Hawking says there are no gods

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was going to say, this entire line of inquiry reminds me of a phase of parenting I do not miss very much. lol

Is that the 'but why' phase?

 

[kellyb]

Is that the 'but why' phase?

Yes. And the argumentative "stream of consciousness" phase, too. lol

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I'd like to take this moment to remind everyone that this current digression about language, the connection between the mind and reality, and so forth is all just Tommy's roundabout way of trying to dispute the notion that garage dragons are defined in such a way that they do not exist.

I define you as non-existent.
Unknown is non-existent is for the "is" a claim of existence. It is not a logic or semantic "is", it is the same "is" as the cat is black. Not 2 plus 2 is 4 or the meaning of a bachelor is an unmarried person.
You are claim something of reality beyond logic and semantics.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Is that the 'but why' phase?

No, how does concepts exclusively in the mind pass through physical things between 2 or more humans in a conversation?

 

[Nonpareil]

I define you as non-existent.

Again, you can keep saying that, but it doesn't change anything.

Unknown is non-existent is for the "is" a claim of existence. It is not a logic or semantic "is", it is the same "is" as the cat is black. Not 2 plus 2 is 4 or the meaning of a bachelor is an unmarried person.
You are claim something of reality beyond logic and semantics.

Gibberish.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Again, you can keep saying that, but it doesn't change anything.



Gibberish.

You don't understand the connection between words, logic and the rest of reality.
You can't define something into non-existence through words and you can't show through logic that the unknown is equal to non-existence. You can say the words, but it doesn't make it so.

 

[Nonpareil]

You don't understand the connection between words, logic and the rest of reality.

Yes, actually, I do. You have yet to show that you do, but you keep trying to preach to the rest of us.

You can't define something into non-existence through words

If something is defined as non-existent, then it does not exist. This is not a complicated concept, and it is in no way equivalent to trying to define something that demonstrably exists out of existence, which is the silly game that you keep trying to play by saying "I define you as non-existent".

Words have definitions, Tommy. If part of that definition is "does not exist", then that thing does not exist.

This is not hard.

and you can't show through logic that the unknown is equal to non-existence. You can say the words, but it doesn't make it so.

I never said those words. Stop trying to put them in my mouth.

 

[Phlegm]

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.

But isn't this simply defining the garage dragon as non-existent?

I can imagine an entity floating in space with a particular form of consciousness, not interacting with light, etc.

I cannot detect this entity by trying to observe it. But if it has the ability think and feel, then it can detect itself as necessarily existing.

 

[Nonpareil]

But isn't this simply defining the garage dragon as non-existent?

Yes. That's the entire point. The term "garage dragon" is defined as "a non-existent entity", because this is what "undetectable" means.

I can imagine an entity floating in space with a particular form of consciousness, not interacting with light, etc.

I cannot detect this entity by trying to observe it.

If the entity is entirely undetectable, it does not exist.

But if it has the ability think and feel, then it can detect itself as necessarily existing.

If it has the ability to feel, then it necessarily interacts with the universe around it in some fashion in order to feel something. In this case, it is not a garage dragon.

 

[Phlegm]

Yes. That's the entire point. The term "garage dragon" is defined as "a non-existent entity", because this is what "undetectable" means.



If the entity is entirely undetectable, it does not exist.



If it has the ability to feel, then it necessarily interacts with the universe around it in some fashion in order to feel something. In this case, it is not a garage dragon.

OK, but what is the point of bringing up a truism?

The conceptions of gods that are not detectable do not necessarily preclude thinking. Those who insist on the possibilities of gods also insist, in some way, that gods think. If they think in some form of reality -- as in, say, another part of the multiverse that can sometimes interact with our universe -- then they necessarily exist.

 

[kellyb]

Yes. That's the entire point. The term "garage dragon" is defined as "a non-existent entity", because this is what "undetectable" means.

If the entity is entirely undetectable, it does not exist.

Just to elaborate for the newcomer for the conversation - when we say "undetectable", that means "even in theory", not just limited to current or future science and technological breakthroughs.

Even things like the thoughts (or lack thereof) of an apparently comatose person are detectable in theory. There is something within the physical universe, in a physical brain, happening with thoughts, so in theory, with the right technology, they could be "read".

 

[Nonpareil]

OK, but what is the point of bringing up a truism?

Quite a lot of people don't understand that it is a truism.

The conceptions of gods that are not detectable do not necessarily preclude thinking. Those who insist on the possibilities of gods also insist, in some way, that gods think. If they think in some form of reality -- as in, say, another part of the multiverse that can sometimes interact with our universe -- then they necessarily exist.

Bolding mine.

These proposed entities are not garage dragons.

 

[kellyb]

OK, but what is the point of bringing up a truism?

The conceptions of gods that are not detectable do not necessarily preclude thinking. Those who insist on the possibilities of gods also insist, in some way, that gods think. If they think in some form of reality -- as in, say, another part of the multiverse that can sometimes interact with our universe -- then they necessarily exist.

Such an entity would not be undetectable even in theory. Just "currently undetectable" because of technological limitations.

 

[Phlegm]

Just to elaborate for the newcomer for the conversation - when we say "undetectable", that means "even in theory", not just limited to current or future science and technological breakthroughs.

Even things like the thoughts (or lack thereof) of an apparently comatose person are detectable in theory. There is something within the physical universe, in a physical brain, happening with thoughts, so in theory, with the right technology, they could be "read".

Right, but that just makes it a truism. You are using undetectable and non-existent to mean exactly the same thing.

I'm not sure I understand the point of doing so, except to get people to stop using the word "undetectable", but I will bet, that when analyzed, they are using the word in a different way.

 

[kellyb]

These proposed entities are not garage dragons.

Ha, crosspost!

 

[kellyb]

Right, but that just makes it a truism. You are using undetectable and non-existent to mean exactly the same thing.

I'm not sure I understand the point of doing so, except to get people to stop using the word "undetectable", but I will bet, that when analyzed, they are using the word in a different way.

I'm not a fan of using the words undetectable and non-existent interchangeably.

It does seem to cause unnecessary confusion. Most people do seem to mean "currently undetectable" when they say "undetectable".

 

[Nonpareil]

Right, but that just makes it a truism. You are using undetectable and non-existent to mean exactly the same thing.

Not "using". Pointing out that they are the same thing, because quite a lot of people, such as Tommy, don't actually understand that they are.

I'm not sure I understand the point of doing so, except to get people to stop using the word "undetectable", but I will bet, that when analyzed, they are using the word in a different way.

In the context of this forum, it's usually a response to deist formulations of gods - that is, the idea that a god can be so far removed from the universe as to be wholly undetectable. Such gods are garage dragons, and do not exist.

The popular "unmoved first mover" concept is an example.

 

[Phlegm]

Such an entity would not be undetectable even in theory. Just "currently undetectable" because of technological limitations.

I don't think that would bother most folks who want to argue for such an entity (since I think it is likely that they are simply using the word "undetectable" to mean something else). The one exception might be the deist god; there the evidence of its existence would be the totality of existence. But there is simply no way to prove that such a god ever 'existed'.

I may be old school, but I prefer the other formulation that god either doesn't exist, is inconsequential, or is evil.

 

[Nonpareil]

The one exception might be the deist god; there the evidence of its existence would be the totality of existence.

That's what the believer would say is the evidence of its existence. It actually isn't, precisely because of the garage dragon concept.

Unless the believer can point to some way that the universe is different because of the influence of this deity - that is, unless they can show that their god's influence is detectable - then there is no evidence that the universe was created by said deist god.

Because it is a garage dragon, and therefore does not exist.

 

[Phlegm]

Not "using". Pointing out that they are the same thing, because quite a lot of people, such as Tommy, don't actually understand that they are.



In the context of this forum, it's usually a response to deist formulations of gods - that is, the idea that a god can be so far removed from the universe as to be wholly undetectable. Such gods are garage dragons, and do not exist.

The popular "unmoved first mover" concept is an example.

So, that would be the Deist god that continues to exist but does not interact? Yes, I can see that, but I still don't see why inventing a truism helps. It's just a way to define a problem away.