Hawking says there are no gods

[kellyb]

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

Same. Although, even an evil god would probably leave some sort of solid evidence of it's existence laying about.

The former two possibilities seem a lot more likely in comparison, and I'm not totally sure an inconsequential god is even a "god" at all by most people's definitions.

 

[Phlegm]

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.

Well, from their perspective the existence of the universe is different from the non-existence of the universe -- so that is their evidence. The evidence 'being' existence itself is proof of that sort of god.

The problem is that that sort of god is simply defined. It can never be demonstrated.

 

[Phlegm]

Same. Although, even an evil god would probably leave some sort of solid evidence of it's existence laying about.

A brain stem tumor in a 5-year-old works for me.

 

[Nonpareil]

Well, from their perspective the existence of the universe is different from the non-existence of the universe -- so that is their evidence.

Their perspective is fallacious and circular. That is the point.

A universe exists. In order to have evidence that it was created by a deist god, there must be something different about this universe when compared to a universe not created by a deist god. That is, the deist god's influence must be detectable. It cannot be a garage dragon.

Simply saying "the universe is evidence of a creator" is a whole heap of fallacies.

 

[kellyb]

A brain stem tumor in a 5-year-old works for me.

A godless universe does that as well or better than an evil god, I think.

 

[kellyb]

The evidence 'being' existence itself is proof of that sort of god.

I just think that's a childish way of looking at things. Does the existence of the god itself also provide evidence of an even higher god? It seems like it has infinite regress issues.

 

[Phlegm]

A godless universe does that as well or better than an evil god, I think.

But, if you believe in a god, the tumor is still there. It's only an issue for the theist.

 

[Phlegm]

I just think that's a childish way of looking at things. Does the existence of the god itself also provide evidence of an even higher god? It seems like it has infinite regress issues.

Well, they wouldn't argue so, and I don't think there is an obvious way to counter it.

It amounts to a different way of viewing of the world. If you start with a god, then god 'proves' its existence by the fact that there is a world to discuss.

Yes, this makes it obvious that theists begin with god.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

What does any of this discussion have to do with the thread topic?

It doesn't. Maybe it did somewhere upthread but it's fully off the rails now.

 

[Phlegm]

Their perspective is fallacious and circular. That is the point.

A universe exists. In order to have evidence that it was created by a deist god, there must be something different about this universe when compared to a universe not created by a deist god. That is, the deist god's influence must be detectable. It cannot be a garage dragon.

Simply saying "the universe is evidence of a creator" is a whole heap of fallacies.

I will give you the obverse of what I said to kellyb -- if you start with the assumption that there is no god, then what you say makes sense.

A theist would argue that it makes no more sense to begin with the assumption that there is no god than to begin with the assumption that there is.

From their point of view, there is a universe. So, god. Because they begin with god.

Yes it is circular.

You can't start from a neutral position because there is no neutral position in bipolar opposites.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What does any of this discussion have to do with the thread topic?

Standard apologist nonsense. We can't say "There's no God" until we explain every single unknown in the universe that God might be hiding behind.

We're being lead by the hand through every gap to prove God's not in it.

 

[kellyb]

Well, they wouldn't argue so, and I don't think there is an obvious way to counter it.

It amounts to a different way of viewing of the world. If you start with a god, then god 'proves' its existence by the fact that there is a world to discuss.

Yes, this makes it obvious that theists begin with god.

I will give you the obverse of what I said to kellyb -- if you start with the assumption that there is no god, then what you say makes sense.

A theist would argue that it makes no more sense to begin with the assumption that there is no god than to begin with the assumption that there is.

From their point of view, there is a universe. So, god. Because they begin with god.

Yes it is circular.

You can't start from a neutral position because there is no neutral position in bipolar opposites.

Yes, you can start off neutral, I think.
You can start off looking for evidence of a god.

"The fact that the universe exists is proof of god" is just a really, really bad argument for the existence of god.

 

[Darat]

Q.E.D.

Wow Hawking's work wasn't scientific, he sure managed to fool a lot of people into thinking he was a scientist!

 

[Phlegm]

"The fact that the universe exists is proof of god" is just a really, really bad argument for the existence of god.

Not sure that is really neutral, because you wouldn't look for evidence for the existence of god unless you were pushed to it -- which means you are reacting to a theist and you are an atheist or you are a theist who has been pushed by an atheist.

Otherwise, why bother?

As to the point above, yes, I agree that it is a bad argument. It assumes its conclusion.

ETA: and just to add, it is also true, for historical reasons, that theists have the easier job, because gods have been assumed in our language use for millenia.

 

[Darat]

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".

No longer confined to theory, we are starting to be able to "mind read": https://www.newscientist.com/articl...now-access-your-thoughts-and-dreams-using-ai/

 

[Phlegm]

Standard apologist nonsense. We can't say "There's no God" until we explain every single unknown in the universe that God might be hiding behind.

We're being lead by the hand through every gap to prove God's not in it.

You can always say there is no god. You just can't logically prove it.

And I don't understand why that should be a problem for anyone. Logical proof is just playing with word definitions.

 

[kellyb]

Not sure that is really neutral, because you wouldn't look for evidence for the existence of god unless you were pushed to it -- which means you are reacting to a theist and you are an atheist or you are a theist who has been pushed by an atheist.

Otherwise, why bother?

As to the point above, yes, I agree that it is a bad argument. It assumes its conclusion.

You can be completely undecided and curious. What your religious background was is not necessarily relevant.

Just imagine a child with one religious parent and one atheist parent, and both parents explain what they personally believe, and both also encourage the child to not just believe them, they both admit they don't actually know for sure 100%, and they both encourage the child to seek the truth for themselves.

 

[Phlegm]

You can be completely undecided and curious. What your religious background was is not necessarily relevant.

Just imagine a child with one religious parent and one atheist parent, and both parents explain what they personally believe, and both also encourage the child to not just believe them, they both admit they don't actually know for sure 100%, and they both encourage the child to seek the truth for themselves.

Maybe. I don't think it works in real life. We explore things in real life based on our desires and impulses. They are there for a reason -- they order our ways of interacting with the world. It might be possible, but I think someone with no impulse in either direction wouldn't care.

We know what happens to humans with frontal lobe damage who dissociate emotion from what we call rational decision making -- they cannot order what is important from what is not important, so they find it difficult to act in the real world.

Not a huge Heidegger fan (being a Nazi and all), but he did get 'care' correct in my opinion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Standard apologist nonsense. We can't say "There's no God" until we explain every single unknown in the universe that God might be hiding behind.

We're being lead by the hand through every gap to prove God's not in it.

Well let go of that hand. It's nothing but the standard, you can't prove the negative.

I know that. Other atheists know that. But when there is zero evidence for a god, why is anyone trying to prove the negative?

There's overwhelming evidence gods are fictional things.
There's no evidence of any actual gods.

Time to call. Anyone have any god cards?

Nope? Looks like I win.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You can always say there is no god. You just can't logically prove it. ...

You can also say, the evidence is overwhelming all gods are human generated fiction.

That leaves no room for any real gods.