could be called "God" outside of a context where you're specifically not defining specifically for argumentative excuses.

 

[psionl0]

Is the elephant that doesn't exist in my garage African or Asian? Is the Corvette I don't own a ZR1 or Z06?

That still doesn't put the burden on me to define a god. I could still argue that there is an elephant or corvette in your garage without specifying the species or model.

In any case, that is not what I am doing here. The situation is more akin to you saying that nobody has ever seen the inside of your garage but you have scientifically proven that it does not contain an (unspecified) elephant or a (unspecified) corvette. I don't have to define these things to challenge you on your "scientific method".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... 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.

Where do you get this from? Scientific principles don't change depending upon the claim. It might be a different procedure is used, but one doesn't except crap evidence for something because it isn't important.

... "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.

You are conflating the legal standard of evidence in a trial with science but even then I don't see the problem. Hearsay* is not acceptable in court, neither are random or isolated anecdotes in science.

*There are exceptions.

Anyway, I think this sidetrack only serves to distract from the actual argument.

...... 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.

What careless standard of evidence, you mean like the one theists apply to their beliefs?

As for proof, see my other posts. We can show with overwhelming evidence that gods are fictional beings.

 

[Steve]

That still doesn't put the burden on me to define a god. I could still argue that there is an elephant or corvette in your garage without specifying the species or model.

In any case, that is not what I am doing here. The situation is more akin to you saying that nobody has ever seen the inside of your garage but you have scientifically proven that it does not contain an (unspecified) elephant or a (unspecified) corvette. I don't have to define these things to challenge you on your "scientific method".

And that, in a nutshell, is the real problem. Nobody can debate the existence of a god with you because you refuse to define what you are discussing. And when someone states that they are denying the existence of any god that is recognized by an organized religion you say that this definition is too nebulous and that something yet to be defined could be a god. Your argument is based on nothing more than semantics and is not productive. As Darat stated above " all you are saying is that "something' exists or could exist'. 'Something" is a useless description of a god that supposedly interacts with our universe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Nor do scientists reject it.

How do you know that? Genetic science argues against panspermia.

You know the saying to have an open mind but not so open your brain falls out?

 

[Darat]

Sure.





If they're doing that, then I agree, that does not sound very reasonable. It they're actually doing that, then sure, I'd wonder that too.





If that is how this is being defined, then I agree, this smacks of disingenuity.

Actually, I get where you're coming from. Theists sometimes do take this line, and when they do, the response you make here would be appropriate IMO.

However, generally speaking, I'd say that God-ideas are not so much nebulous as, well, encompassing of more than just one idea.

Like I'd been saying to JoeMorgue just now: Asking "Does God exist?" is akin to asking "Are the ideas discussed within Physics valid"? The only way to meaninfully answer this question is to take it piecemeal, that is, by unraveling individual strands of God-ideas from amongst the vast array we have in front of us, and examining each of them one by one.

(Of course, always provided one is drawn to invest time and energy in doing this. At a personal level, one can very well choose to simply not engage with the idea at all.)

The only way one can meaningfully make a 'large', all-encompassing statement about God-ideas (or Physics-ideas) is if it summarizes many individually examined ideas. Not otherwise.





Agreed. If hrgzhchyzzzs are represented to simply mean "something", then there's nothing to discuss or claim.

Except that isn't how it is with God ideas. Not always. Sometimes, perhaps, but not always.

But God-ideas aren't what are being discussed it is the existence of something or not that is the point under discussion.

I do to a certain extent agree that God-ideas are probably more defined than "something". The extent I wouldn't agree to is when it is appropriate to discuss God-ideas, the area in which discussions of God-ideas fall into are human behaviour, why do those that claim to believe in a god behave in such a manner, what causes some gods to be discarded and so on.

Fascinating in its own right.

 

[Darat]

I'm beginning to suspect that I am being trolled here.

If Stephen Hawking wasn't required to define a god or gods before saying that there is no room in the universe for them then why do I need to do otherwise to take him to task?

He was using the word as most of those who believe in a god use the word. He probably thought he didn't need to explain that..

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.


I like the way I put it better.

'Jesus' only speaks in parables when Christian Apologists are trying to explain contradictions between reality and the Bible and between one part of the Bible with another.

 

[Darat]

That still doesn't put the burden on me to define a god. I could still argue that there is an elephant or corvette in your garage without specifying the species or model.

In any case, that is not what I am doing here. The situation is more akin to you saying that nobody has ever seen the inside of your garage but you have scientifically proven that it does not contain an (unspecified) elephant or a (unspecified) corvette. I don't have to define these things to challenge you on your "scientific method".

Well it would If say his garage was smaller than the size of an corvette. Unless of course you now want to redefine the word corvette to mean the same as how you use the word god...

In terms of the analogy Hawkings was saying "we've measured the outside of the garage and it is too small for a corvette to fit, therefore I know there is no corvette in the garage".

Of course now you can now try to claim that by corvette Hawkings wasn't ruling out it could be a model of a corvette or the corvette had been taken to pieces and stacked neatly. But I'm sure you wouldn't do that.

 

[Steve]

Well it would If say his garage was smaller than the size of an corvette. Unless of course you now want to redefine the word corvette to mean the same as how you use the word god...

In terms of the analogy Hawkings was saying "we've measured the outside of the garage and it is too small for a corvette to fit, therefore I know there is no corvette in the garage".
Of course now you can now try to claim that by corvette Hawkings wasn't ruling out it could be a model of a corvette or the corvette had been taken to pieces and stacked neatly. But I'm sure you wouldn't do that.

I usually dislike analogies, but this one works quite well.

 

[psionl0]

Unless of course you now want to redefine the word corvette to mean the same as how you use the word god...

This is definitely trolling!

There is no reason that I would be using the word "god" any differently to the way Hawking did but you insist that I have a non-definition of god that is different to Hawking's and you do so with all the fervor of a religious fundamentalist.

 

[psionl0]

Nobody can debate the existence of a god with you because you refuse to define what you are discussing.

Tell that to Hawking.

And when someone states that they are denying the existence of any god that is recognized by an organized religion you say that this definition is too nebulous and that something yet to be defined could be a god.

Either cite the post where I "said" that or retract this accusation.