Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
psionl0 said:
Wrong. I am not the one saying that anything re gods has been scientifically proven or disproven.
Click to expand...

You're the one saying it matters, in the context of the toy example, whether something has been "scientifically" proven as opposed to some other form of investigation or assurance. That claim was challenged. It now falls to you to show in exactly what way it matters. If you cannot or will not put any substance to the notion of "scientific" proof of a particular absence, then your line of reasoning is just dancing around the notion of the standard of proof, not arguing sensibly for one.
 
Of course if this "deliberately hiding" god met me at the gates of heaven and cast me into hell for not having believed in him....well that doesn't seem fair at all. ;)
 
The Sparrow said:
Of course if this "deliberately hiding" god met me at the gates of heaven and cast me into hell for not having believed in him....well that doesn't seem fair at all. ;)
Click to expand...

Step away from Pascal's Wager before you get stuck in the current.
 
JayUtah said:
You're the one saying it matters, in the context of the toy example, whether something has been "scientifically" proven as opposed to some other form of investigation or assurance. That claim was challenged. It now falls to you to show in exactly what way it matters. If you cannot or will not put any substance to the notion of "scientific" proof of a particular absence, then your line of reasoning is just dancing around the notion of the standard of proof, not arguing sensibly for one.
Click to expand...
This is utter rubbish. If I am not making a claim then why do I have to do the work and prove the case for somebody who is making the claim?

We all know that the probability that there is an invisible dragon in Joe's garage is most likely orders of magnitude lower than that of a motor vehicle quantum leaping into his garage (effectively zero in both cases). There is nothing to prove there. But if Joe wants to claim that he has "scientific proof" about this then let him bring it on.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
The all know that the probability that there is an invisible dragon in Joe's garage is most likely orders of magnitude lower than that of a motor vehicle quantum leaping into his garage (effectively zero in both cases). There is nothing to prove there. But if Joe wants to claim that he has "scientific proof" about this then let him bring it on.
Click to expand...

I'm saying if I claim there's a dragon in my garage and somebody goes into my garage, looks all around it, doesn't see a dragon and declared he's "proved there is no dragon" you wouldn't pitch the hissy fit you are now.

I get it you've just dug your heels in and are trying to save face more than anything at this point, but just let it go.

Also again are you going to admit that you Hawkings did not make the claims you said he did?
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
What do you think is wrong with Hawking's maths?
Click to expand...
I have dealt with Hawking's assertion from a mathematical and scientific view point quite extensively in this thread and also examined the consequences of this assertion. (It lead to a side discussion about free will).
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'm saying if I claim there's a dragon in my garage and somebody goes into my garage, looks all around it, doesn't see a dragon and declared he's "proved there is no dragon" you wouldn't pitch the hissy fit you are now.
Click to expand...
This thread would have gone in a radically different direction if that was what you were actually saying.

JoeMorgue said:
I get it you've just dug your heels in and are trying to save face more than anything at this point, but just let it go.
Click to expand...
You would do well to take your own advice. Disbelief may be logical, practical evidential and all sorts of other good things from a critical thinking point of view. Just stop saying that it is "scientific".
 
psionl0 said:
This thread would have gone in a radically different direction if that was what you were actually saying.
Click to expand...

No I said it about the giant invisible sky wizard and not the invisible garage dragon which totally different apparently.

THAT'S THE POINT.

And for the third time are you going to address that Hawkings never actually said what you are accusing him of saying?
 
JoeMorgue said:
No I said it about the giant invisible sky wizard and not the invisible garage dragon which totally different apparently.

THAT'S THE POINT.
Click to expand...
My argument that nothing has been scientifically proven has had you screaming blue murder for pages now. Don't tell me that "scientifically" has nothing to do with it.

JoeMorgue said:
And for the third time are you going to address that Hawkings never actually said what you are accusing him of saying?
Click to expand...
Since I don't know what strawman you have constructed, you had better tell me what you think that I am accusing him of saying.
 
psionl0 said:
I have dealt with Hawking's assertion from a mathematical and scientific view point quite extensively in this thread and also examined the consequences of this assertion. (It lead to a side discussion about free will).
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you've not. Granted it is hard to format mathematical posts here, but you could simply use paper and grab a few photos and attach those. I look forward to your critique of Hawking's maths, you will be the first person to actually demonstrate the flaws in his maths on this forum. As I said earlier on I don't have the mathematical knowledge nor skill to understand fully the maths of Hawking's claims but we do have several members that can and I'm sure we'd be able to get them to help us follow your rework of Hawking's maths. Have you thought of getting your work into shape to be published? I doubt any of the prestigious journals would turn down a paper showing Hawking's mistakes!
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Then why quote my post? I don't think your discussion has any merit.
 
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...

You've drawn an unsupported conclusion there.


It's the classic, your failure to sway people is not evidence they don't understand your argument.
 
The Sparrow said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

Which is why we use the word "undetectable" and not just "very hard to detect". It would theoretically be possible, given enough information about the universe, to detect this kind of trickery.

That makes the god in question not a garage dragon, and instead takes the issue into the realm of evidence - or, more accurately, the lack thereof. We dismiss this kind of god because claims of their existence is bare assertion.
 
psionl0 said:
Since I don't know what strawman you have constructed, you had better tell me what you think that I am accusing him of saying.
Click to expand...

Better idea - and this is an entirely honest question, as I've only been following your half of the thread's various discussions tangentially.

What is your position, precisely? That we have to admit the possibility of a garage dragon's existence?
 
Myriad said:
If the universe is defined as everything that exists, isn't describing a god as "outside the universe" the same as saying it doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

There are different philosophical views about the multiverse possibilities. None of those are relevant to whether one can say gods don't exist.

The more one disproves god myths, the further outside of reality believers assert god exists in.

No evidence of gods, maybe god doesn't want evidence because it's important to believe on faith.
Science refutes Biblical claims, well there is scientific evidence and there is faith based evidence.

And so it goes until you start getting to Deism, gods started it all and now are silent. But that fails on two fronts. 1) if such a god existed it would be irrelevant, and 2) people would have no way of knowing such a god existed.

Now we are at, well if god was outside the universe you couldn't prove it wasn't.

That's where I say, it's god beliefs that are the actual thing that exists. There is no evidence any actual gods exist. There is no reason to jump through scenarios where some god might exist that we cannot prove otherwise.

Turtles all the way down and irrelevant turtles all rolled into one. :D
 
Last edited:
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Sometimes the truth is, that you can't know the truth. Unknowable is freighting to some people, but still a fact.
Falsifiable and falsification amount to that you must admit, that is not so, as you predict.
I would like to know what the universe actually is, but I can't. I am just honest.
If human mobility has a limit, have you check for reason, logic, evidence and knowledge?
Click to expand...
I do believe that highlighted part is why humans invented gods to fill that gap.

Certainly it's few to no atheists who are afraid of the unknown.
 
Nonpareil said:
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.
Click to expand...
A lot of people have a hard time with the irrelevant god problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom