Hawking says there are no gods

[JayUtah]

This is utter rubbish. If I am not making a claim...

You made the claim that it matters whether a particular proposition, given by analogy, is proven "scientifically" versus in some other way. But you can't tell us what "scientifically" means in that case. So your critic was right to conclude that your claim is a distinction without a difference. If you claim there's a difference but can't tell us what that difference entails, your claim fails. It's not rubbish. It's a successful challenge to your attempt to set double standards of proof.

 

[psionl0]

You made the claim that it matters whether a particular proposition, given by analogy, is proven "scientifically" versus in some other way.

No, I responded to the claim that a particular proposition was proven "scientifically".

 

[JayUtah]

No, I responded to the claim that a particular proposition was proven "scientifically".

No, that wasn't the claim. The claim was that if God is said to be the cause of observable effects, then that puts the question of God's existence -- via that particular hypothesized causality -- within the reach of scientific inquiry, contrary to the common claim of theists. The issue of scientific tractability, when it comes to existential questions, is illustrated by Carl Sagan's "dragon in the garage" thought experiment. That was put to you. As Dr. Sagan predicted, you attempted to evade the gist of it by ad hoc revision. If you cannot elucidate the "scientific" standard of proof you proposed, and which you say matters, then you have simply proven Dr. Sagan's point.

 

[The Sparrow]

Which is why we use the word "undetectable" and not just "very hard to detect".

Good distinction!

I learn from people smarter than me

 

[psionl0]

No, that wasn't the claim. The claim was that if God is said to be the cause of observable effects, then that puts the question of God's existence -- via that particular hypothesized causality -- within the reach of scientific inquiry, contrary to the common claim of theists.

Only in your mind. Hawking didn't say anything in the OP about God causing observable effects.

The original quote was "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I responded to the claim that a particular proposition was proven "scientifically".

Funny, no one claimed any such thing, even using your unique definition of proven scientifically.

I think that's the problem. You think you are addressing what's been claimed, but since it wasn't claimed, you aren't answering. You just imagine you are, the same way you imagine we posted something we did not post.

... The original quote was "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

Or maybe you imagine this says something it doesn't.

 

[JayUtah]

Only in your mind. Hawking didn't say...

I'm talking about the conversation between you and JoeMorgue that cultminated in the question I asked. You're now stuck on the horns of the very dilemma Dragon in the Garage was designed to identify.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The original quote was "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

Which is why your screaming about "scientific proof" is even more baffling.

You're splitting a hair that doesn't even exist to split.

 

[psionl0]

Which is why your screaming about "scientific proof" is even more baffling.

You're splitting a hair that doesn't even exist to split.

Your problem is that you think that everything I post is wrong (including this sentence).

Your jumping up and down began in earnest way back in post #1512 when I said that science has nothing whatsoever to say about gods. By post #1570 When I suggested that no scientific tests exists and we can't settle the matter scientifically, you were positively apoplectic.

If it were possible to enrage you further then post #1588 did it:

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.

In a ridiculous twist of logic, I am suddenly required devise a scientific test to prove that god/dragons exist before I can challenge the assertion that non-existence has been "scientifically proved".

So don't tell me that this has nothing to do with scientific proof. Your rage and the cheers from your peanut gallery say otherwise.

 

[David Mo]

Just below your post, read it.

I asked you about a specific case and you answered with grand theories. Please, centre yourself on my question. It is about how you apply your theories.
Do you distinguish the chair you imagine and the chair you are sit in? How?

 

[David Mo]

There is no god in the universe, is not that same as is there no god outside the universe.

What method do you use to know what is out of the universe?

 

[David Mo]

The same one that establishes that all swans are white? Maybe there is no such test and we can't settle the matter scientifically.

Incomplete induction can fail. So you can put your hand in a pot of boiling water. Who knows? You don't know really if boiling water burns. And if someone says that he knows, he is being dogmatic.

In addition: science is not only induction. There are laws, theories, deduction and more.

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.

Then, is hard atheism justified? Do I know that boiling water burns?

 

[Darat]

Did!

I've double checked all your posts in this thread and you are mistaken, perhaps you posted the refuted maths in a different thread?

 

[psionl0]

Then, is hard atheism justified? Do I know that boiling water burns?

If you have been paying attention then you would know that I don't expect the truth of everything to be tested scientifically.

 

[psionl0]

I've double checked all your posts in this thread and you are mistaken, perhaps you posted the refuted maths in a different thread?

I didn't think you were being serious. I didn't think that anybody could possibly believe that I have to prove that Hawking's maths is incorrect before I can challenge a mere assertion of his.

FYI "Hawking says" =/= "scientifically proven".

 

[David Mo]

If you have been paying attention then you would know that I don't expect the truth of everything to be tested scientifically.

If you have paid attention to my previous comments and this one in particular I have not said anything about scientifically proven. I was speaking in a philosophical way. Or common sense. As you like. In a similar way that I know the boiling water burns.

By the way: it is difficult to pay attention to the flood of comments in this thread.

 

[Darat]

I didn't think you were being serious. I didn't think that anybody could possibly believe that I have to prove that Hawking's maths is incorrect before I can challenge a mere assertion of his.

FYI "Hawking says" =/= "scientifically proven".

It isn't a mere assertion. It is his conclusion based on his and others theories of how the universe came about and how it "is". His theories are mathematical theories, if you wish to claim his conclusions are wrong you'll need to show where and how his theories are wrong. Now there are only two ways of doing that, one is to show that they do not fit the evidence we have or that there is a mathematical mistake in the formulation. Either method requires you to present the maths to support your claim.

 

[psionl0]

As I said earlier on I don't have the mathematical knowledge nor skill to understand fully the maths of Hawking's claims . . . .

Argument from ignorance is a poor way to argue. It makes your claim "It isn't a mere assertion. It is his conclusion based on his and others theories of how the universe came about and how it 'is'" just a sea of words.

The reason I don't have to examine his maths per se is because he didn't use any maths in his postulate (the laws of nature are fixed) nor his conditional statement (if the postulate is true then there is no room for God).

Of course he relied on his authority as a scientist to make this assertion so it is right to examine whether his knowledge as a scientist makes the assertion reasonable (which I did). Again, I don't have to challenge the maths (he is hardly likely to get that wrong). It is only necessary to examine the underpinning assumptions and whether some of his conclusions are the only way to interpret the data he used.

Since you so carefully went over all of my posts, you know exactly which aspects of his scientific knowledge I examined.

 

[Darat]

Argument from ignorance is a poor way to argue. It makes your claim "It isn't a mere assertion. It is his conclusion based on his and others theories of how the universe came about and how it 'is'" just a sea of words.

The reason I don't have to examine his maths per se is because he didn't use any maths in his postulate (the laws of nature are fixed) nor his conditional statement (if the postulate is true then there is no room for God).

Of course he relied on his authority as a scientist to make this assertion so it is right to examine whether his knowledge as a scientist makes the assertion reasonable (which I did). Again, I don't have to challenge the maths (he is hardly likely to get that wrong). It is only necessary to examine the underpinning assumptions and whether some of his conclusions are the only way to interpret the data he used.

Since you so carefully went over all of my posts, you know exactly which aspects of his scientific knowledge I examined.

It would have been quicker to have just said you have no interest in his scientific conclusions you know.

 

[psionl0]

It would have been quicker to have just said you have no interest in his scientific conclusions you know.

Except that it would have been the exact opposite of what I posted.