Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
When all this is said and done is it just going to be people complaining that arguably the smartest man of our time dared to make a statement about God without burying it under the approved mountain of groveling, milquetoast, apologetic language? That he dared said "God does not exist" (even though he didn't exactly) instead of the "more appropriate" way of "If it pleases everyone I would like to state that it is my person opinion that the best way for me to view the world is for me personally to hold the opinion that I personally do not consider God to be something that exists in my world view grovel grovel grovel apologetics apologetics apologetics..."
Click to expand...

No that is the strawman they are trying to get people to argue about. The "correct" way for him to have said it would be more, "If as I do you understand the theories of myself and other leading physicists then you can conclude that there is no place in the universe for the existence of the god or gods that the vast majority of believers in a game claim exists"
 
Darat said:
No that is the strawman they are trying to get people to argue about. The "correct" way for him to have said it would be more, "If as I do you understand the theories of myself and other leading physicists then you can conclude that there is no place in the universe for the existence of the god or gods that the vast majority of believers in a game claim exists"
Click to expand...

"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."

Reality can't be dependent on contradictory kinds of understanding, yet it is. Just look at this thread. It is fact that there are contradictory kinds of understanding about reality, so:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not."
 
Chanakya said:
Possible how? The babies going to limbo part is simply grotesque; and yes, I do remember, I think, some kind of “resolution” of that one, although I don’t recall any details. The part about people prior to Jesus being saved through his whatever is also, by some roundabout reasoning, kind of resolved, I know.

But what about people, today, now, who simply don’t believe in RCC or Jesus? Are you saying they can be “saved” too? How exactly?



(I am actually not aware of this. I know for a fact that many RCCs do not view this in these terms, and nor do some [Jesuit] clergy. But that can be explained away, I suppose, by reflecting that many adherents of specific faiths are often ignorant of many of the details of their own faith.

It makes no difference to me in practical terms, this is no more than some fairy tale resolution of a situation within a fairy tale. Nevertheless, despite treating this as fiction and not taking this in the least seriously, I am nevertheless genuinely interested in knowing this.)





Mitigates how? What does this mean, exactly? Will the temperature at the sauna in the afterlife be turned down to more temperate levels?

I’m sorry, I couldn’t resist joking about this — and a lame joke at that — and yes, obviously I see this as hair-splitting over fictional issues. Nevertheless, although with zero chance of actually believing, I’m still genuinely interested in knowing: What would be the consequence to the sinner of this, of this mitigation in the severity of their sin that you speak of here?





And? What follows after that, as far as consequences to the sinner, now that he has been pronounced to be without “fault”, even if sinning? (And assuming that he never repents, never returns to the fold, and dies a nonbeliever? What happens to his soul now, following this acknowledgement that he is without fault, as opposed to what might happen to his soul in the absence of this acknowledgement?)
Click to expand...

I think my response to you also responds to the others who quoted me.

I'm going to try to simplify theological and ontological concepts which you do not agree with the truth of :rolleyes:

For someone who believes in a loving, just but also merciful God, it is God who decides who is "saved" to use that term. Not us. Now, people through their choices may ultimately exclude themselves from salvation, but that is an exercise of free will, not God being deliberately cruel. God wants all people to share in salvation but also respects the choices humans make. One reason Catholic teaching includes purgatory, which many other Christians find laughable, is that it's a serious attempt to reconcile an infinitely loving God with the existence of hell. Free will is part of it (someone choosing to do what they know is evil, even if they don't believe in God, is still knowingly choosing to do evil, and is culpable for that, even if not for their unbelief). The other way round, the Catholic church that some specific people are in heaven, but it doesn't deny others are, nor does it teach that any specific person is in hell. I think there's also a theory of some that hell exists, but is empty.

So re unbaptized infants, or simple unbelieving atheism (not rejection of a God one believes in!) it is a matter of entrusting their souls to a loving God (limbo was a theological theory, not dogma). Or a story from earlier this year, something like Pope Francis told a young boy that his dead father may be in heaven. He didn't say he was, he didn't say he wasn't, because it's God who decides.

Theodicy (reconciling the existence of evil and suffering with a loving God) is a separate thread, perhaps...

Only some aspects of faith are considered inerrant - popes are just as fallible as any person generally, including on moral teachings. It is taught/believed that the Cardinals in selecting a new pope are guided by the holy spirit, but the former Pope Benedict noted (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger I think) that just from looking at the behaviour of some historical popes, sometimes the guidance of God was ignored in choosing a new pope (I'm paraphrasing from memory).

Vatican II reaffirmed the primacy of the individual conscience (contrary to the notion that error has no rights). To oversimplify, one is morally obliged to follow one's conscience, even if it runs contrary to what the church says. It must be an informed conscience, one should not disagree lightly, but even if you end up excommunicated you're obliged to follow your conscience.

Also, sin is most severe (aka mortal) when it is made with full knowledge and appreciation of the consequences. An atheist by definition is incapable of such serious sin in terms of denying God, because they don't believe in God. Like I said before, it's not a choice. Someone can only knowingly reject God if they believe in God and understand the consequences. Which is inapplicable to an atheist. Because even if they understand what Christians (or for other religions, those religions) say, they don't believe it.

So someone who was angry and upset with God could reject God in a very serious way aware of the consequences, but not someone who didn't believe in God.

This presumes no wilful blindness, e.g. I can think of one atheist I knew who felt called from their secular university studies of comparative religion or something like that and ultimately became Catholic (which surprised their atheist friends!). If they had felt called and deliberately ignored that, they would have been more culpable because then it would have been rejection, not lack of belief.
 
I read this full thread over the last few days. I'm surprised (from both sides) that it has gone on this long. Technically speaking, Hawking either saying outright (I know he didn't) or indirectly implying that there are no gods, or that we've disproven all gods is indeed imprecise and scientifically incorrect.

But every claim of god that humans have ever made has been appropriately rejected due to lack of evidence supporting it. In practice, the difference between saying 'all claims of the existence of god have been rejected due to lack of evidence' and saying 'there are no gods' is trivially unimportant other than in some kind of thought exercise.

There is no meaningful reason to argue about the difference between hard and soft atheist other than by those who recognize the value and importance of science and critical thinking everywhere else in life, but just can't seem to give up on god; the tiny difference between hard and soft atheist is the last place left in this universe where god might be hiding.
 
GStan said:
I read this full thread over the last few days. I'm surprised (from both sides) that it has gone on this long. Technically speaking, Hawking either saying outright (I know he didn't) or indirectly implying that there are no gods, or that we've disproven all gods is indeed imprecise and scientifically incorrect.

But every claim of god that humans have ever made has been appropriately rejected due to lack of evidence supporting it. In practice, the difference between saying 'all claims of the existence of god have been rejected due to lack of evidence' and saying 'there are no gods' is trivially unimportant other than in some kind of thought exercise.

There is no meaningful reason to argue about the difference between hard and soft atheist other than by those who recognize the value and importance of science and critical thinking everywhere else in life, but just can't seem to give up on god; the tiny difference between hard and soft atheist is the last place left in this universe where god might be hiding.
Click to expand...

Someone may not be able to prove using science that their spouse (or parents, or children, or other friends or family) love them. But merely because science can't prove that such love exists, doesn't mean it's not there.
 
epeeist said:
Someone may not be able to prove using science that their spouse (or parents, or children, or other friends or family) love them. But merely because science can't prove that such love exists, doesn't mean it's not there.
Click to expand...

BEEP-POOP I AM A ROBOT WHAT IS THIS THING YOU CALL LOVE? is exactly what science is. Yep.
 
GStan said:
I read this full thread over the last few days. I'm surprised (from both sides) that it has gone on this long. Technically speaking, Hawking either saying outright (I know he didn't) or indirectly implying that there are no gods, or that we've disproven all gods is indeed imprecise and scientifically incorrect.

But every claim of god that humans have ever made has been appropriately rejected due to lack of evidence supporting it. In practice, the difference between saying 'all claims of the existence of god have been rejected due to lack of evidence' and saying 'there are no gods' is trivially unimportant other than in some kind of thought exercise.

There is no meaningful reason to argue about the difference between hard and soft atheist other than by those who recognize the value and importance of science and critical thinking everywhere else in life, but just can't seem to give up on god; the tiny difference between hard and soft atheist is the last place left in this universe where god might be hiding.
Click to expand...

No!!!
I do it because of morality/ethics.
I have found no scientific way to show that facts matter and that beliefs are not a part of reality. I defend all humans' innate ability to believe, because I also then defend myself. I will not live in world where science can tell us how to live in a hard sense. It can't, because that facts matter, is not a hard fact. It is a belief.
I accept all humans' belief. Not that I follow them if I have other beliefs, but I accept them and I defend them. Including cognitive relativism.
 
epeeist said:
Someone may not be able to prove using science that their spouse (or parents, or children, or other friends or family) love them. But merely because science can't prove that such love exists, doesn't mean it's not there.
Click to expand...

No system can prove it exists but I think science can show it exists as well or better than any other system. I say this because a lot of people for generations said animals didn't, and couldn't, experience some of the same emotions we do and science showed they can, and do.
 
Goddamn it's the same loop.

"Science (as I narrowly define it) can't answer everything!"
"Okay then what can?"
"*Squawk* Science can't answer everything!"
"Okay... then what can?"
"*Squawk* Science can't answer everything!"
"Okay... then... what... can?"
"*Squawk* Science can't answer everything!"

Maybe "science" (ooo scawy) can't "answer everything."

But until science answers it, it's not an answer.
 
epeeist said:
I think my response to you also responds to the others who quoted me.

I'm going to try to simplify theological and ontological concepts which you do not agree with the truth of :rolleyes:

For someone who believes in a loving, just but also merciful God, it is God who decides who is "saved" to use that term. Not us. Now, people through their choices may ultimately exclude themselves from salvation, but that is an exercise of free will, not God being deliberately cruel. God wants all people to share in salvation but also respects the choices humans make. One reason Catholic teaching includes purgatory, which many other Christians find laughable, is that it's a serious attempt to reconcile an infinitely loving God with the existence of hell. Free will is part of it (someone choosing to do what they know is evil, even if they don't believe in God, is still knowingly choosing to do evil, and is culpable for that, even if not for their unbelief). The other way round, the Catholic church that some specific people are in heaven, but it doesn't deny others are, nor does it teach that any specific person is in hell. I think there's also a theory of some that hell exists, but is empty.

More explanations:confused:...........

.
Click to expand...

Your simplification just emphasises the absurdity of Catholic belief. A god who is all loving ect, in spite of all that horrible stuff he does in the Bible? Limbo was a theory but purgatory ??? An empty Hell ???

The lengths that some will go to in trying to make their religion palatable is endless.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
I accept all humans' belief. Not that I follow them if I have other beliefs, but I accept them and I defend them. Including cognitive relativism.
Click to expand...

So you accept it is okay for Saudi Arabia to murder a journalist in their consulate in Turkey?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Goddamn it's the same loop.

"Science (as I narrowly define it) can't answer everything!"
"Okay then what can?"
"*Squawk* Science can't answer everything!"
"Okay... then what can?"
"*Squawk* Science can't answer everything!"
"Okay... then... what... can?"
"*Squawk* Science can't answer everything!"

Maybe "science" (ooo scawy) can't "answer everything."

But until science answers it, it's not an answer.
Click to expand...

That is not science, that is a belief.
It is the belief that only science has answers. That only works if you believe in it. You are a believer.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
First part:
Do you accept this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

I.e. does science have limits?
Click to expand...

Of course science has limits but that doesn't automatically mean your belief in a god is a better thing with fewer limits. Exactly how do you use religion to design a new style of computer or find the cure for a disease? It would save a lot of hard work for scientists if you people could get some answers to these problems from your god.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom