Hawking says there are no gods

[dann]

Yes, it does. It is a cultural and social construct just like gods.

No, it's not, but you have the free will to think so.

Edit: As least e.g. some if not all Muslims don't believe in it. The belief in free will is a cultural and social construct.

Not true according to Why Islam?

When you then check it, you find out that you can explain human behavior without free will and it doesn't contradict causation.

I guess you can, but it's a wrong explanation, then.

Physics -> chemistry -> biochemistry/biology -> humans -> ?free will? Free will breaks the causation, because it comes out of nowhere; i.e. Ex Nihilo.

Evolution is not ex nihilo.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No, it's not, but you have the free will to think so.

You take for granted, what you have to explain!
You have free will to deny free will, therefore you have free will. That is begging the question.

Not true according to Why Islam?

Because free will is an idea not found in all cultures.

I guess you can, but it's a wrong explanation, then.

Could you start giving evidence using methodological naturalism

Evolution is not ex nihilo.

But free will is, because it breaks the chain of causation.
You don't have free will in anything else than higher cognitive adult humans.
Explain that and include causation. Don't leave it out.

 

[JoeMorgue]

To be honest I think the whole concept of free will is basically incoherent when looked at in depth.

Because for most people it is functionally impossible for them to think of their brains as "themselves."

And I'm not talking about the people who reject it intellectually and openly claim things like souls or dualism or whatever the stupid philosophizer codeword of the moment for same is.

Even people who understand and intellectual agree with "My brain is me" usually don't think of it in those terms on a day to day level.

That's why we send so much time in these thread spinning our wheels in the sand over meaningless and manufactured distinctions without differences.

The normal functioning of a clock and "keeping time" are't treated as two, separate distinct actions because "keeping time" is the normal functioning of a clock. There's no equivalent to "qualia" where this such and such process can describe the normal functioning of a clock but can't describe "the act of keeping time" or other such nonsense.

But when we start talking about the mind that's all any body wants to talk about.

 

[dann]

You take for granted, what you have to explain!
You have free will to deny free will, therefore you have free will. That is begging the question.

No, I take for granted what I don't have to explain. Free will, see?!

Because free will is an idea not found in all cultures.

Did you already forget that you're the one who made the claim?

Could you start giving evidence using methodological naturalism

No.

But free will is, because it breaks the chain of causation.
You don't have free will in anything else than higher cognitive adult humans.
Explain that and include causation. Don't leave it out.

No, free will doesn't break any chains of anything. Evolution gave human beings the ability to think, to analyze, to make decisions - right ones as well as wrong ones. I have no idea if dolphins have free will or not.
You totally misunderstand what free will is. You may want to order me to do something, you may try to order me to do something, but you can't really order me to do anything.

 

[Jodie]

Do you think it's possible for consciousness to exist without a flesh and blood body as we know it? I guess if we can answer that question then we might have some inkling of what our place in the universe actually is regardless of religious dogma.

I realize that molecules aren't literally constructed of atoms that spin around a nucleus although that's how we think of them in order to understand the concept. Atoms are actually energy fields according my old chemistry professor. So if that is true, then the mental construct that we have of physics might limit our perception of what is or isn't possible.

That said, that old saying of " as above, so below" might mean we are a very minute part of a living entity that we think of as a universe. The universe might not behave uniformly just as our organs in our bodies perform different functions.

I guess we'll find out one way or the other once we sluff our mortal coils.

 

[dann]

Then you might as well believe in gods.
Do you have any actual reason to think of the universe as a living thing with organs etc.? Most of it seems to be deader than dodos. The stuff in it moves around a lot, but apart from on the surface of this one planet of ours, we haven't encountered a single living thing.
And when we die, it's the end of finding out anything.

 

[Pixel42]

Do you think it's possible for consciousness to exist without a flesh and blood body as we know it?

I think it's possible that consciousness might be a property of something other than a flesh and blood brain, in the same way that running might be something a robot leg can do as well as a flesh and blood leg can. I don't see how either consciousness or running could exist all on their own, however.

I realize that molecules aren't literally constructed of atoms that spin around a nucleus although that's how we think of them in order to understand the concept.

If you think of molecules as being constructed of atoms that spin around a nucleus then you most definitely do not understand the concept.

I guess we'll find out one way or the other once we sluff our mortal coils.

Not if our consciousness ceases when our brain ceases we won't.

 

[The Sparrow]

You have an amazing knack for introducing tons of unproven, un-evidenced assumptions with almost every sentence you uttered.

Do you think it's possible for consciousness to exist without a flesh and blood body as we know it?

Asserting something is 'possible' is not evidence for that assertion.
The time to start considering such ideas as possibly true is when we have any evidence for them, not just because someone posits them with not a single bit of evidence, and with the fact that the only time consciousness HAS been detected, is in biological life forms. Not when someone imagines them as possibly occurring otherwise.

Example: Do you think its possible my eye booger contains another entire 14 billion light year wide universe? I mean, it is possible right? You can't say it is impossible right?

I guess if we can answer that question then we might have some inkling of what our place in the universe actually is regardless of religious dogma.

I eagerly await evidence.

I realize that molecules aren't literally constructed of atoms that spin around a nucleus although that's how we think of them in order to understand the concept. Atoms are actually energy fields according my old chemistry professor. So if that is true, then the mental construct that we have of physics might limit our perception of what is or isn't possible.

So, atoms have 'energy' therefore we can have consciousness without biology? Do you have a scintilla of evidence this is possible or has occurred?

That said,

There you go again. You haven't "said" or established anything beyond wild conjecture.

that old saying of " as above, so below" might mean we are a very minute part of a living entity that we think of as a universe.

See above. Imagination and wild conjecture with ZERO evidence. See 'eye booger universe" above.

The universe might not behave uniformly just as our organs in our bodies perform different functions.

Wow. So because my lungs do different things than my toenails, the universe could have conscious parts?

I guess we'll find out one way or the other once we sluff our mortal coils.

Nope actually. If the materialist position is correct, there will be no 'me' to find out I was correct.

 

[Jodie]

Then you might as well believe in gods.
Do you have any actual reason to think of the universe as a living thing with organs etc.? Most of it seems to be deader than dodos. The stuff in it moves around a lot, but apart from on the surface of this one planet of ours, we haven't encountered a single living thing.
And when we die, it's the end of finding out anything.

I really don't know, it was supposed to be an analogy not literal.

 

[Jodie]

You have an amazing knack for introducing tons of unproven, un-evidenced assumptions with almost every sentence you uttered.



Asserting something is 'possible' is not evidence for that assertion.
The time to start considering such ideas as possibly true is when we have any evidence for them, not just because someone posits them with not a single bit of evidence, and with the fact that the only time consciousness HAS been detected, is in biological life forms. Not when someone imagines them as possibly occurring otherwise.

Example: Do you think its possible my eye booger contains another entire 14 billion light year wide universe? I mean, it is possible right? You can't say it is impossible right?


I eagerly await evidence.


So, atoms have 'energy' therefore we can have consciousness without biology? Do you have a scintilla of evidence this is possible or has occurred?


There you go again. You haven't "said" or established anything beyond wild conjecture.


See above. Imagination and wild conjecture with ZERO evidence. See 'eye booger universe" above.


Wow. So because my lungs do different things than my toenails, the universe could have conscious parts?


Nope actually. If the materialist position is correct, there will be no 'me' to find out I was correct.

Technically there are no such things as little balls revolving around a nuclear ball in an atom. They are energy fields, not literal balls, that's a fact. Chemistry uses that visual model so that you can grasp the concepts more readily. As for consciousness, why couldn't it reside in a crystalline structure, say in a silicon based life form? And if information can be retained, or become self aware, in a silicon or crystalline based structure then that would lead one to think the entire universe may exist as one entity since it is basically a crystalline structure.


Well here are a couple of articles about neuro research looking for differences in brain structure regarding those that have religious beliefs and those that don't. I had brought the point up earlier that religious belief may affect neurocognitive development and be a necessary step in the evolutionary developmental process of consciousness.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/askthebrains/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-brain-food/201008/religiosity-and-neuroscience


Now whether that means either opinion is correct about the existence of a diety, which I doubt, or perhaps both are correct to some extent in that a creative force may exist, it's just not self aware, remains to be seen. I doubt this kind of research would determine that point. I've never been religious yet consider myself to be spiritual, however, I have an inherited issue with my serotonin receptors that makes me prone to anxiety. I wonder if that's the reason I hate organized religion.

 

[Jodie]

Here are a few more articles discussing evolutionary adaptations and religious belief:

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/12/4876.full

https://www.cell.com/neuron/fulltext/S0896-6273(10)00052-8

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.11.1965?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed&

So my conclusion from reading these articles is that it doesn't matter what you believe just so long as you believe in something. Evidently the level of belief and motivation to participate in religious practices vary depending on the area of the brain that's most affected. This has to be some kind of evolutionary process IMO, the "god" concept, whether it's real or not, is immaterial.

 

[Jodie]

Here is another article that explains the reason why these God threads go on and on and on in this forum dedicated to skepticism. Kind of like, " If I keep asking for proof of the divine knowing it doesn't exist then I've reaffirmed my suspicions that there is no creative force in the universe, which makes me feel better, because I have to be right."

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.11.1965?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed&

 

[ServiceSoon]

That seems to be ruled out by Bell's Theorem, though, as I said, if you're willing consider a non-local theory then hidden variables (that is what you are talking about) may work.

Of course, relativity basically says that non-locality is impossible, but maybe relativity is wrong too.

As a result of the Big Bell Test aren't we left with either General Relativity is broken because faster than light travel is possible or local realism (locality) is false?

 

[Pixel42]

Technically there are no such things as little balls revolving around a nuclear ball in an atom.

Yes, that is the 'lie to children' description of an atom.
This:

I realize that molecules aren't literally constructed of atoms that spin around a nucleus although that's how we think of them in order to understand the concept.

is complete gibberish.

Your blather about 'energy fields' is at best a much less useful 'lie to children'.

 

[Jodie]

Here is an older research article about programmable DNA to guide inorganic nanoparticles into different crystalline states that can reproduce themselves:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06508

If we can do it, maybe it can occur naturally through evolution in other parts of the universe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here is another article that explains the reason why these God threads go on and on and on in this forum dedicated to skepticism. Kind of like, " If I keep asking for proof of the divine knowing it doesn't exist then I've reaffirmed my suspicions that there is no creative force in the universe, which makes me feel better, because I have to be right."

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.11.1965?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed&

Your conclusion about what that article says is quite a stretch from the conclusion drawn in the paper:

CONCLUSIONS: This finding in normal male subjects indicated that the serotonin system may serve as a biological basis for spiritual experiences. The authors speculated that the several-fold variability in 5-HT1A receptor density may explain why people vary greatly in spiritual zeal.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Magical thinking is a term used in anthropology and psychology, denoting the fallacious attribution of causal relationships between actions and events, ...
The action - there is a universe. The event - we observe, some humans say it is from God.
The universe caused the event. The event doesn't cause there to be a God.

The action - there is a universe with biology and thus brains. That is a causal chain. The event - we observe, some humans say they have free will.
The universe caused the event. The event doesn't cause there to be free will.

This post is caused by the universe and its event is that I say you are not reading this. That is no different that god(s), free will and what not.
That I say something, doesn't necessarily make it so. But that you say, that you have free will make it so. Right, I get it. You are a believer and you don't know it.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Phillip K Dick
God(s), souls, the mind/consciousness itself, I have a mind/I have consciousness, the "I" itself, free will and all that go away, when you stop believing in them. You don't have to believe in all that.

When viewed through the lens of physics, causality is blurred. On the quantum level, cause and effect aren't as concrete as we observe them to be in the macro world.

 

[Thor 2]

Those who cling so tenaciously to a belief in God can be remarkably resilient when their belief is challenged. The approach that I and others use, in questioning the reasoning behind the notion of a creator who is perfect but makes mistakes, is deftly side-stepped and when evidence is presented, that God is not needed for the creation of life, including us, that is then melded into the updated blend of how God did things.

We even have the approach of some, claiming belief in a particular version of God, disqualifying others from commenting on same, if they don't know him/it intimately. Fallaciousness in the extreme I think.

Now Stephen Hawking, drawing on his extensive knowledge of theoretical physics, has suggested that God doesn't exist because "there is no time for a creator to have existed in". The faithful have a new challenge, as science now has found a way to encroach on religious territory!

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Be a real shame of Hawking winds up contributing to turning science in to a religion. I hope this nonsense is confined to small parts of the internet.

 

[Steve]

Those who cling so tenaciously to a belief in God can be remarkably resilient when their belief is challenged. The approach that I and others use, in questioning the reasoning behind the notion of a creator who is perfect but makes mistakes, is deftly side-stepped and when evidence is presented, that God is not needed for the creation of life, including us, that is then melded into the updated blend of how God did things.

We even have the approach of some, claiming belief in a particular version of God, disqualifying others from commenting on same, if they don't know him/it intimately. Fallaciousness in the extreme I think.

Now Stephen Hawking, drawing on his extensive knowledge of theoretical physics, has suggested that God doesn't exist because "there is no time for a creator to have existed in". The faithful have a new challenge as science now has found a way to encroach on religious territory!

Maybe gods don't need time!