Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tommy Jeppesen said:
My God has the property of not engaging with the universe after creation, being not a part of the universe after creation, other then being the cause of the universe. My God created the universe and then left it alone.
It doesn't mean, that there is such a god, hence my God.

My God is a natural god in the following sense:
She created the universe in such a manner, that we are not Boltzmann Brains, in the Matrix and what not(my belief).
She created the universe without souls, heaven, hell, reincarnation and what not(my belief).
She created the universe in such a manner, that we can understand reality in limited manner with a combination of reason, logic and evidence, and my faith in:
  • The inherent worth and dignity of every person
  • Justice, equity and compassion in human relations
  • Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth
  • A free and responsible search for truth and meaning
  • The right of conscience and civil disobedience
  • The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all
  • Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part

My faith is a faith for which I show daily fidelity and do the work everyday to live up to my faith. I fail sometimes and then I try to learn.
Click to expand...

How is your god functionally different from the blip in the quantum foam which many physicists believe sparked the big bang?
 
Nonpareil said:
Again, you don't understand what "real" or "unreal" means.
Click to expand...

And you don't understand that the meaning of words don't control the universe.
The meaning of "real" or "unreal" are in the heads of humans and nowhere else. They are no different that "god".
Semantics is in the heads of humans and nowhere else, if semantics was out there, you could read Linear A. You can't because there is no meaning in this text as it stands on the screen. It is in the heads of humans and nowhere else.
 
kellyb said:
How is your god functionally different from the blip in the quantum foam which many physicists believe sparked the big bang?
Click to expand...

I am not a Boltzmann Brain and because that I believe that, it is not science. It is faith. I believe that the universe is fair and that is faith.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
And you don't understand that the meaning of words don't control the universe.
Click to expand...

I never said that it did.

What I have said is that you are spouting endless fountains of gibberish word salad because you don't understand the terms you are trying to use well enough to construct any sort of coherent idea.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
My God has the property of not engaging with the universe after creation, being not a part of the universe after creation, other then being the cause of the universe. My God created the universe and then left it alone.
Click to expand...

In what way is the universe that your god supposedly created differentiable from a universe that it did not?
 
Roboramma said:
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If I say that there is a star of similar mass to our sun in a galaxy 300 billion light years away, I'm making an unfalsifiable claim, but one that is very probably correct.
Click to expand...
But you have evidence of other stars. You have evidence of the composition of galaxies. You can make an educated guess without anyone needing to falsify your claim.
 
Nonpareil said:
I never said that it did.

What I have said is that you are spouting endless fountains of gibberish word salad because you don't understand the terms you are trying to use well enough to construct any sort of coherent idea.
Click to expand...

I don't have to, it has already been done.
Austin highlights the complexities proper to the uses of ‘real’ by observing that it is (i) a substantive-hungry word that often plays the role of (ii) adjuster-word, a word by means of which “other words are adjusted to meet the innumerable and unforeseeable demands of world upon language” (Austin 1962a, 73). Like ‘good,’ it is (iii) a dimension-word, that is, “the most general and comprehensive term in a whole group of terms of the same kind, terms that fulfil the same function” (Austin 1962a, 71): that is, ‘true,’ ‘proper,’ ‘genuine,’ ‘live,’ ‘natural,’ ‘authentic,’ as opposed to terms such as ‘false,’ ‘artificial,’ ‘fake,’ ‘bogus,’ ‘synthetic,’ ‘toy,’ but also to nouns like ‘dream,’ ‘illusion,’ ‘mirage,’ ‘hallucination.’ ‘Real,’ is also (iv) a word whose negative use “wears the trousers” (a trouser-word) (Austin 1962a, 70).

In order to determine the meaning of ‘real’ we have to consider, case by case, the ways and contexts in which it is used. Only by doing so, according to Austin, can we avoid introducing false dichotomies...
Click to expand...
https://www.iep.utm.edu/austin/

Example:
Someone: Real is actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
Me: No!
Someone: That is false.
Me: That is a false dichotomy. That no is real, otherwise you couldn't comment that it is false.

Something imagined is real and a part of reality, otherwise it is non-reality. But then how come we can talk about it, if we are in reality and imagined is not.
"Real" and "unreal" are in the heads of humans, just like "god". All are ideas and as such imagined, but that is real as imagined and that is how we can talk about them.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
My God has the property of not engaging with the universe after creation, being not a part of the universe after creation, other then being the cause of the universe. My God created the universe and then left it alone.
It doesn't mean, that there is such a god, hence my God.

My God is a natural god in the following sense:
She created the universe in such a manner, that we are not Boltzmann Brains, in the Matrix and what not(my belief).
She created the universe without souls, heaven, hell, reincarnation and what not(my belief).
She created the universe in such a manner, that we can understand reality in limited manner with a combination of reason, logic and evidence, and my faith in:
  • The inherent worth and dignity of every person
  • Justice, equity and compassion in human relations
  • Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth
  • A free and responsible search for truth and meaning
  • The right of conscience and civil disobedience
  • The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all
  • Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part

My faith is a faith for which I show daily fidelity and do the work everyday to live up to my faith. I fail sometimes and then I try to learn.
Click to expand...
Your god as described would have had to intervene after creation or you would not know anything about such a god. For dozens of reasons your god is a fictional thing created in your mind.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
My God has the property of not engaging with the universe after creation, being not a part of the universe after creation, other then being the cause of the universe. My God created the universe and then left it alone.
It doesn't mean, that there is such a god, hence my God.

My God is a natural god in the following sense:
She created the universe in such a manner, that we are not Boltzmann Brains, in the Matrix and what not(my belief).
She created the universe without souls, heaven, hell, reincarnation and what not(my belief).
She created the universe in such a manner, that we can understand reality in limited manner with a combination of reason, logic and evidence, and my faith in:
  • The inherent worth and dignity of every person
  • Justice, equity and compassion in human relations
  • Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth
  • A free and responsible search for truth and meaning
  • The right of conscience and civil disobedience
  • The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all
  • Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part

My faith is a faith for which I show daily fidelity and do the work everyday to live up to my faith. I fail sometimes and then I try to learn.
Click to expand...

You do not have a god. You have previously stated that you are an atheist. Your entire post is crap you made up for the sole purpose of prolonging a failing argument.
 
David Mo said:
No. The problem with the belief in God is that it is not bound to a limited set of cases. The scietific study of some allegued God's manifestation is limited to some cases. What science can said is that ever a case of God's presence has been studied it has been refuted or have been out of verification. This is a strong indication against religious claims, but not conclusive. We need present other kind of arguments. And this is a task for philosophy.
Click to expand...

Like I said, there is overwhelming evidence gods are human generated fiction.
There is no evidence of any real gods.

The scientific process does not generate proofs. That is in the realm of math.

If you want to sit around and discuss fictional gods and call it philosophy, be my guest. But you cannot say what the expected beneficial outcome of such discussions of philosophy are.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Your god as described would have had to intervene after creation or you would not know anything about such a god. For dozens of reasons your god is a fictional thing created in your mind.
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean, that there is such a god, hence my God.
I said I had faith.
I have faith that you are not a Boltzmann Brain and that I am not either. That we were not caused a moment ago that the universe is only earth and not even include the sun, but just 7 minutes worth of sunlight.
Or if you like, you are computer program and the rest is a simulation in a computer and with its power source, that is the universe, you are in.
The Boltzmann Brain is the science version of the last Thursday God. That is not unique to God, the problem is the same for the natural universe, it has a name; a Boltzmann Brain.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
I don't have to, it has already been done.
Click to expand...

And you failed to understand it. Case in point:

Tommy Jeppesen said:
Example:
Someone: Real is actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
Me: No!
Someone: That is false.
Me: That is a false dichotomy. That no is real, otherwise you couldn't comment that it is false.
Click to expand...

Gibberish. And you still don't understand what a false dichotomy is, either.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
Something imagined is real and a part of reality, otherwise it is non-reality. But then how come we can talk about it, if we are in reality and imagined is not.
Click to expand...

Your imagination is part of reality. Again, you do not possess sufficient understanding of the terms you are trying to use to create a coherent argument.
 
Steve said:
You do not have a god. You have previously stated that you are an atheist. Your entire post is crap you made up for the sole purpose of prolonging a failing argument.
Click to expand...

My god is a deity, not a theistic God, hence I am an atheist, yet religious.
I should properly change my sig. :)
 
Nonpareil said:
And you failed to understand it. Case in point:



Gibberish. And you still don't understand what a false dichotomy is, either.



Your imagination is part of reality. Again, you do not possess sufficient understanding of the terms you are trying to use to create a coherent argument.
Click to expand...

And all of this is real, including all you say. Everything is real including the counter claim of no. That is the beauty of real, it is all real. Including that, which I write, is false; that is real also.
 
Jodie said:
test, i think its working now.

As I was saying, evolution is a continuous process. Not all evolutionary processes end up being beneficial. The capacity to develop or conceive of religious beliefs may be a symptom of our particular biology tied in with the genes that control speech based on mouse studies.

When the FoxP2 gene was added to the mouse their communication patterns changed.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/09/human-speech-gene-can-speed-learning-mice

Once again, not proof, but I think it explains why some are atheists and others more spiritual. Language fundamentally changes thought patterns, other neurotransmitters play a part in the development of the "theory of mind". In that aspect we are functioning in a feedback loop for the development of our consciousness. Faith in anything has been shown to have beneficial affects on health and wellbeing. The better argument might be " Why do we have religious beliefs at all?" not " Religious beliefs are BS and here's why."
Click to expand...

Bottom line, you can speculate all you want about the role evolution played in humans adopting god beliefs. Just don't cite research as supporting your hypothesis that doesn't support it.

Given it appears that all cultures included god beliefs as humans evolved, it's safe to say there must have been a benefit somewhere. But it could be as simple as the artifact of brains that evolved to see patterns and conclude causation. I don't believe anyone has done the research we'd need to understand why so many people still cling to god beliefs now that we know better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom