Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
Myriad said:
But "everything that exists" is the prevailing definition of "universe" and always has been.

When you suggest a god might live "outside the universe," what variant definition of "universe" are you using? You want to make that definition clear, in order to make your suggestion meaningful, don't you? A god might exist outside of what, exactly?
Click to expand...

The universe is in general how it appears to you, not withstanding QM and all that.
If you can only know through how it appears to you, you can't know if doesn't appear to you. Appearance is inside the universe.
Whether there is something outside, is unknown. I don't define it, I explain it.
It is not a definition, it is an explanation.
 
Chanakya said:
What was the point of what you've said there?
Click to expand...

- That the whole hair splitting between "Hard and Soft" atheist (and between Atheist and Agnostic if we're being honest) is unreasonable and has an ulterior motive.

- A simple, direct statement like "There is no God" does not need to be henpecked to Narnia and back with demands a bunch of apologetic "But I could be wrong" modifiers and ass-coverings be put on it.

- The question of "Does God Exist" is not a magically special question that operates under entirely different argumentative rules because of a need for "clarity" or "precision."

- The fact that "God" is poorly and vaguely defined is the theists and their apologists problem, not mine.

- I am not required to acknowledge or adjust my arguments for special pleading copouts theists and their apologist add to the concept of "God."
 
JoeMorgue said:
- That the whole hair splitting between "Hard and Soft" atheist (and between Atheist and Agnostic if we're being honest) is unreasonable and has an ulterior motive.

- A simple, direct statement like "There is no God" does not need to be henpecked to Narnia and back with demands a bunch of apologetic "But I could be wrong" modifiers and ass-coverings be put on it.

- The question of "Does God Exist" is not a magically special question that operates under entirely different argumentative rules because of a need for "clarity" or "precision."

- The fact that "God" is poorly and vaguely defined is the theists and their apologists problem, not mine.

- I am not required to acknowledge or adjust my arguments for special pleading copouts theists and their apologist add to the concept of "God."
Click to expand...

But god is not poorly defined. Aristotle did so long ago. This definition is simple, it tries to solved the infinite regress problem of what caused something in the end, when you back through time.
That is connected to Agrippa's Trilemma and has never been solved, because it is unknown.
  • The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
  • The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
  • The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts
This trilemma has never been solved. All cases of claims that it has been solved, are people not understanding that they do one of the 3.
That is the gap of god for religion, but it is not particular to religion.

That is what it means to be old-school skeptic in part.
 
Chanakya said:
I can, offhand, think of four reasons why, as far as, for instance, Advaita:

  1. There are sizeable numbers of people who, when they think of "God", think of the Advaitic Brahman. So one reason would be self-definition, that is, how the adherents view their belief.
  2. These people not only believe this, but also venerate this idea of God, much like your garden variety theist venerates the God of the Bible.
  3. Advaita teaches a theology that "explains" creation.
  4. Advaitists lead their lives in consonance with the tenets of this belief -- which includes, for instance, meditation that is undertaken not so much for holistic health as for "realization" of this One God.


On the other hand, as kellyb very rightly points out, there are no deities in there.

If you choose to make that a necessary criterion for an ‘idea’ to qualify as a “God idea”, then sure, I agree, in that case these would not qualify not “god ideas”. If you choose to limit your definition of God to a deity, and what is more to a deity that actually fiddles with our world and with our lives -- in other words, if you choose to limit your definition of God to the simpler God ideas, like the Christian God, and the Gods atop Olympus, et al -- then, within that limited definition of "God", I’m perfectly fine with the hard atheist’s position.

These simplistic God ideas I would, absolutely, find it reasonable to be hard-atheistic about.
Click to expand...

I think calling the Advaitic Brahman "God" is just a quirk of translation combined with a different conception of reality in the eastern vs western mind.

"God" is a deity in the West. "Theists" in the west actively hold beliefs in one or more deities.
 
kellyb said:
I think calling the Advaitic Brahman "God" is just a quirk of translation combined with a different conception of reality in the eastern vs western mind.

"God" is a deity in the West. "Theists" in the west actively hold beliefs in one or more deities.
Click to expand...
Not just the West its most places.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay. So what's the problem?
Click to expand...
You can say (without fear of contradiction) that there are no invisible dragons in your garage.

What you can't say is that you ran a batch of scientific tests which proved that there are no invisible dragons in your garage. That would be a lie.
 
psionl0 said:
You can say (without fear of contradiction) that there are no invisible dragons in your garage.

What you can't say is that you ran a batch of scientific tests which proved that there are no invisible dragons in your garage. That would be a lie.
Click to expand...

That's a massive distinction without an ounce of difference.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
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.
Click to expand...

As Myriad has already pointed out, if something is entirely outside the universe, it does not exist in any meaningful way.

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?
Click to expand...

Tommy consistently has this issue, across multiple threads. It's not just you. He legitimately doesn't seem to be listening to anyone, and instead makes up the argument as he thinks it should go in his head.
 
psionl0 said:
You can say (without fear of contradiction) that there are no invisible dragons in your garage.

What you can't say is that you ran a batch of scientific tests which proved that there are no invisible dragons in your garage. That would be a lie.
Click to expand...

JoeMorgue said:
That's a massive distinction without an ounce of difference.
Click to expand...

It's also flatly wrong.

There are only two options, with garage dragons (and gods). Either they have some effect on the world or they don't.

If they are defined as having some effect on the world, they are necessarily detectable, in which case we can (and, in the case of gods, have) run a variety of scientific experiments to determine whether or not they exist.

If they are defined as having no detectable effect, they are a garage dragon - that is, an entity with no characteristics. Garage dragons, by definition, do not exist, as they have no effect on the universe and are therefore indistinguishable from the entirely imaginary.

Most gods worshiped today fall into the former category, and can therefore be discarded as demonstrably non-existent. Those like Tommy's "unmoved first mover" fall into the garage dragon category, and can therefore likewise be discarded as demonstrably non-existent.

Either way, hard atheism doesn't really have a problem with them.
 
Nonpareil said:
There are only two options, with garage dragons (and gods). Either they have some effect on the world or they don't.

If they are defined as having some effect on the world, they are necessarily detectable, in which case we can (and, in the case of gods, have) run a variety of scientific experiments to determine whether or not they exist.
Click to expand...

Escape hatch. "God" could act and deliberately hide his affect or mask it.
or
Science doesn't know everything (yet) so could be misreading the lack of evidence.

:P
 
The Sparrow said:
Escape hatch. "God" could act and deliberately hide his affect or mask it.
Click to expand...

In which case it is a garage dragon, and does not exist.

The Sparrow said:
Science doesn't know everything (yet) so could be misreading the lack of evidence.
Click to expand...

No.

If there is no evidence for something's existence, the only correct reading is the conclusion that said thing does not exist. This is not "misreading", even if evidence is later produced. So long as there is no evidence, the only rational conclusion is that gods do not exist.

Being open to being corrected later does not make a rational conclusion any less rational.
 
The Sparrow said:
Escape hatch. "God" could act and deliberately hide his affect or mask it.
or
Science doesn't know everything (yet) so could be misreading the lack of evidence.

:P
Click to expand...
But the claims of many of those who claim to believe in a god are not of a god that hides their interactions, they are out and proud!
 
Darat said:
But the claims of many of those who claim to believe in a god are not of a god that hides their interactions, they are out and proud!
Click to expand...

Because that's always the game.

The God they believe in does stuff. He has actions and opinions.

The God they think they have to defend is the vague God of vague vaguing doing vague stuff vaguely maybe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom