Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chanakya said:
In other words, soft atheism is, given what we know today of the multiplicity of actual God ideas as well as the evidence for them, always a valid stance. While hard atheism, although valid for certain God ideas, is not a valid stance for some others: so that hard atheism, generally speaking and as it applies to God ideas in general, is not a valid position to hold. As a general stance that would apply to all known God ideas, then, soft atheism is reasonable, while hard atheism isn’t.
Click to expand...

"Flying dogs don't exist".
"This is invalid. You don't know if in a remote galaxy something as a flying dog exist".

Be serious. Your "soft" atheism is an unreasonable pose.

When your "Theravadin jhanic" or "Advaitin Brahman" have something as a proof of existence we can speak about. Meanwhile they are empty ideas. They're worth what the Elf King or Padre Pio's visions are worth.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
That is where you are wrong. Every single scientific theory has the rider "But I could be wrong" added to it. Nothing is sacred in science. New data frequently causes an entire rethink about even the most fundamental laws in science.
Click to expand...

Of course. But this doesn't make less absurd the belief in leprechauns and flying dogs. When science will show a leprechaun's existence I will be amazed. Meanwhile I believe that leprechauns don't exist. And you too.
I insist. Soft atheism is just a pose. If anyone ever tells you that scientists have found the king of elves under a log, the first thing you would say is, "You're kidding me".
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
"Flying dogs don't exist".
"This is invalid. You don't know if in a remote galaxy something as a flying dog exist".

Be serious. Your "soft" atheism is an unreasonable pose.

When your "Theravadin jhanic" or "Advaitin Brahman" have something as a proof of existence we can speak about. Meanwhile they are empty ideas. They're worth what the Elf King or Padre Pio's visions are worth.
Click to expand...

Here we go again.
You are not an universal we for what reason is and reason alone can't decide if there is a god or not.
In effect you are claim that your reasoning causes there to be no gods. How you reason about the rest of the universe, only tells us that you can reason.

And I still what an answer to, if you accept "doesn't exist" is an artifact of language or if it is a fact, that there is nothing outside time/space.
In effect "if something is unknowable it means it doesn't exist" is nothing but thinking. The word "means" give it away. Your argument of "doesn't exist" doesn't tell us, if it is a fact. It just tells us how you think.

Overall your problem is that you think that the universe must fit your reasoning. You are not a god, neither am I. Reason has a limit and you don't decide what is unreasonable for other humans. You hold no Objective Authority and something doesn't become unreasonable to someone else just because you say so.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Here we go again.
You are not an universal we for what reason is and reason alone can't decide if there is a god or not.
In effect you are claim that your reasoning causes there to be no gods. How you reason about the rest of the universe, only tells us that you can reason.

And I still what an answer to, if you accept "doesn't exist" is an artifact of language or if it is a fact, that there is nothing outside time/space.
In effect "if something is unknowable it means it doesn't exist" is nothing but thinking. The word "means" give it away. Your argument of "doesn't exist" doesn't tell us, if it is a fact. It just tells us how you think.

Overall your problem is that you think that the universe must fit your reasoning. You are not a god, neither am I. Reason has a limit and you don't decide what is unreasonable for other humans. You hold no Objective Authority and something doesn't become unreasonable to someone else just because you say so.
Click to expand...
You are making a mess of a very simple thing. In your common experience you distinguish an object of your imagination from a real thing. I don't care now what your criteria are. I suppose that you are able to distinguish a real thing (the chair on which you are sitting in) from a fantasy of your mind (a leprechaun). Are you? What are your criteria?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
The idea there is a faith based belief system and an evidence based belief system fall apart the minute you start asking why those god beliefs are treated with a double standard.
Click to expand...

An idea in your head doesn't not decide if there are gods or not.
If it is unknown for a first unmoved mover creator god, then it is unknown. And no matter how you think/fell won't change that.
I know X is Y.
I know X is not Y.
I don't know either.

You have to check the 3rd possibility.
 
David Mo said:
You are making a mess of a very simple thing. In your common experience you distinguish an object of your imagination from a real thing. I don't care now what your criteria are. I suppose that you are able to distinguish a real thing (the chair on which you are sitting in) from a fantasy of your mind (a leprechaun). Are you? What are your criteria?
Click to expand...

I can distinguish between know and unknown. Whether there is a first unmoved mover creator god, is unknown.
You seem unable to do so. All your reasoning can't decide the status of unknown as to whether there is a first unmoved mover creator god or not.
And an unknown is not a case of "doesn't exist" just because you think so.
Unknown is doesn't exist can't be settled, because it is unknown. In practice within the universe "doesn't exist" is always something else and "doesn't exist" is an idea, an artifact of thought and reasoning.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
An idea in your head doesn't not decide if there are gods or not.
If it is unknown for a first unmoved mover creator god, then it is unknown. And no matter how you think/fell won't change that.
I know X is Y.
I know X is not Y.
I don't know either.

You have to check the 3rd possibility.
Click to expand...
None of this addresses what I've said. Nor is it an accurate representation of anything I have asserted. I don't even see how you twisted my words around to come up with this. Is what I've said really that hard for people?

Objective fact: People make up god myths.
Objective fact: Not one person has presented valid objective evidence of the existence of god(s).

Conclusion: there is overwhelming evidence that gods are human invented fiction and zero evidence of any real gods.

There is no unsupported assertion in those sentences.There is no "I decide in my head". Deciding in one's head is what god believers do.

Are my two objective facts valid? If not then why not?

Is the conclusion not supported? If not then why not?

There is no reason to concoct any other meaning to those sentences.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
I can distinguish between know and unknown. Whether there is a first unmoved mover creator god, is unknown.
You seem unable to do so. All your reasoning can't decide the status of unknown as to whether there is a first unmoved mover creator god or not.
And an unknown is not a case of "doesn't exist" just because you think so.
Unknown is doesn't exist can't be settled, because it is unknown. In practice within the universe "doesn't exist" is always something else and "doesn't exist" is an idea, an artifact of thought and reasoning.
Click to expand...

Tommy, you're slipping like an eel. That's a true symptom that you're afraid I'm right. Don't tell me you can't distinguish a fantastic image in your head from the chair you're sitting in.
You should think why you want not answer my simple question.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
None of this addresses what I've said. Nor is it an accurate representation of anything I have asserted. I don't even see how you twisted my words around to come up with this. Is what I've said really that hard for people?

Objective fact: People make up god myths.
Objective fact: Not one person has presented valid objective evidence of the existence of god(s).

Conclusion: there is overwhelming evidence that gods are human invented fiction and zero evidence of any real gods.

There is no unsupported assertion in those sentences.There is no "I decide in my head". Deciding in one's head is what god believers do.

Are my two objective facts valid? If not then why not?

Is the conclusion not supported? If not then why not?

There is no reason to concoct any other meaning to those sentences.
Click to expand...

Because we are discussing an first unmoved mover creator god. Such a god is unknown, the same ways as it is unknown whether you are a Boltzmann Brain or not.
You don't control or cause the universe. The universe controls and causes you.
For the following 2 possibilities.
The universe is as it appears(UA) to you or the universe is not as it appears(UNA) to you, the following is the same
UA controls and causes you.
UNA controls and causes you.
You can't decide which is the case, because it appears the same to you.
 
David Mo said:
Tommy, you're slipping like an eel. That's a true symptom that you're afraid I'm right. Don't tell me you can't distinguish a fantastic image in your head from the chair you're sitting in.
You should think why you want not answer my simple question.
Click to expand...

Just below your post, read it.
 
psionl0 said:
it's amazing how many "critical" thinkers here can't tell the difference between "proven false" and "not proven true".
Click to expand...

And can't tell the difference between outside and inside the universe. What is outside is unknown and that is where gods and Boltzmann Brains hide. They are gaps in our knowledge. They treat knowledge, reason and logic as unlimited. They are not. They are limited just as human mobility and depend on something else.
 
psionl0 said:
Don't conflate science and religion. Science is totally rational. It makes no guarantees and it makes no apologies.


Actually, according to quantum mechanics, there is a non-zero probability that this could happen. Sure, the probability is so ridiculously small that it isn't worth considering. However, this is what is supposed to be happening at the sub-atomic level.
Click to expand...
Which of course has nothing to do with the point being made.

There is no chair in the room, and it doesn't matter what science "says" or religion "says" there is no chair in the room.

No matter how right or wrong "science" may be, or how right or wrong "religion" may be it does not alter the fact there is no chair in the room.
 
Darat said:
Which of course has nothing to do with the point being made.

There is no chair in the room, and it doesn't matter what science "says" or religion "says" there is no chair in the room.

No matter how right or wrong "science" may be, or how right or wrong "religion" may be it does not alter the fact there is no chair in the room.
Click to expand...
But the chair in the room is not the same as a chair outside the universe. Being in the universe is not the same as being outside.
What reality actually is, is unknown. For all versions of metaphysics. You only do metaphysics to show that it is an unknown.
Critical thinking includes stating the limits of knowledge, reason, thinking and so on. Just as human mobility is limited, so are knowledge, reason, thinking and so on. It is that simple.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
But the chair in the room is not the same as a chair outside the universe. Being in the universe is not the same as being outside.
What reality actually is, is unknown. For all versions of metaphysics. You only do metaphysics to show that it is an unknown.
Critical thinking includes stating the limits of knowledge, reason, thinking and so on. Just as human mobility is limited, so are knowledge, reason, thinking and so on. It is that simple.
Click to expand...

There is no chair in the room is the statement I made.
 
psionl0 said:
STOP BESMIRCHING SCIENCE! :mad:

Science has nothing whatsoever to say about gods.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. If a god is defined, if it has properties that allow it to interact with the world like all the gods people actually claim to believe in then yes science can say a lot about that god. Which is why we know Zeus doesn't exist, why we know the god of the RCC doesn't exist and so on.
 
Darat said:
There is no chair in the room is the statement I made.
Click to expand...
You won, you can nitpick!

There is no god in the universe, is not that same as is there no god outside the universe. We are no discussing chairs and rooms. We are discussing the universe and a first unmoved mover creator god.
Hawking said that there was no need in his thinking for a first unmoved mover creator god.
The key words are need and thinking. What anybody needs and thinks, do not decide what the universe is. You don't control or cause the universe. The universe controls and causes you regardless of it being natural or from a first unmoved mover creator god.
We are all just along for the ride and we don't control or cause the universe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom