Hawking says there are no gods

[Darat]

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

Yet it isn't. Strange that.

 

[psionl0]

Yet it isn't. Strange that.

Not to me but since this subject is evidently way too complicated for you I understand why you might think this way.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... since this subject is evidently way too complicated for you ....

You keep saying **** like this when you fail to present a logical argument or convince anyone of your position. No one's buying it. Especially on this forum where such tactics are well known.

 

[Roboramma]

I think something exists beyond the cosmic horizon. In fact I think that for at least tens of billions of light years beyond the cosmic horizon, perhaps infinitely far, there are galaxies filled with stars that look very much like the ones that we can see here.

Yet if they exist they are literally undetectable. There is absolutely no way that those things can influence us, even in principle. There is also no way to test the idea that they exist.

Yet I still think that they are out there.

 

[Darat]

Not to me but since this subject is evidently way too complicated for you I understand why you might think this way.

No your posts are very simplistic so it's not those I can't follow.

Your problem seems to be not understanding what Hawking said and why.

 

[psionl0]

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.

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

Do you see why an interest in Hawking's conclusions being misrepresented as a lack of interest in Hawking's conclusions might lead me to question your sincerity?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

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?

Could you stop concentrate on the definition? What we mean by a word, says nothing about if matches the rest of reality, it only tells us how we use the word.
Let me show you - "everything that exists" is as it stands empty, because it doesn't tell us what exists and what existence is.
So instead of concentrating solely on what words mean, you also have to ask how do the words "everything that exists" connect to everything that exists.
See now?!!
You need to have definitions so we talk about the same, but it doesn't stop there. That is the point - a definition only enables us to understand each other, it doesn't tell us if the words e.g. "the cat on the mat" match the cat on the mat.

Second part - if you are a skeptic, you accept that it might not turn out to be meaningful, because there may be a limit to meaningful.
The universe might not care about that the universe is meaningful. That you demand that it must be meaningful, might be problematic if there is no in toto meaningful explanation of the universe.
To be a skeptic is to start by not taking for granted that you can confirm your expectations.
That is the overlap between falsification/falsifiable in science and skepticism. The both require that you accept a result, which doesn't match your expectations.
You have started with an expectation, that it must be meaningful, but it might turn out not to be that.

So - tell me how you use a word and what it is about and how you explain that?
All 3 - not just how you use a word!
So if you take for granted, that a result must be meaningful, you are doing verification. I don't do verification, I do falsification. I ask if everything is meaningful and if it is not, I accept that.

 

[Chanakya]

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.

Not just the West its most places.

That makes sense.

That would explain the rendering into the word “God” of their own venerated ideals by people like Advaitists and (some) Theravadins, as well as (some) Sufis, et cetera. And that would also explain the inability of those who haven’t been exposed to these ideas, to conceive of a “God idea” that isn’t deity-based.



But where do we go from here, with this understanding of ours, as far as our discussion about soft and hard atheism, and the different types of Gods?

Do we say, “We only recognize deities as God, and so limit our discussion of theism and atheism only to belief in deities, and simply leave out these non-deity God-ideas entirely out of our discussion?” Absolutely, that is one way to go. Nor is this POV necessarily inconsistent with the historical definition of the word “God”. If this is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, hard atheism is a perfectly reasonable position, and I am happy to call myself a hard atheist.

Or do we say, “Here are some further rather abstract God-like ideas, that do not involve any deities at all, and that some/many of us had not been familiar with. Let us expand our discussion of theism and atheism to include these ideas also.” If this latter is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, then I would say that hard atheism is reasonable only in some instances, while soft atheism is always reasonable; and so I am, in general, not a hard atheist but a soft atheist.



What about you, kellyb, and Darat? I realize this is open to subjective interpretation, there can be no set-in-stone guidelines that either you or I can lay down: but what would your personal interpretation be? How would you define the terms of discussion, given what I’ve said here, and how would you state your views on soft and hard atheism in light of this?

 

[calebprime]

...

Commendable attempt at moving the conversation forward.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

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?

Take 2:

No.
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=exist
https://www.etymonline.com/word/existence#etymonline_v_14062

So the word "exist", in the meaning we use, hasn't always been around.

In other words you take your culture for granted and consider it universal.

The same with "thing":
https://www.etymonline.com/word/thing#etymonline_v_10758

The same with "everything":
https://www.etymonline.com/word/everything#etymonline_v_38477

It is possible to talk about "everything, that exists" without talking about "things" and "existence".

In a cultural perspective before science/the enlightenment, we had religion, but is that the end? What is if there is something different from both science/the enlightenment and religion?
What if there are no magistrates both for science and religion?

 

[JoeMorgue]

But where do we go from here, with this understanding of ours, as far as our discussion about soft and hard atheism, and the different types of Gods?

Do we say, “We only recognize deities as God, and so limit our discussion of theism and atheism only to belief in deities, and simply leave out these non-deity God-ideas entirely out of our discussion?” Absolutely, that is one way to go. Nor is this POV necessarily inconsistent with the historical definition of the word “God”. If this is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, hard atheism is a perfectly reasonable position, and I am happy to call myself a hard atheist.

Or do we say, “Here are some further rather abstract God-like ideas, that do not involve any deities at all, and that some/many of us had not been familiar with. Let us expand our discussion of theism and atheism to include these ideas also.” If this latter is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, then I would say that hard atheism is reasonable only in some instances, while soft atheism is always reasonable; and so I am, in general, not a hard atheist but a soft atheist.

But where do we go from here, with this understanding of ours, as far as our discussion about soft and hard adragonism, and the different types of Invisible Garage Dragons?

Do we say, “We only recognize deities as the Invisible Garage Dragon, and so limit our discussion of dragonism and adragonism only to belief in deities, and simply leave out these non-deity Dragon-ideas entirely out of our discussion?” Absolutely, that is one way to go. Nor is this POV necessarily inconsistent with the historical definition of the word “Dragon”. If this is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, hard adragonism is a perfectly reasonable position, and I am happy to call myself a hard adragonist.

Or do we say, “Here are some further rather abstract Dragon-like ideas, that do not involve any reptiles at all, and that some/many of us had not been familiar with. Let us expand our discussion of dragonism and adragonism to include these ideas also.” If this latter is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, then I would say that hard adragonism is reasonable only in some instances, while soft atheism is always reasonable; and so I am, in general, not a hard adragonist but a soft adragonist.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Or to sum it up, no I'm not particularly interested in playing a rousing game of finding the minimum allowable amount of "God"

In a room with no chair, what's the minimum amount of chair you'll still agree is in the room? There's your answer.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Or to sum it up, no I'm not particularly interested in playing a rousing game of finding the minimum allowable amount of "God"

In a room with no chair, what's the minimum amount of chair you'll still agree is in the room? There's your answer.

Then accept that some of us do it differently. I accept your world-view as yours and I accept that you don't accept mine.
But if you want to insist on "right" and "wrong" I am game.

 

[Darat]

I think something exists beyond the cosmic horizon. In fact I think that for at least tens of billions of light years beyond the cosmic horizon, perhaps infinitely far, there are galaxies filled with stars that look very much like the ones that we can see here.



Yet if they exist they are literally undetectable. There is absolutely no way that those things can influence us, even in principle. There is also no way to test the idea that they exist.



Yet I still think that they are out there.

It is quite an astonishing thought, when I first heard of lightcones and so on and the implications it as they say “blew my mind”.

 

[Darat]

Do you see why an interest in Hawking's conclusions being misrepresented as a lack of interest in Hawking's conclusions might lead me to question your sincerity?

The underlying is the maths.

 

[Darat]

That makes sense.



That would explain the rendering into the word “God” of their own venerated ideals by people like Advaitists and (some) Theravadins, as well as (some) Sufis, et cetera. And that would also explain the inability of those who haven’t been exposed to these ideas, to conceive of a “God idea” that isn’t deity-based.







But where do we go from here, with this understanding of ours, as far as our discussion about soft and hard atheism, and the different types of Gods?



Do we say, “We only recognize deities as God, and so limit our discussion of theism and atheism only to belief in deities, and simply leave out these non-deity God-ideas entirely out of our discussion?” Absolutely, that is one way to go. Nor is this POV necessarily inconsistent with the historical definition of the word “God”. If this is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, hard atheism is a perfectly reasonable position, and I am happy to call myself a hard atheist.



Or do we say, “Here are some further rather abstract God-like ideas, that do not involve any deities at all, and that some/many of us had not been familiar with. Let us expand our discussion of theism and atheism to include these ideas also.” If this latter is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, then I would say that hard atheism is reasonable only in some instances, while soft atheism is always reasonable; and so I am, in general, not a hard atheist but a soft atheist.







What about you, kellyb, and Darat? I realize this is open to subjective interpretation, there can be no set-in-stone guidelines that either you or I can lay down: but what would your personal interpretation be? How would you define the terms of discussion, given what I’ve said here, and how would you state your views on soft and hard atheism in light of this?

I keep it simple. If your answer to “which god do you believe in?” Is “none” then you are an atheist. Atheism isn’t a position of knowledge but one of belief. If you don’t actually believe in a god then you are an atheist.

The silliness of hard and soft and so on atheism arises from a misunderstanding of what atheism is.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

The underlying is the maths.

Does math always match all of reality or is math limited?
We always end here: It is not given that we can explain reality in coherent terms using reason, logic/math AND evidence.
Maybe it is nothing but an idea in a given human brain.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I keep it simple. If your answer to “which god do you believe in?” Is “none” then you are an atheist. Atheism isn’t a position of knowledge but one of belief. If you don’t actually believe in a god then you are an atheist.

The silliness of hard and soft and so on atheism arises from a misunderstanding of what atheism is.

Yes, that is about knowledge.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But if you want to insist on "right" and "wrong" I am game.

Do people really think not having intellectual standards makes them better people?

Because I notice whenever theists and apologists get argued into a corner, this is usually their last defense, some variation on "You're being mean."

And that's absolute nonsense. I care enough about people that I don't want them to be wrong.

Penn Jillette once said that ideologically he gets along with the hardcore theists a lot more than he does with the wishy washy "Oh it's all the same" people. Why? Because they respect him enough to tell him "You are wrong" and he can look them in the eye and go "You are wrong" while the whole "Oh there are many paths to truth..." is the way you talk down to a child.

 

[Chanakya]

But where do we go from here, with this understanding of ours, as far as our discussion about soft and hard adragonism, and the different types of Invisible Garage Dragons?

Do we say, “We only recognize deities as the Invisible Garage Dragon, and so limit our discussion of dragonism and adragonism only to belief in deities, and simply leave out these non-deity Dragon-ideas entirely out of our discussion?” Absolutely, that is one way to go. Nor is this POV necessarily inconsistent with the historical definition of the word “Dragon”. If this is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, hard adragonism is a perfectly reasonable position, and I am happy to call myself a hard adragonist.

Or do we say, “Here are some further rather abstract Dragon-like ideas, that do not involve any reptiles at all, and that some/many of us had not been familiar with. Let us expand our discussion of dragonism and adragonism to include these ideas also.” If this latter is how you choose to define the discussion on theism, then I would say that hard adragonism is reasonable only in some instances, while soft atheism is always reasonable; and so I am, in general, not a hard adragonist but a soft adragonist.

Carl Sagan's dragon is a lovely device for showing up the absurdity of some of our ideas, but I'm afraid there are nuances that it can't quite cover. To that extent, one sees how this device is misused for rhetorical grandstanding rather than for making cogent reasoned arguments.

Here's how this rhetoric is disingenuous: The dragon is a wholly pointless and ridiculous idea that no one takes seriously; and the intent is to have these traits supplanted on the subject under discussion. While often valid, there are times when this simply doesn't apply.

The fact is that some issues are accorded greater precision than others. And nor is this necessarily a fallacious double standard, for reasons I've explained more than once, reasons that you've been singularly unable to either refute or accept.

Let me see if trying another tack might help: You do know that courts of law will never pronounce you "innocent", don't you? They'll only say you're "not guilty". That is because it is often impossible to actually prove innocence. (Most cases aren't quite as cut and dried as David Schwimmer's shoplifting!)

Like that shoplifting case, some defendents can indeed be proved innocent. However, in general we tend to go with "not guilty", as showing that there isn't enough evidence for guilt is usually the best we can do.

Thus with God ideas. Some God ideas we can indeed disprove (in as much science can actually prove or disprove anything, that goes without saying). However, generally simply showing a lack of evidence is the best we can do, so generally soft atheism is what is reasonable.



If you would only try to clearly think through and address the points I have raised, for instance in my previous post, rather than go in for this asinine grandstanding, then we might make better headway.

Or to sum it up, no I'm not particularly interested in playing a rousing game of finding the minimum allowable amount of "God"

And nor am I remotely interested in getting you, personally, to play this game, or for that matter any game.

In a room with no chair, what's the minimum amount of chair you'll still agree is in the room? There's your answer.

No, that isn't remotely an answer, given the discussion we've already had on this. That's only a wisecrack.