Hawking says there are no gods

[The Sparrow]

Maybe gods don't need time!

Ya that's the dodge. God exists 'outside of time'.
Thing is, if God existed before the universe was created, then at some point decided to create the universe, then actually created the universe, you still have a sequence of events not occurring simultaneously. I mean, how could he create the universe while simultaneously deciding to create it, and also simultaneously not yet having decided to create it?

And if indeed you DO have a sequence of events, aren't you setting up an infinite regress? Like what was god doing BEFORE he decided to create the universe? How about before that? And before that?

But again, God is the superhero that we can keep adding powers to. So maybe he can simultaneously be at 3 different steps in the process......somehow.

 

[Thor 2]

My head hurts.

You have a rare talent The Sparrow in being able to grapple with these ideas. I think there may be a position in The Vatican you could fill.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Every piece of evidence, observable data, experimentation, logical deduction, cause and effect, and literally everything we know about the universe says X."
"Okay but what if that's still wrong?

 

[The Sparrow]

My head hurts.

You have a rare talent The Sparrow in being able to grapple with these ideas. I think there may be a position in The Vatican you could fill.

Hmmm, I heard that the devils advocate position has been abolished, so not interested thank you

 

[Roboramma]

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.

One big problem with that is the finite speed of light. Your body is a single system that regulates itself and necessarily interacts with itself. If it weren't possible for those interactions to take place, it couldn't be a single organism.

And at the scale of the universe it takes billions of years for information to get from one part to another, and for some such regions it can't get back again because the expansion of the universe will have separated those regions to beyond the cosmic horizon before that's possible. We can also look at the sorts of interactions that do take place between distant regions. We can look at the large scale structure of the universe. The process of life is an information rich complex process full of feedbacks. The large scale structure of the universe amounts to some regions having higher density and others lower density because gravity works over large distances.

It's a fun idea, but the universe at a large scale is not a scaled up version of a living thing. And the reason is basically that the laws of physics do not obey a scaling symmetry: things behave differently at different scales, as Galileo pointed out in On Two New Sciences.

 

[Darat]

Ya that's the dodge. God exists 'outside of time'.
Thing is, if God existed before the universe was created, then at some point decided to create the universe, then actually created the universe, you still have a sequence of events not occurring simultaneously. I mean, how could he create the universe while simultaneously deciding to create it, and also simultaneously not yet having decided to create it?

And if indeed you DO have a sequence of events, aren't you setting up an infinite regress? Like what was god doing BEFORE he decided to create the universe? How about before that? And before that?

But again, God is the superhero that we can keep adding powers to. So maybe he can simultaneously be at 3 different steps in the process......somehow.

Just a quick "remember", the god that Christians, Muslims and Jews claim exist is not said in their primary text to have created the universe, that God is only credited with creating light "ex niliho".

 

[GDon]

Just a quick "remember", the god that Christians, Muslims and Jews claim exist is not said in their primary text to have created the universe, that God is only credited with creating light "ex niliho".

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.


Isn't that God creating the universe?

 

[GDon]

Ya that's the dodge. God exists 'outside of time'.
Thing is, if God existed before the universe was created, then at some point decided to create the universe, then actually created the universe, you still have a sequence of events not occurring simultaneously. I mean, how could he create the universe while simultaneously deciding to create it, and also simultaneously not yet having decided to create it?

Augustine addressed this question 1600 years ago. From Confessions, Book 11:
http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/augconfessions/bk11.html

Note that he goes into the nature of time in depth, so I'll give a few quotes to get an idea of what he is arguing:

Behold, I answer to him who asks, "What was God doing before He made heaven and earth?" I answer not, as a certain person is reported to have done facetiously (avoiding the pressure of the question), "He was preparing hell," saith he, "for those who pry into mysteries." It is one thing to perceive, another to laugh...

For that very time Thou madest, nor could times pass by before Thou madest times. But if before heaven and earth there was no time, why is it asked, What didst Thou then? For there was no "then" when time was not...

At no time, therefore, hadst Thou not made anything, because Thou hadst made time itself...

But what now is manifest and clear is, that neither are there future nor past things. Nor is it fitly said, "There are three times, past, present and future;" but perchance it might be fitly said, "There are three times; a present of things past, a present of things present, and a present of things future."​

His argument is that while we perceive time as passing, everything is an eternal 'present'. Think of it as God creating in a single eternal instance the universe as a film. Inside the film, the characters experience time. The creation of the film exists as part of an eternal creation event, though to the characters within the film time is moving from past to the future via the present.

 

[David Mo]

My head hurts.

Why? This is the common dogma of the religions of the Book. God existed before the creation. If time and space were created, God existed before time and space.

The questions are:
What does an eternal present mean?
How do you know it?

The more evident answers: it doesn't mean nothing and nobody can know this.

Anyway, Hawking's argument only shows that there is no need of God in order to explain the origin of the known universe. Creators of sci-fi novels and religions can continue imagining more or less absurd things.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Why? This is the common dogma of the religions of the Book. God existed before the creation. If time and space were created, God existed before time and space.

The questions are:
What does an eternal present mean?
How do you know it?

The more evident answers: it doesn't mean nothing and nobody can know this.

Anyway, Hawking's argument only shows that there is no need of God in order to explain the origin of the known universe. Creators of sci-fi novels and religions can continue imagining more or less absurd things.

There is no need for a human to know what reality actually is for that human to have a life.
Thus all metaphysical and ontological claims are not a need, but a want. Some humans want an answer for which nobody can know this. Including you and your claim of "doesn't exist". That is an artifact of language and it means nothing, just like God, unless you believe in it.
I don't need "doesn't exist", but you do. And since that is ontology, you have a supernatural belief. "Doesn't exist" is not natural, it is metaphysics and thus supernatural.

 

[psionl0]

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.

Yes, quantum entanglement makes the model a lot more complicated. Yet it is still just a model and not the real thing. A model might include randomness to help figure out the outcomes but that doesn't mean that randomness actually exists. It just means that we need a better model.

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

Relativity doesn't really apply at atomic dimensions and smaller. In fact, for this reason, it was Hawking himself who wrote in "A Brief History of Time" that General Relativity predicts its own downfall. (The idea that the universe originated as a singularity comes from the general theory of relativity).

As I explained in the paragraph you omitted it isn't that we don't know all the factors, it's that even if we did know all the factors we still couldn't predict which atoms would emit a neutron. The fundamental thing you are missing is that the neutron's position is always described by a probability wave, unlike a coin which is always in a particular position even if we don't know exactly which one.

Newtonian approximations don't work when the dimensions are too small but that still doesn't mean that "random forces" actually exist. If we were able to observe particles without interfering with them then we might be able to make better predictions. As it is, we need to take Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle into account when we do our quantum calculations.

 

[Chanakya]

So your failure to communicate is my fault?

I really don't know what to make of this penchant of yours for repeatedly saying wholly random things that are entirely unrelated to what you're responding to.

Are you having trouble with the concept here?

The evidence is overwhelming all gods are mythical beings.

There is no evidence of any real gods.

End of inquiry.

IOW, there is no evidence of, therefore there is no reason to ask if there are any gods.

You realize, no doubt, that when you say "end of enquiry" you speak only of yourself. Or don't you realize that?

Like I said, I have no problems with your taking that line based on what we have in front of us as far as Gods -- just as I'd have no issues with the theist who embraces some particular God idea in full religious fervor -- as long as you (and/or the theist) realizes the essential subjectivity of their position.

In as much as you/they don't, I have to point out that you're plain wrong.

No, it isn't "end of enquiry", except in purely subjective, personal context.

 

[Chanakya]

One big problem with that is the finite speed of light. Your body is a single system that regulates itself and necessarily interacts with itself. If it weren't possible for those interactions to take place, it couldn't be a single organism.

And at the scale of the universe it takes billions of years for information to get from one part to another, and for some such regions it can't get back again because the expansion of the universe will have separated those regions to beyond the cosmic horizon before that's possible. We can also look at the sorts of interactions that do take place between distant regions. We can look at the large scale structure of the universe. The process of life is an information rich complex process full of feedbacks. The large scale structure of the universe amounts to some regions having higher density and others lower density because gravity works over large distances.

It's a fun idea, but the universe at a large scale is not a scaled up version of a living thing. And the reason is basically that the laws of physics do not obey a scaling symmetry: things behave differently at different scales, as Galileo pointed out in On Two New Sciences.

That's a lovely post, Roboramma. I'm going to nominate it.

This is a concept I've come across -- can't really place my hand on where exactly, probably in one of the sci-fi books that I would consume voraciously at one time, when younger -- and, like Jodie, I've sometimes found myself thinking of this concept. Although of course, unlike Jodie who seems to take this idea at least somewhat seriously (pardon me, Jodie, if I'm wrong in inferring this from your comment), I've only seen this in terms of fantasy.

But anyway, I like how your matter-of-fact argument shows clearly how such an idea would not be possible at all. At least given what we know of physics thus far.





edited to add:

And -- to take the fantasy a bit further -- what about the other end? The obverse of Jodie's fantasy is to think of teeny tiny worlds within our own bodies, with unimaginably tiny beings that might be conscious and sentient and intelligent, who might be wondering if we -- their universe -- might be conscious.

Obviously that's fantasy, pure and simple: but is there is any particular reason why our current knowledge of physics would rule out such a possibility too, like we just ruled out the huge-conscious-universe-being idea by looking at the speed of light? Of course, this would mean we're looking now at quantum mechanics, I guess, not cosmology.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You realize, no doubt, that when you say "end of enquiry" you speak only of yourself. Or don't you realize that?

Like I said, I have no problems with your taking that line based on what we have in front of us as far as Gods -- just as I'd have no issues with the theist who embraces some particular God idea in full religious fervor -- as long as you (and/or the theist) realizes the essential subjectivity of their position.

In as much as you/they don't, I have to point out that you're plain wrong.

No, it isn't "end of enquiry", except in purely subjective, personal context.

No it's not.

If there's a cat in the room and I say "There's a cat" and you say "There's a dog" the inquiry doesn't have to keep going. It just means I'm right, you're wrong, and you refuse to accept it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah 40 paragraphs about how "god is different" because of special pleading, special pleading, special pleading, and some more special pleading.

God either exists or it doesn't. It's not a "subject personal experience."

 

[Chanakya]

No it's not. (...)

Yes it is.

God either exists or it doesn't. It's not a "subject personal experience."

Obviously. But how do you arrive from this to "No it's not"? How, do you imagine, is this an argument for that? Or was this just an unrelated observation?




edited to add :

Wait, I just realized you were not simply expressing knee-jerk disagreement, but seem to have misunderstood what I said (although, on re-reading my original comment to Skeptic Ginger, my meaning seems clear enough, but of course, you may not have read that earlier comment at all).

I'm not saying tha God is a "subjective personal experience". I agree with you that God either exists or does not.

What I'm saying is, that to understand that we have no evidence thus far that there is no God is one thing. But the "end of enquiry" part, surely you can see, with a minute's reflection, that this merely a personal reaction, a personal decision about whether to look further or no? What can it be -- either way, irrespective of whether it is "yes" or "no" -- if not subjective?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Obviously. But how do you arrive from this to "No it's not"? How, do you imagine, is this an argument for that? Or was this just an unrelated observation?

And we're right back to square one with "But can you prove God doesn't exist?" and now you're gonna make me go step by step explaining the literal base concepts of the null hypothesis, burden of proof, positive evidence for something being required not a lack of negative evidence against it, and all that jazz again. I'll bring out the "Dragon in my Garage" metaphor and walk you through it step by step. I'll ask why God is hairsplit to this degree and nothing else is. I'll do all that yet again and... no. No I won't do it. I won't do it just to wind up back here when the reset button is pressed again.

 

[Chanakya]

And we're right back to square one with "But can you prove God doesn't exist?" and now you're gonna make me go step by step explaining the literal base concepts of the null hypothesis, burden of proof, positive evidence for something being required not a lack of negative evidence against it, and all that jazz again. I'll bring out the "Dragon in my Garage" metaphor and walk you through it step by step. I'll ask why God is hairsplit to this degree and nothing else is. I'll do all that yet again and... no. No I won't do it. I won't do it just to wind up back here when the reset button is pressed again.

Did you write this before you saw my edit? If you did, then does my edit make things clearer for you?

eta: Because Joe, if even seeing my edit does not make things clearer for you, I'm afraid you (and I guess SG too) need to work on your comprehension. There is only so much someone can do in terms of clearly explaining their POV. There is absolutely nothing in atheism that demands obtuseness.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Did you write this before you saw my edit? If you did, then does my edit make things clearer for you?

I did, give me a bit and I'll clarify (at work, so I jump on and off doing the slow periods)

 

[Chanakya]

I did, give me a bit and I'll clarify (at work, so I jump on and off doing the slow periods)

I beg your pardon, then. That snarky bit in my comment about "obtuseness" was totally uncalled for!

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm not saying tha God is a "subjective personal experience". I agree with you that God either exists or does not.

What I'm saying is, that to understand that we have no evidence thus far that there is no God is one thing. But the "end of enquiry" part, surely you can see, with a minute's reflection, that this merely a personal reaction, a personal decision about whether to look further or no? What can it be -- either way, irrespective of whether it is "yes" or "no" -- if not subjective?

The same way we don't wait for someone to somehow prove that it is impossible for any version of anything that could be called a chair to be in a room with no chair and no place for a chair to be in it before just saying "There is no Chair."

If you walk into a room and you don't see a chair and there's no place in the room a chair could be hiding... at this point it becomes "There is no chair" without modifiers, exceptions, ass-coverings, escape clauses, or anything else. We don't go back and specifically try to redefine chair to still be "technically possible" within the room. We don't go "Okay but the question is still technically unanswerable.

Right now the universe is the room and God is the chair.

God is supposed to be the ultimate, most important force in the universe and people have literally dedicated their lives to proving him for thousands of years.

If God existed, we would know it beyond a shadow of a doubt by now. The existence of God would make "Is water wet?" look esoteric by comparison.

We've searched the room, looked behind every curtain, opened every drawer enough to know with intellectual honesty that there is not chair, to the point that both the people who insist there's a chair and the people who insist we keep arguing about whether or not there is a chair are getting a little annoying.