Hawking says there are no gods

[psionl0]

What would have been the proper scientific tests, given the proposed scenario?

If he doesn't even know what scientific tests to conduct then he definitely can't say he proved anything scientifically.

That's been the problem with this entire thread. The claim is that Stephen Hawking proved there are no gods scientifically. Yet all I see are the usual reasons for saying there are no gods and none of them are scientific.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If he doesn't even know what scientific tests to conduct then he definitely can't say he proved anything scientifically.

That's been the problem with this entire thread. The claim is that Stephen Hawking proved there are no gods scientifically. Yet all I see are the usual reasons for saying there are no gods and none of them are scientific.

No that's the claim you made up out of nothing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And even beyond that what kind of nonsense excuse is this?

"You can't scientifically disprove the thing I have zero evidence for and refuse to define so you don't get to say it's 'disproven.'"

As with all discussions of God the only thing being proven is how thin a hair can be split.

I don't think the people who continue to think there's a giant invisible wizard in the sky need to take one of the smartest people ever to task over how he chooses to word his dismissal of your nonsense.

I'm not gonna lose any sleep at night over "You're not telling me my opinion is absolutely unsupported nonsense the right way!"

 

[JayUtah]

If he doesn't even know what scientific tests to conduct then he definitely can't say he proved anything scientifically.

No, the question is whether you know what scientific tests should have been conducted. You're the one claiming a material difference, over and above the accusation of straw man. Therefore if such a material difference exists behind the distinction you draw, you should be able to name those allegedly dispositive tests. If you cannot, then your distinction falls as the straw man it was accused of being.

What scientific tests did you have in mind for the invisible dragon in the garage? Please be suitably specific.

 

[psionl0]

"You can't scientifically disprove the thing I have zero evidence for and refuse to define so you don't get to say it's 'scientifically disproven.'"

ftfy.

No, the question is whether you know what scientific tests should have been conducted.

Wrong. I am not the one saying that anything re gods has been scientifically proven or disproven.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So let me just make sure I got this correct.

- After thousands of years the evidence for God is still holding steady at... let's see tally up the columns... convert to metric.... adjust for windage... carry the zero... factor in the capital gains tax... none. Still at none.

- One of the smartest men who ever lived simply stated that our current understanding of the universe doesn't really leave anything for God to do or anywhere in the functioning of the universe to go.

Oh my how can science recover from such a blunder? Let's dig Stephen Hawkings up and put his corpse on trial like Pope Formosus. If all scientists ever promise to wear hair shirts and whip themselves daily for the next year maybe, just maybe we will cleanse ourselves of such a sin.

 

[JoeMorgue]

ftfy.

Ohhhh.... you're one of those. Okay the plot thins.

I know "science" is dirty, dirty word. I promise I won't use it again.

Also are you going to admit Hawkings didn't say what you claim he said?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Wrong. I am not the one saying that anything re gods has been scientifically proven or disproven.

Wrong.

Either Gods are falsifiable or they are meaningless, either way I have zero problem applying the term "disproven" to either.

 

[Nonpareil]

Wrong. I am not the one saying that anything re gods has been scientifically proven or disproven.

You miss the point.

Unless you - or anyone who wishes to assert that gods haven’t been disproven - can supply some sort of test, their supposed god is a garage dragon.

We don’t need to “scientifically disprove” garage dragons. They do not exist by definition.

 

[The Sparrow]

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

I'm just playing "infinite superpowers hero"

Just because we cannot tell the difference between something "non existent" and something "undetectable" doesn't mean the latter doesn't exist.

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.

I agree it is reasonable. But I can't take the strong atheist position. We have not discovered everything in science yet. That doesn't mean I think there is an undetectable god out there. It just means I'm not prepared to take a stance that no such thing exists. I WILL live my life as if it doesn't exist as part of practical realism because I am 99.9 % sure.
I certainly am 100% convinced the Abrahamic God does not exist.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Just because we cannot tell the difference between something "non existent" and something "undetectable" doesn't mean the latter doesn't exist.

In anyway that actually matters it does.

If the universe functions 100% identically down to individual atom whether factor X exists in it or not... factor X does not exist by standard that makes the tiniest degree of sense.

 

[Nonpareil]

Just because we cannot tell the difference between something "non existent" and something "undetectable" doesn't mean the latter doesn't exist.

Yes, it does.

If something is undetectable, even in theory, then there is no difference between a universe where it exists and a universe where it does not. Therefore, it does not exist in any semantically meaningful way.

If this is not the case, then you must be able to point to a difference between the two hypothetical universes - and if you can do that, then the entity is detectable.

I agree it is reasonable. But I can't take the strong atheist position. We have not discovered everything in science yet. That doesn't mean I think there is an undetectable god out there. It just means I'm not prepared to take a stance that no such thing exists. I WILL live my life as if it doesn't exist as part of practical realism because I am 99.9 % sure.
I certainly am 100% convinced the Abrahamic God does not exist.

I’m not here to try and convince you, personally, to become a hard atheist. I am only here to explain why the position is rational. Whether or not you feel that is enough to adopt it is up to you.

 

[jeremyp]

Hawking: there is no god.

I wonder if Hawking was a member here. Of course, Hawking treasured his anonymity, frequently wearing sunglasses and a wig. Unfortunately, the wheelchair gave him away.

There’s a guy I come across occasionally at some festivals I frequent who, I think, has the same thing as Stephen Hawking. At any rate, he is confined to a motorised wheel chair. The first time I saw him, he was wearing a tee-shirt on which was written “no, I’m not Stephen ******* Hawking”.

 

[Darat]

If he doesn't even know what scientific tests to conduct then he definitely can't say he proved anything scientifically.

That's been the problem with this entire thread. The claim is that Stephen Hawking proved there are no gods scientifically. Yet all I see are the usual reasons for saying there are no gods and none of them are scientific.

What do you think is wrong with Hawking's maths?

 

[qayak]

He's "God" lol. He has infinite power. He can do anything.

You've said that already but it just isn't true. Regurgitating a false statement doesn't make it any less false. So again, how could a god act in our universe without our being able to detect it?

 

[The Sparrow]

Yes, it does.

If something is undetectable, even in theory, then there is no difference between a universe where it exists and a universe where it does not. Therefore, it does not exist in any semantically meaningful way.

If this is not the case, then you must be able to point to a difference between the two hypothetical universes - and if you can do that, then the entity is detectable.
.....

That's a good point. To Joe too who stated something similar.

Thanks.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's a good point. To Joe too who stated something similar.

Thanks.

My pleasure, I'm (honestly, no snark) glad we could come to an understanding.

It's the whole point of the "Dragon in my Garage" parable and why all the handwringing and hair splitting over proven / not disprove / not scientifically disproven is pointless.

At the end of the day there's obviously no goddamn dragon in my garage.

 

[Nonpareil]

That's a good point. To Joe too who stated something similar.

Thanks.

No problem. It’s a strange thing to think about, when you first get introduced to the concept. Carl Sagan’s bit about “The Dragon in My Garage” was my introduction to it, which is why you’ll see me referring to undetectable entities as “garage dragons” here and there.

Look it up, if you have the time. Great read.

 

[The Sparrow]

You've said that already but it just isn't true. Regurgitating a false statement doesn't make it any less false. So again, how could a god act in our universe without our being able to detect it?

Hey, I don't actually think this. I'm just playing the opposite side with its infinite superpower hero for fun and to show that one can always make up escape hatches and preserve their beliefs if they really want to.

So the hypothetical would be that god would affect some change in the universe, then using his super duper powers, mask evidence of this by making it look like a natural event, or heck he is god, he could just take over our minds and blind us to what he just did.

For example. God pitches an asteroid to wipe out Hitler. But then he makes it look like the asteroid came from a few hundred light years away in the galaxy of Anromeda or something. He creates the light in transit so our telescopes see it. The whole wad.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Look it up, if you have the time. Great read.

Seconded.

It takes all the nonsensical argument nannying over "But you haven't proven it isn't so!" and stomps it to dust.