Hawking says there are no gods

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Bullcrap. The Invisible Garage Dragon is outside knowledge because I say so.

I bow to my new found God, You! You are the one true source, because You say so. How can I doubt that, when You say so!!!

Well, I can, but you can't see what you have done, right?

In a room with an undetectable dragon, there is something else we can detect, namely air.
Now that is inside the universe and thus inside knowledge, because we test if there is air or something else, a chair e.g.

Now if the universe comes from nothing, we can't test that because nothing is outside the universe thus outside knowledge.

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science."

From the OP.
Now notice the "I think..."
Nobody has a way of testing that because nothing is outside the universe. Nothing caused the universe, thus nothing is not the universe and we can only test with the universe.

 

[JayUtah]

Nobody has a way of testing that because nothing is outside the universe.

The concept of "outside the universe" does not exist in classical cosmology.

Nothing caused the universe, thus nothing is not the universe and we can only test with the universe.

Irrelevant. The god we are talking about is claimed to cause effects in this universe and is thus falsifiable in this universe. That is the type of god that is worshiped by the faithful and the kind of god Hawking concludes there is no role for. Arguing the existence of a god other than the kind Hawking means does not refute Hawking.

 

[Nonpareil]

1. The hard atheist claims that, in the context of the dragon, that it does not exist.

The garage dragon not existing has nothing to do with hard atheism. It is a matter of definition, not opinion.

2. The dragon, as defined, cannot be either proved or disproved.

Garage dragons are "disproved" by definition. They are defined as non-existing entities.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

The concept of "outside the universe" does not exist in classical cosmology.


Irrelevant. The god we are talking about is claimed to cause effects in this universe and is thus falsifiable in this universe. That is the type of god that is worshiped by the faithful and the kind of god Hawking concludes there is no role for. Arguing the existence of a god other than the kind Hawking means does not refute Hawking.

Not if God cheats and has made the universe so we have souls, but we can't know that through science. You assume that God play by the rules and has made an universe, that can be explained in all senses by science.
Why should God by nice and follow your ideas? Maybe God is not nice?

It is unknown, what the universe actually is. I share your assumption that the universe is natural, but that doesn't mean I know.

As for the highlight, that is an assumption, It makes perfect sense, but it doesn't make it so. That there is no concept of it in classical cosmology, doesn't make it so, that there is no outside the universe. It only means that there is no concept of it, but that doesn't cause there be no outside the universe.
You are scientist, you should know that words don't work that way.

 

[Chanakya]

Nonpareil: Pardon my staccato posts, am traveling and now posting from my phone.

Let me rephrase it this way: Would I be justified in making a claim that this undetectable dragon does not occupy my car?

It is defined as undetectable, after all, not as non-existent. Its non-existence is our interpretation, our redefinition if you will, of its undetectability.

So can I make a claim that the car I am sitting in right now does not contain this dragon, without that claim making me liable to back that claim?

(Obviously, ignore the ridiculousness of the question. Let's pretend we both care about the dragon.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And I agree with your POV, I mean the portion that you've highlighted and that I've quoted above.

To which perfectly reasonable POV, I add the following: Since you can’t (or haven’t) proved the negative, why claim it?....

Find a post where I did.

Your post is an improvement, but you still don't get it.

Why are you jumping through all sorts of contortions to make a gap for a possible god?

Does it bother you to make the statement, all gods are human generated fiction?

Just add 'the evidence is overwhelming' to the sentence.

The evidence is overwhelming that all gods are human generated fiction.

Do you or do you not agree with that sentence?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

The garage dragon not existing has nothing to do with hard atheism. It is a matter of definition, not opinion.



Garage dragons are "disproved" by definition. They are defined as non-existing entities.

You can't define something into non-existence, just by using words. I define you to mean non-existence, thus you don't exist.

If there is a creator god outside the universe, which caused the universe, then you saying through words that is not so, doesn't make it so.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Find a post where I did.

Your post is an improvement, but you still don't get it.

Why are you jumping through all sorts of contortions to make a gap for a possible god?

Does it bother you to make the statement, all gods are human generated fiction?

Just add 'the evidence is overwhelming' to the sentence.

The evidence is overwhelming that all gods are human generated fiction.

All gods humans talk of are created by humans, therefore there is no creator god, which caused the universe.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

At least one version of God is outside knowledge where as The Invisible Garage Dragon is inside knowledge.
That you treat the 2 as the same, is what you can do. I just don't do that.
And there is no way you can ground that in objectively intellectual, because both are biases, just different one. And now cue - better and wrong. You don't get that you are biased, you only get that I am. I get that we both are biased.

Everything is not the same even as biases, because biases can be different.

You are basing this: "At least one version of God is outside knowledge where as The Invisible Garage Dragon is inside knowledge," on special pleading.

Because I've not seen you cite any other basis.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bullcrap. The Invisible Garage Dragon is outside knowledge because I say so.

At least one invisible dragon is anyway.

 

[GStan]

GStan, thanks for reviewing that post of mine. Sure, if the error is mine, then it is I who will gain from a dissection of that argument.

Let me clarify: I used the example of court cases in that post to show how special pleading, in terms of greater than usual precision in some cases than in others, is warranted, given adequate reasons. That is, exceptionalism is a fallacy only if it is unwarranted; if there are good reasons for exceptionalism, then it is not a fallacy. That is all I was trying to show there. An obvious point, I know, but I wanted to show it clearly.

I wasn't trying to draw a direct equivalence with the God question at all, not in that post. That aspect I hadn't touched on at all in that post. I clearly said as much there, in that post, in so many words.

In light of this clarification, would you like to revisit that post of mine?

That post isn't about God at all, only about exceptionalism, and when that isn't fallacious.

What are the adequate reasons that one should allow special pleading? Why a claim of god should be treated differently than the claim of a dragon? My sense of the thread generally is that the only reason that has been put forth is 'because the stakes are so high' or some reworded version thereof. Apologies if I missed where you specifically stated these reasons.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I see.

You are unable to understand your error, ...

 

[JayUtah]

Not if God cheats and has made the universe...

Then you're not talking about the universe that Hawking describes, and so you still haven't refuted Hawking.

As for the highlight, that is an assumption...

No, it's a foundational axiom. You're trying to shoehorn a straw man into Hawking's cosmology.

You are scientist, you should know that words don't work that way.

Do not equivocate. Words do work that way when the words merely describe what is more formally expressed elsewhere. The model of the universe in which Hawking meant his statement regarding god to hold allows for no concept of "outside the universe."

And for reasons already elaborated, the concept of "outside the universe" does not address the kind of god whose existence is being argued for. If the only way you can reconcile the argument is to argue a god that has no detectable place in our universe, then your proof is entirely pyrrhic.

 

[JayUtah]

All gods humans talk of are created by humans, therefore there is no creator god...

The gods humans talk of are said to be creator gods, and are said to cause effects in our universe. This is the god Hawking can find no place for in the universe. If you want to argue a different god that has no effect in our universe, then the difference between that and no god at all is academic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

All gods humans talk of are created by humans, therefore there is no creator god, which caused the universe.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

If you are talking about said creator god, and you are human, then no creator god exists, you are a human creating a god.

Any chance you see that fallacy?

 

[JayUtah]

You can't define something into non-existence, just by using words.

Doing just that is the foundation of your entire approach. Dripping with relativism, you're claiming that just having a perspective on something creates its reality in the only way that matters. Arguing that existence is independent of what someone believes or says about it is tantamount to abandoning your entire position.

I define you to mean non-existence, thus you don't exist.

Yet he continues to exist, so amen to your brand of relativism.

 

[Nonpareil]

Let me rephrase it this way: Would I be justified in making a claim that this undetectable dragon does not occupy my car?

You would. Because it does not exist, by definition.

It is defined as undetectable, after all, not as non-existent. Its non-existence is our interpretation, our redefinition if you will, of its undetectability.

No.

If an entity is undetectable, there is no difference between a universe where it exists and a universe where it does not exist. Therefore, it does not exist.

If this is not the case, then you can point to a difference between the two universes - in which case the entity is detectable, and not a garage dragon.

(Obviously, ignore the ridiculousness of the question. Let's pretend we both care about the dragon.)

Your constant attempts to belittle the analogy are pointless and change nothing about the argument.

You can't define something into non-existence, just by using words.

You can if the definition of a word necessarily entails non-existence.

I define you to mean non-existence, thus you don't exist.

You don't get to try to change the definitions to suit you, Tommy. Nice try, though.

If there is a creator god outside the universe, which caused the universe, then you saying through words that is not so, doesn't make it so.

If there is a creator god, then there is either a way to detect it (in which case it is not a garage dragon) or there isn't (in which case it is a garage dragon, and does not exist).

This is not complicated.

 

[Chanakya]

GStan: Wait, before we visit the God question, let me ask: Now that you've revisited my post, do you agree with my POV? That special pleading is a fallacy only if there are no good reasons? That if there are good reasons, giving more precision to some subject -- be it cort cases, or god, or whatever -- is not a fallacy?

PS sorry abt the staccato posts, am driving (being driven), and am tapping on my phone. Not conducive to long posts!

 

[GStan]

GStan: Wait, before we visit the God question, let me ask: Now that you've revisited my post, do you agree with my POV? That special pleading is a fallacy only if there are no good reasons? That if there are good reasons, giving more precision to some subject -- be it cort cases, or god, or whatever -- is not a fallacy?

PS sorry abt the staccato posts, am driving (being driven), and am tapping on my phone. Not conducive to long posts!

Yes, with adequate justification for an exception, special pleading, in theory, would not necessarily be fallacious.

 

[Chanakya]

Nonpareil: Wait. That dragon, as I recall, has been said to be not detectable. But it has shape, it is a dragon. It has life (or did, if it is now a carcass). Perhaps it has scales. On what basis are we calling it a dragon, after all?

It seems, then, that when we say it is undetectable, it is only currently undetectable. Further, even if not detectable, it is somehow knowable, even currently, else how does CS know it is a dragon? Assuming he isn't lying outright, that is?

So no, undetectable does not seem to translate to non-existent, does it?

How does it impact the universe? Well, I'd say we don't know! Not "no impact", but "dont know"

Given that, if I say the dragon is not traveling with me in my car, why is this claim exempt from the burden of proof?