Hawking says there are no gods

[Skeptic Ginger]

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".

What is or is not a scientific anecdote is a red herring.

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?

Yeah, something happened, but we know from all the other goose chases these kinds of events have resulted in that there is no god or spirit causing the event.

Evidence is the thing. What people think it means is the conclusion.

 

[kellyb]

What is or is not a scientific anecdote is a red herring.

Yeah, something happened, but we know from all the other goose chases these kinds of events have resulted in that there is no god or spirit causing the event.

A red herring is "intended to be misleading or distracting".
I can assure you, that is not what I'm trying to do.

I wouldn't know what was causing it. Whatever it was would be highly implausible, though, with "it really was god" being the very least plausible possible explanation in my mind. But I think that would be more of an opinion than a fact. Maybe not, though.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

A red herring is "intended to be misleading or distracting".
I can assure you, that is not what I'm trying to do.

It does? I don't see them that way, I didn't think you had any mal-intent. If I said it was a derail that sounds purposeful too. I only met a discussion of the definition of anecdote and all that related stuff was off topic.

I wouldn't know what was causing it. Whatever it was would be highly implausible, though, with "it really was god" being the very least plausible possible explanation in my mind. But I think that would be more of an opinion than a fact. Maybe not, though.

But you do understand don't you, that regardless of all the plausible explanations every one of them would be a conclusion. The 'feeling' is the evidence. The cause is conclusion.

And considering gods as a possible cause, would you put Harry Potter come to life on that list? Pixies? See how we are back to garage dragons?

I don't expect everyone to jump on my bandwagon about all gods being fiction. At some point I hope more and more people consider it so we can stop with this wishy washy can't prove gods don't exist even though we know damn well there are no real gods.

 

[psionl0]

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

Like I said, Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

It is totally ridiculous to say that everything Hawking says is scientific no matter what the subject is.

 

[psionl0]

I said that garage dragons are defined as non-existent.

That puts the "garage dragon" in a different category to Harry Potter or Superman where the author and the reader both know that these are creations of the author and there is no intention that the reader believe they are real. OTOH the garage dragon is the fabrication of somebody who either knows it doesn't exist or is seriously deluded. In either case, the listener or reader is expected to believe that it is real.

It the conclusion from this analogy is supposed to be that all gods are likewise fabricated then that is no more valid than saying that all gods are like Harry Potter or Superman.

 

[kellyb]

But you do understand don't you, that regardless of all the plausible explanations every one of them would be a conclusion. The 'feeling' is the evidence. The cause is conclusion.

Maybe, but I don't think so. Not as a given, at least. What would your favorite theory be if something like that were to happen?

And considering gods as a possible cause, would you put Harry Potter come to life on that list? Pixies? See how we are back to garage dragons?

Oh, definitely. Although I was assuming the "voice of god" heard would identify itself as such, which is in-congruent with the Harry Potter universe. LOL

 

[kellyb]

It is totally ridiculous to say that everything Hawking says is scientific no matter what the subject is.

Nobody's arguing that.

We're just saying his opinion on this topic was hugely informed by his scientific understanding of the universe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That puts the "garage dragon" in a different category to Harry Potter or Superman where the author and the reader both know that these are creations of the author and there is no intention that the reader believe they are real. OTOH the garage dragon is the fabrication of somebody who either knows it doesn't exist or is seriously deluded. In either case, the listener or reader is expected to believe that it is real.

It the conclusion from this analogy is supposed to be that all gods are likewise fabricated then that is no more valid than saying that all gods are like Harry Potter or Superman.

How many gods do you think the human species has invented since we acquired speech?

Here's a start: Rational responders: A big list of Gods (but nowhere near all of them)

How many do you need to see before you recognize a pattern?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe, but I don't think so. Not as a given, at least. What would your favorite theory be if something like that were to happen?

What is it you don't think so?

You can imagine any 'cause' you want. It still doesn't make the 'sensation' whatever it was evidence of that 'cause' without some connection. It's like correlation is not evidence of causation.

You have some building blocks but they don't become evidence of the conclusion without a few more pieces.

Oh, definitely. Although I was assuming the "voice of god" heard would identify itself as such, which is in-congruent with the Harry Potter universe. LOL

'Voice of god heard' would most likely be schizophrenia.

 

[kellyb]

What is it you don't think so?

You said "regardless of all the plausible explanations every one of them would be a conclusion. The 'feeling' is the evidence" and I'm not sure that's true. If it happened to me or I heard about it, I'd have a whole list of possible explanations, and I'd try to evaluate the relative plausibility of each one by "objective" measures to the best of my ability.

You can imagine any 'cause' you want. It still doesn't make the 'sensation' whatever it was evidence of that 'cause' without some connection. It's like correlation is not evidence of causation.

Of course.

'Voice of god heard' would most likely be schizophrenia.

Ha. (I really am curious about what your primary theory would be if it happened to numerous skeptics at the same time, same approximate place/event. I know what mine would be. )

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You said "regardless of all the plausible explanations every one of them would be a conclusion. The 'feeling' is the evidence" and I'm not sure that's true. If it happened to me or I heard about it, I'd have a whole list of possible explanations, and I'd try to evaluate the relative plausibility of each one by "objective" measures to the best of my ability.

If you are still leaving god on the table with all the god myths we know about, we're just in a different place. I think there's more than enough evidence to take god off the table.

Ha. (I really am curious about what your primary theory would be if it happened to numerous skeptics at the same time, same approximate place/event. I know what mine would be. )

A prank.

 

[psionl0]

Nobody's arguing that.

On the contrary. Quite a few people are arguing "Hawking therefore true".

We're just saying his opinion on this topic was hugely informed by his scientific understanding of the universe.

And quite a few people think that it is sacrilege to question Hawking's use of "science" in this matter. This in spite of the fact that Hawking prefaces his statements with things like "I think" and "If you accept, as I do". That puts his views in the realm of opinion, not scientific fact.

As for the science he employs, I have already examined that but so far, only one other poster has been able to handle my analysis of the current state of scientific knowledge.

 

[David Mo]

It is an article about his scientific work.

Not everything speaking about science is science itself. See philosophy of science, teaching of science, etc. No. When Hawking writes books like the one we are commenting on, he is talking about his science for laymen. Science is the hypotetico-deductive method. This book is popular science. And of course, much of what he says is philosophy of science.

 

[kellyb]

If you are still leaving god on the table with all the god myths we know about, we're just in a different place. I think there's more than enough evidence to take god off the table.

No, the god theory is functionally off the table. It's still on the list, but at the very bottom, under "Hell if I know. Must be something I haven't thought of yet."

A prank.

Like the skeptics were lying as a prank?
Ok, assume you were there and heard it, too.

 

[kellyb]

On the contrary. Quite a few people are arguing "Hawking therefore true".

I'm just not seeing that, but I admit, I haven't read the whole thread.

 

[David Mo]

Over the past 5 years, fewer than 250 results:

It's very unconventional to use the word "proof" in biology. They usually say "evidence" instead.

I see. First it was only in mathematics. Then in the Oxford Dictionary. Then in physics. Then in biology., But is "unconventional". Although it is a very common "unconventionality". In ancient Spanish: Sostenella y no enmendalla = To hold no matter how and never rectify.

 

[kellyb]

I see. First it was only in mathematics. Then in the Oxford Dictionary. Then in physics. Then in biology., But is "unconventional". Although it is a very common "unconventionality". In ancient Spanish: Sostenella y no enmendalla = To hold no matter how and never rectify.

Google Scholar. 'poofs of the evolution', more than 13.000 results for 2018. Pas mal.

Over the past 5 years (not even 10 a year):

eta: and none of them are in biology. It's stuff like "proof of the evolution and continuation of the work line undertaken at The First Congress of Sports Psychology."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

On the contrary. Quite a few people are arguing "Hawking therefore true".


And quite a few people think that it is sacrilege to question Hawking's use of "science" in this matter. This in spite of the fact that Hawking prefaces his statements with things like "I think" and "If you accept, as I do". That puts his views in the realm of opinion, not scientific fact.

As for the science he employs, I have already examined that but so far, only one other poster has been able to handle my analysis of the current state of scientific knowledge.

A whole lot of this is all in your head and you are projecting it.

 

[ynot]

But she kind of believes in a god. She's 50/50 or 51/49 on it.

Can she also be half-dead, or half pregnant?

Theist don't "kind of believe", they DO believe.

Unless you actually ARE a theist you actually AREN'T.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, the god theory is functionally off the table. It's still on the list, but at the very bottom, under "Hell if I know. Must be something I haven't thought of yet."

For you, maybe. It's off the table for me. The evidence is overwhelming all gods are fiction.

Like the skeptics were lying as a prank?
Ok, assume you were there and heard it, too.

I'd still think prank.

Why not just say, what if Jesus descended from the sky like that picture in my Sunday School class.

It's not useful. The scientific process takes care of that without having to be bothered. All facts and theories are open to new evidence. It doesn't need to be stated except when describing things like the scientific process.