Hawking says there are no gods

[Chanakya]

Ah, okay. But, in as much as you are arguing for hard atheism, you do agree, don't you, that Sagan's own words, that I quoted from the article you linked, are a ringing endorsement for soft atheism?

(Not that Carl Sagan's support for soft atheism necessarily makes it 'right', of course.)

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

Carl Sagan is not taking a stance on hard vs soft atheism. The entire point of the essay is that the distinction is meaningless special pleading.

It's rejecting the hard vs soft atheism distinction, not taking a side in it.

Yet again for the 50th billionth time if we're in a room with no chair we don't demand the people who think there's no chair in the room and the people who know there is no chair in the room form separate teams. "There's no chair in the room" is where the discussion, hair splitting, excuse making, pleas for "Okay but whatabout..." and everything else that could possibly move the needle back toward the "Okay but maybe there is chair..." side comes to a complete and total stop.

The last 10 pages of this thread have just been people going "Nuh-uh... it's different because of *mumble* special pleading *mumble mumble."

There's no difference between that Soft Adragonist and a Hard Adragonist and trying to argue it even a little bit, to say nothing of digging your hills in and fighting for it like your life depended on it, is utterly absurd and is the point that just keeps going over everybody's head.

There's no difference on a logical, argumentative, scientific, or any other distinction that actually matters between a a completely undetectable dragon we've defined as never being able to know if it exists or not and no dragon at all.

A collection of excuses whey you can't "technically speaking..." disprove it doesn't matter. They don't change anything. They don't matter. And no no wishy-washy "Everybody gets to be right" nonsense about how it matters to some people, it doesn't matter.

If you walk into a room and there's no chair nobody expects you to set down and think of every possible excuse (up to and including just totally rewriting the language and full-scale base level reality denial) as to why there could be a chair in there before the statement "There is no chair in the room" becomes complete and acceptable.

This doesn't even raise to the level of mental masturbation. This is lying awake at night fantasizing about mental masturbation. This is the "Letters to Penthouse" of mental masturbation at this point.

 

[Darat]

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

You said “It doesn't rule out a God can choose to be unobservable (except to a select few)”. I asked which god this was as it doesn’t match with the definition of the many of the gods people claim exists. Which god has the properties you stated?

 

[Chanakya]

And, Nonpareil: About what you say re. my alleged special pleading and alleged appeal to popularity, I believe you are mistaken, but I will readily accept it if you can show how this is so. I am happy to learn from my mistakes, if mistakes they really are!

Instead of saying, "this is an XYZ fallacy", and ending up talking past each other, would you please clearly define the fallacy you think I am committing, and then clearly show how what I have said fits that definition?

I'm guessing you saw me menion 6 billion people, and immediately rushed to the "popularity fallacy" conclusion, without clearly grasping my actual argument. That is why I ask you to take this trouble.

If you're right, then I'll have learnt something, and I'll readily accept it with my thanks.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

This is like when you were a kid trying to find the biggest number and you go back and forth until one kid to "Infinity" and somebody would throw out "Infinity +1."

It's like demanding a cartographer show you what's north of the North Pole. It doesn't make you sound deepity and clever, it just shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

//And before any pedantic taintknuckle puts fingers to keyboard yes I know the difference between the mathematical concepts of countable and non-countable infinities and various mathematical levels of infinity.//

 

[JoeMorgue]

You said “It doesn't rule out a God can choose to be unobservable (except to a select few)”. I asked which god this was as it doesn’t match with the definition of the many of the gods people claim exists. Which god has the properties you stated?

A made up (well even more made up it, it's a made up concept of a God not even a normal, everyday made up God) God who exists only in pedantic apologetics.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Instead of saying, "this is an XYZ fallacy", and ending up talking past each other, would you please clearly define the fallacy you think I am committing, and then clearly show how what I have said fits that definition?

 

[Chanakya]

Joe, have you read Carl Sagan's own words, that I quoted, about the whole point of the Dragon thought-experiment?

Sure, it is an argument for atheism, first and foremost.

But beyond simply atheism, do you not recognize that those words exactly spell out the soft atheist's position?

PS Pardon me, I'm away from my office, driving, and it's kind of inconvenient to do quotes from my phone, else I'd have quoted those words to you again. Would you look up those words of CS's, from my long post addressed to Nonpareil today, and see if you don't find them exactly the same as the soft atheist's position?

 

[Nonpareil]

Ah, okay. But, in as much as you are arguing for hard atheism, you do agree, don't you, that Sagan's own words, that I quoted from the article you linked, are a ringing endorsement for soft atheism?

As I said, I don't particularly care to interpret Sagan's stance on it, as it is irrelevant to the discussion. You are ignoring the central point of the analogy - the question of what it means to say that a garage dragon exists - in favor of clutching at what you see as third-party validation of your position.

I do not care to try to interpret Sagan's position on hard versus soft atheism. Whatever his opinion, it is irrelevant to the discussion in hand.

Instead of saying, "this is an XYZ fallacy", and ending up talking past each other, would you please clearly define the fallacy you think I am committing, and then clearly show how what I have said fits that definition?

This has been done. You simply ignore it by saying "nuh-uh, I'm not committing that fallacy because I say I'm not".

You commit special pleading when you try to give gods special consideration in matters of logic. You attempt to defend this by saying "but it's really important to a lot of people!", but this is entirely irrelevant. It's just an appeal to popularity.

This cannot get any simpler or more clear-cut. You are arguing fallaciously. Beyond that, you are making textbook examples of these fallacies. Saying "you're just failing to grasp my argument" is incorrect; the argument has been grasped and it has failed to stand up under scrutiny.

There is nothing more to do but to reiterate.

God claims fall into one of two categories. The first category, that of those that make falsifiable claims, is dismissed due to lack of evidence. The second category, those that do not make falsifiable claims, is dismissed because the gods it contains are garage dragons, and therefore do not exist by definition.

 

[Chanakya]

That image, Joe, as it appears on my phone, I didn't quite get the point of it. Would you explain?

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but perhaps you're crowing because Nonpareil seems to have found fallacies in my post, something like that?

I don't mind in the least. I don't see this in terms of a contest. I'm truly happy to learn, more bang for my buck that way.

That said, I believe Nonpareil is mistaken about my alleged fallacies. Let's see if he can spell them out.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Classic god of the gaps.

Such a god that is outside of the universe is irrelevant, even if it started the process. What is the point of asserting, "but you haven't ruled out an irrelevant god?"

 

[Steve]

It seems that everyone in this thread is in agreement with Hawking. His position is that there is no room for any actions by a god within the workings of the known universe. Those who continue to disagree are reduced to "but maybe outside of the universe...." which has no relevance to the op.

 

[Chanakya]

Nonpareil, you say you don't find CS's views in support of soft atheism relevant? Why not? Would you not admit that his conclusions, in his own words (that I have quoted), about his own thought experiment, are at least "relevant", even if not necessarily the final word?

 

[kellyb]

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.

I don't think he saw a difference between hard and soft atheism.

This:

Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you.

"Hard atheists" are like that, too. Or should be, if they wish to honestly call themselves skeptics. Denial in the face of strong evidence is anti-skeptical.

 

[Nonpareil]

Nonpareil, you say you don't find CS's views in support of soft atheism relevant? Why not?

Because Sagan is not here, and even if he were, it wouldn't change the argument in hand. I would say the same things to him that I would to you.

Would you not admit that his conclusions, in his own words (that I have quoted), about his own thought experiment, are at least "relevant", even if not necessarily the final word?

Of course they are. But the bit that you are hanging on to is irrelevant to the question of garage dragons as it is used in this thread.

"The Dragon In My Garage" is divided into two halves. The first half, the one that I quoted directly to you, is the part that is relevant to the concept of garage dragons as it is used today. The second half is where he begins to consider cases where evidence does exist, and is irrelevant, as, in this case, the entity no longer meets the definition of "garage dragon" as it is used here.

 

[Chanakya]

And, Nonpareil, in that last post of yours about my alleged fallacies, I note with amusement your unprovoked belligerence, and your imputing all kinds of motivations on to me, when I am clearly asking you to spell out why and how the fallacy.

But I also note that you did not, like I requested, provide the definition of those fallacies, and then show how what I said agrees with those. Would you do that, please?

You are under no compulsion, of course. That was just a request. If you don't do this, then, after I get back to my office, I'll myself post those definitions, and describe, by referencing my own earlier post, why I think you're wrong.

But I think it will be easier, and take less time, if you did as I requested. Provided you want to engage with this at all, that is. Would you?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Joe, have you read Carl Sagan's own words, that I quoted, about the whole point of the Dragon thought-experiment?

Yes. I've read it. I've read the whole book.

I'm not going down another sub-argument rabbit hole.

That image, Joe, as it appears on my phone, I didn't quite get the point of it. Would you explain?

It means exactly what it shows. That I'm not jumping through hoops.

Listen I've entertained this debate this far and I will continue to entertain as long as anyone else wants to, but the one thing I will not tolerate is faux-obtuseness.

Pardon me if I'm mistaken, but perhaps you're crowing because Nonpareil seems to have found fallacies in my post, something like that?

Yes and me, Nonpareil, and several others have spelled out why we think you are making fallacies arguments to any reasonable degree of clarity.

You are not obligated to agree with us, but do not sit there and pretend like we have spelled out our arguments. Do not presume to ask for them to be spoon fed to you again as a stalling tactic.

Nonpareil, you say you don't find CS's views in support of soft atheism relevant? Why not? Would you not admit that his conclusions, in his own words (that I have quoted), about his own thought experiment, are at least "relevant", even if not necessarily the final word?

No this is a stall and a hijack. We used Sagan's metaphor as a visual aid, it is not an invention for you to hijack the discussion into yet another sub-argument.

You're newish here so I'll spell this out for you once. Many people are very, very good at recognizing stalling tactics, least of all in a discussion which is nothing but "Okay you've argued me into a corner, let me hair split it into two more corners I'm now going to make you argue me into" over and over is the whole thing we're arguing against.

And this point this argument is turning into "I now demand a step by step dissection of why exactly you think I'm being too pedantic and picky" which I think is rapidly starting to prove my point.

It seems that everyone in this thread is in agreement with Hawking. His position is that there is no room for any actions by a god within the workings of the known universe. Those who continue to disagree are reduced to "but maybe outside of the universe...." which has no relevance to the op.

It's rapidly getting amazing how many discussion are turning into basically arguing one side into an inescapable corner within a page or two and then spending 500 pages explaining to them why they can't just go :

"Sure we could figure things out and learn more and more about how the universe operates... but what if the universe really runs on random dream logic with no cause and effect?"

"Sure these scientist are discovering more and more about how the universe operates... but that only under the assumption that reality is real."

"Sure these scientist are able to make more and more accurate predictions based on centuries of accumulated knowledge... but what if God makes things happen differently with magic when we aren't looking?"

 

[Nonpareil]

And, Nonpareil, in that last post of yours about my alleged fallacies, I note with amusement your unprovoked belligerence, and your imputing all kinds of motivations on to me, when I am clearly asking you to spell out why and how the fallacy.

I am not being belligerent. Again, I am being blunt. If you cannot tell the difference, you are going to have trouble here.

But I also note that you did not, like I requested, provide the definition of those fallacies, and then show how what I said agrees with those. Would you do that, please?

No.

 

[kellyb]

I am not being belligerent. Again, I am being blunt. If you cannot tell the difference, you are going to have trouble here.



No.

I don't think he or she is arguing that deities are more likely to exist or be true because of their popularity, but rather just that skeptics "should" take care to have a detailed response to claims of them, since amajority of the population believes in them, if we wish to engage in persuasive communication with believers.

Re: philosophical, ontological, non-theistic "god ideas" and other forms of alleged "hair splitting", I think that's close to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

 

[Nonpareil]

I don't think he or she is arguing that deities are more likely to exist or be true because of their popularity, but rather just that skeptics "should" take care to have a detailed response to claims of them, since amajority of the population believes in them, if we wish to engage in persuasive communication with believers.

I'm aware of that. But that doesn't change the underlying logic so that we have to have "more" of a justification in order to dismiss the idea. It's a complaint about rhetoric rather than logic, but Chanakya seems to conflate the two.

Gods don't get special consideration in logic no matter how many people believe in them, or how important it is to those believers.