Hawking says there are no gods

[Darat]

If you are referring to the belief that you can communicate with God that is different to saying that God is "visible".

No I'm not. All the major Christian denominations have a god that doesn't hide their involvement in the world and are claimed to be accessible to all. The same is true for the Islamic denominations.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Roll your eyes all you want. Your argument is literally "When logic, reason, cause and effect, and evidence don't give me the answer I want I get just make up a whole new method to get the answer I want because of philosophy."

No. You don't. If you aren't using logic, reason, cause and effect, and evidence you aren't getting an answer in any meaningful sense of the term, you're just making stuff up.

Have you ever considered that just as there is a limit to human mobility, there might be a limit to logic, reason, cause and effect, and evidence and if so, you simply admit that?
If knowledge has a limit, you then answer when you hit the limit: I don't know.

 

[Nonpareil]

Or to all as God is unobservable. There is at least one version of God, where God is unobservable. No effect of prayers, no miracles and no access through divine guidance.

And this version of god is a garage dragon, and therefore does not exist.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No I'm not. All the major Christian denominations have a god that doesn't hide their involvement in the world and are claimed to be accessible to all. The same is true for the Islamic denominations.

Yes, but that is not all gods, so while science is able to deal with most gods, there might be some, which science can't deal with.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

And this version of god is a garage dragon, and therefore does not exist.

You are not good at logic.
Something unobservable is not logically equivalent with non-existence. And yes, just as per definition unobservable is non-existence, Nonpareil is non-existence. I have just defined it so. So you don't exist, because the words say so. Period.
That is your problem. You don't understand how words work.

 

[Nonpareil]

The first reason is this: There are more than six billion people who believe in (some form of) God.

Appeal to popularity fallacy.

Even if it wasn't, popularity is not a valid defense against the accusation of special pleading. Special pleading is a logical fallacy. If you want people to stop accusing you of it, you have to come up with a logical defense.

No, this isn’t some appeal to popularity.

That's exactly what it is. Just as your special pleading is special pleading despite you trying to say that it isn't.

But because these people believe this God thingie, therefore the existence of this God is of overwhelming importance to these folks.

Irrelevant.

This is simply: one’s interest, one’s predilection, that’s all.

Also not a defense.

Please don’t get defensive

I'm not getting defensive. I'm being blunt. There is a difference.

But what if Carl Sagan were to say, “This dragon appears to me in visions. It tells me things my subconscious couldn’t possibly have supplied me with. It helps me in ways my subconscious couldn’t possibly have done. And here are the specific ways -- albeit ways not immediately testable or ascertainable -- whole myriad ways in which the dragon does affect the entire universe.” Or something like that. After all, he must have some reason for thinking this is a dragon, mustn't he?

The point of the garage dragon example is sailing far above your head.

Again, if there are any ways to detect the dragon at all, it is not a garage dragon. Garage dragons are defined as undetectable. If it is merely hard to detect, it is not a garage dragon.

If, on the other hand, I continue to find Carl Sagan generally sane, if I continue to find him scrupulously honest, and if I can find no explanation at all for this dragon-delusion of his, then the only logically and rationally sound position for me, in respect of this dragon, would be soft a-dragonism.

Flat special pleading. Again.

It doesn't matter if you find him "scrupulously honest". If he can't back up his position, it is discarded. Doing anything else is special pleading.

Seriously, Nonpareil: I don’t see how one can be a hard a-dragonist. Soft a-dragonist, yes, absolutely. But not hard a-dragonist.

Because garage dragons are defined as non-existent, and there is no evidence for the existence of dragons that can be detected.

It's the same way that I can be a hard a-Santa-ist. You simply insert special pleading, then try to claim that it isn't special pleading because it just matters so much to everyone oh please give it a chance.

That isn't how logic or rationality works.

Incidentally: Far as I could see, Carl Sagan does not really push for hard atheism per se.

I didn't say he did. I said that garage dragons are defined as non-existent.

 

[Nonpareil]

You are not good at logic.

Oh, the irony.

Something unobservable is not logically equivalent with non-existence.

Yes, it is.

If it isn't, then you must be able to supply a way in which the universe is different because this unobservable thing exists - in which case it is no longer unobservable.

And yes, just as per definition unobservable is non-existence, Nonpareil is non-existence. I have just defined it so. So you don't exist, because the words say so. Period.
That is your problem. You don't understand how words work.

Really, Tommy? You're going to accuse other people of not understanding how words work?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Oh, the irony.



Yes, it is.

If it isn't, then you must be able to supply a way in which the universe is different because this unobservable thing exists - in which case it is no longer unobservable.



Really, Tommy? You're going to accuse other people of not understanding how words work?

That words mean something doesn't mean that they are true. If that was so, you don't exist, would be true.

 

[xjx388]

No! A force/entity/being/object/process/thing, which caused the universe, but is outside the universe, is not a question for science, because science can't answer that.

What’s the point of postulating something that 1)we have no evidence for, 2)doesn’t give an answer to any question and 3)we have no hope of ever confirming?

I believe the answer is, no matter the verbiage: mental masturbation.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nonpareil]

That words mean something doesn't mean that they are true. If that was so, you don't exist, would be true.

Except that, as I have already explained, you cannot change the definitions to suit you, as you are trying to do to make some strange point that only makes sense within your own head.

I say again: if "unobservable" is not equivalent to "nonexistent", then you must show how. If you cannot do that, then you must concede that they are equivalent.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Except that, as I have already explained, you cannot change the definitions to suit you, as you are trying to do to make some strange point that only makes sense within your own head.

I say again: if "unobservable" is not equivalent to "nonexistent", then you must show how. If you cannot do that, then you must concede that they are equivalent.

And: if "unobservable" is equivalent to "nonexistent", you must show so. The logic works both ways, and you don't use logic, you use definitions.

 

[Nonpareil]

And: if "unobservable" is equivalent to "nonexistent", you must show so. The logic works both ways, and you don't use logic, you use definitions.

I have already done so. Multiple times.

Pay attention.

 

[The Sparrow]

I have already done so. Multiple times.

Pay attention.

Yup, he did. I actually learned something from it.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I have already done so. Multiple times.

Pay attention.

That something is semantically meaningful or meaningless, say nothing about existence outside brains.

As for detachable, a creator god might not be detachable of she doesn't intervene after she caused the universe.
Whether that is meaningful or meaningless to you, doesn't decide if there is such a god.

 

[Nonpareil]

That something is semantically meaningful or meaningless, say nothing about existence outside brains.

As for detachable, a creator god might not be detachable of she doesn't intervene after she caused the universe.
Whether that is meaningful or meaningless to you, doesn't decide if there is such a god.

Gibberish.

 

[psionl0]

No I'm not. All the major Christian denominations have a god that doesn't hide their involvement in the world and are claimed to be accessible to all. The same is true for the Islamic denominations.

If that doesn't mean that the Christian God is visible then what does it mean?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Gibberish.

Let me show you something.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12506031#post12506031

I am sometimes dense and I will admit it. JayUtah answered with more than gibberish and I got it and admitted it.
So try to answer with more than gibberish.

How does how language as language work, tell us anything about whether there are gods or not? Answer that with more than gibberish.

How do we know if there is something outside reality? Answer that with more than gibberish.

 

[Nonpareil]

Let me show you something.

I'm aware of your discussions elsewhere.

I cannot explain things to you any more plainly than they have already been explained, and I cannot answer whatever it is that you are trying to say because it is gibberish. Whatever you are trying to say is getting completely lost in nonsense sentences that fail to parse.

If you want a more detailed response, find a way to better communicate your ideas. As things stand, you are entirely failing to do so.

How does how language as language work, tell us anything about whether there are gods or not? Answer that with more than gibberish.

It doesn't, which is why your obsession with it is so baffling. It is simply important to have clearly defined terms before any logic can be performed. Logic is built on definitions.

The term "garage dragon" is defined in such a way that any entity which it describes does not exist, because "undetectable" is equivalent to "nonexistent". I have explained why multiple times.

Because of this, any god that behaves as a garage dragon does - that is, which is entirely undetectable - we know to be nonexistent.

How do we know if there is something outside reality? Answer that with more than gibberish.

There is nothing "outside reality". Reality is the set of all detectable entities. If an entity is entirely "outside reality", it is therefore undetectable, and does not exist. There is no difference between it and an entirely imaginary entity.

None of this is particularly complex or difficult. Please read my posts before responding.

 

[Chanakya]

Nonpareil, hang on, hang on. Are you not saying, then, that Carl Sagan's dragon invalidates soft atheism? What on earth are we arguing about, then?

I was under the impression -- and I may have been mistaken in so inferring -- that you were arguing against soft atheism. If that is not the case, then I don't see we have anything to argue about.

I enjoyed reading Carl Sagan's essay, thanks to your link, and was gratified to find him clearly taking, in his own words, the soft atheist's position.

 

[Nonpareil]

Nonpareil, hang on, hang on. Are you not saying, then, that Carl Sagan's dragon invalidates soft atheism? What on earth are we arguing about, then?

I make no claims about what Carl Sagan thought about soft versus hard atheism. I am not Carl Sagan. The dragon in the garage is only relevant in that it establishes that undetectable entities do not exist, and thusly that god claims must make some sort of falsifiable assertion in order to have any hope of being true at all.

I was under the impression -- and I may have been mistaken in so inferring -- that you were arguing against soft atheism.

I am not so much arguing against soft atheism as I am arguing in favor of hard atheism. I am also pointing out the egregious abuses of fallacies such as special pleading and appeal to popularity in your own defense of soft atheism.

I don't care if someone chooses to be a soft atheist. I do care if someone tries to justify that position, or to argue against hard atheism, using fallacious reasoning.