Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
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.:thumbsup:

It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...


Yes. You can't logically disprove the existence of gods except by some definition trick, but that shouldn't bother anyone for the reasons that you provide.

Except that I wouldn't say that there is no evidence of any actual gods. I would amend that to say that there is no compelling evidence.

Any theist can counter with "I had a revelation from X" and that is evidence. It isn't evidence that you and I or anyone else need to accept, but it is evidence.
 
Phlegm said:
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.
Click to expand...

The impulse would be curiosity, and wanting to know "the truth" for the sake of it, whatever it ends up being, assuming it can be figured out.

I don't think atheists have "an impulse" to disbelieve, nor theists necessarily an impulse to believe. People believe what they're told, as a general rule.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You can also say, the evidence is overwhelming all gods are human generated fiction.

That leaves no room for any real gods.
Click to expand...

While I agree in sentiment, unfortunately it does leave room for some type of god that someone can argue for. As go 'real gods' I think you and I agree on the non-existence of that category.
 
Okay seriously do we have to recap the last 50 pages for the new guy?

This has all been covered Phlegm. It's literally the entire thread. Read it.
 
Phlegm said:
Yes. You can't logically disprove the existence of gods except by some definition trick, but that shouldn't bother anyone for the reasons that you provide.

Except that I wouldn't say that there is no evidence of any actual gods. I would amend that to say that there is no compelling evidence.

Any theist can counter with "I had a revelation from X" and that is evidence. It isn't evidence that you and I or anyone else need to accept, but it is evidence.
Click to expand...
I don't agree that I'm obligated in any way to accept an assertion of a theist about their personal experience. We already know that would be a fictional god they experienced.
 
kellyb said:
The impulse would be curiosity, and wanting to know "the truth" for the sake of it, whatever it ends up being, assuming it can be figured out.
Click to expand...

Curiosity, like all forms of intentionality, has to be curiosity for or about something. One has to have an impulse to answer an underlying question in order to answer it. It doesn't work for "the truth" as an abstraction.


I don't think atheists have "an impulse" to disbelieve, nor theists necessarily an impulse to believe. People believe what they're told, as a general rule.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with that. But with the exception that atheists have generally come to disbelieve through various means. Atheism can, of course, be acquired through being told what to believe and not believe, but in our culture that is not the general route.
 
Phlegm said:
If you start with a god, then god 'proves' its existence by the fact that there is a world to discuss.
Click to expand...

Many things "prove themselves" if you start by assuming your conclusion. That doesn't make circular reasoning any less fallacious.

Phlegm said:
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.
Click to expand...

And they would be wrong.

Phlegm said:
Yes it is circular.

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

No, but you can start from a position that's actually supported by logic and reasoning rather than the one that is inextricably bound up in fallacies.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't agree that I'm obligated in any way to accept an assertion of a theist about their personal experience. We already know that would be a fictional god they experienced.
Click to expand...

I think he's right that technically, even really really really bad evidence is still technically evidence. It's just evidence that's better off being completely dismissed most of the time.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I don't agree that I'm obligated in any way to accept an assertion of a theist about their personal experience. We already know that would be a fictional god they experienced.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that you are required to accept the assertion of a theist about their personal experience. But, by the commonly used definition of evidence, that is evidence. Evidence does not mean "proof".

My only issue is using the word evidence without further explanation.

I think much of what has occurred in this thread, as in most BBs, is a problem with different folks using different definitions of words. It makes it easy to weasel out of arguments.

I am trying to offer potential ways out of arguing at and past one another.
 
From wiki:

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine. Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method.
Click to expand...
 
Nonpareil said:
Many things "prove themselves" if you start by assuming your conclusion. That doesn't make circular reasoning any less fallacious.
Click to expand...

Of course not.



And they would be wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, but there are arguments that work better than others. I was trying to suggest that using an argument that devolves to a truism doesn't work all that well. This is just a personal preference, but I think other types of arguments can possibly work better. But I cannot support that with any evidence that demonstrates fewer pages of back and forth.



No, but you can start from a position that's actually supported by logic and reasoning rather than the one that is inextricably bound up in fallacies.
Click to expand...

When you start at the beginning (assumptions) you cannot begin with a position that is supported by logic and reasoning. You can only start with the fewest number of assumptions that are not contradicted by what emerges later.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
Anecdotes and such actually are evidence. They're just the lowliest form of it.
Click to expand...

Yes, exactly, That is why we need not believe simple anecdotes unless they fit with surrounding evidence (or other corroboration) or unless there is extraordinary evidence to support the most extraordinary subjective experience.
 
kellyb said:
I think he's right that technically, even really really really bad evidence is still technically evidence. It's just evidence that's better off being completely dismissed most of the time.
Click to expand...

I've heard the argument before. Essentially you are calling a conclusion, evidence.

Believing in god(s) is a conclusion. Claiming you have some inner reason/feeling/whatever is not evidence that meets any level of scientific evidence.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I've heard the argument before. Essentially you are calling a conclusion, evidence.

Believing in god(s) is a conclusion. Claiming you have some inner reason/feeling/whatever is not evidence that meets any level of scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

House: I have a case.
Cuddy: What's wrong?
House: She has CIPA.
Cuddy *Confused* CIPA is a diagnosis. Diagnosis comes at the end of cases.
 
kellyb said:
Anecdotes and such actually are evidence. They're just the lowliest form of it.
Click to expand...
Anecdotes can be evidence, we use them all the time in medical research.

What isn't evidence is you saying some inner feeling or experience is evidence of god. No, it's a feeling, it's not evidence of a god because you draw an unsupportable conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Anecdotes can be evidence, we use them all the time in medical research.

What isn't evidence is you saying some inner feeling or experience is evidence of god. No, it's a feeling, it's not evidence of a god because you draw that false conclusion.
Click to expand...

Did you read the wiki quote I put up? It sounds like the kinds of anecdotes used in medical science are considered "scientific anecdotal evidence", but the ones that are beyond confirmation of any sort are just considered basic, non-scientific "anecdotal evidence".

A "personal revelation" wouldn't be evidence of a god, but imagine if at a skeptic conference, literally everyone there "heard" what seemed to be the "voice of god" over the course of 3 minutes, at the same time.
Would you consider that evidence that something happened?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom