Hawking says there are no gods

[kellyb]

Can she also be half-dead?

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

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

I think she's just undecided on the topic. She feels about the god question the way I feel about the question of if there's probably intelligent life elsewhere in the universe right now.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

I had a person online argue with me once that she was an atheist because she believed in god but rejected all the current religions.

It takes all kinds.

 

[kellyb]

I'd still think prank.

How would you explain your own hearing of it?

eta:
What sort of a prank are you talking about?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Just because some people don't understand a scientific theory isn't all that relevant.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think she's just undecided on the topic. She feels about the god question the way I feel about the question of if there's probably intelligent life elsewhere in the universe right now.

Interesting because intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe is a given in my book.

We have evidence, we have life on Earth. It's nearly improbable we are a one-off.

 

[David Mo]

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."

I'm not going to enter a war of figures, but writing "proof" and "evolution" in Google Scholar has given me 21,500 results for 2018. Obviously I haven't been able to contrast them all, but, of course, they are quite a bit more than the 10 you get.
In any case, it is clear that talking about proofs in the experimental sciences is something commonly accepted by specialists. And that's it.

 

[kellyb]

Interesting because intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe is a given in my book.

The astrobiologists are pretty divided and wishy washy on the topic, it seems. The main thing they emphasize is that we really don't know, because we only have this one earth to extrapolate from. We really might be a one-off in the universe at this exact moment in time, though (which gets really weird when you look at long distances in the universe with matter traveling at vastly different speeds, where way far away, our future time is that spot's present, and at another place, it's still the past. See: the illusion of time, pbs, nova)

 

[kellyb]

I'm not going to enter a war of figures, but writing "proof" and "evolution" in Google Scholar has given me 21,500 results for 2018. Obviously I haven't been able to contrast them all, but, of course, they are quite a bit more than the 10 you get.
In any case, it is clear that talking about proofs in the experimental sciences is something commonly accepted by specialists. And that's it.

You have to use quotation marks around the precise phrase to get accurate results. It's an old-school, "retro" sort of search engine at scholar. It is completely "un-gamed" to "intuitively" grasp what you're looking for.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How would you explain your own hearing of it?

eta:
What sort of a prank are you talking about?

A prank.

What do you do when you're in an old scary castle hotel that's supposed to be haunted and you hear clear footsteps above you and that's in a locked attic?

Ghosts were not on the differential despite the fact we never figured out the answer. Sounds did carry in the building in an interesting way though. I think that explained a lot of the spooky sounds.


Have you ever seen the Seattle Science Center exhibit where sound can be carried a long distance? You can whisper in one end of a tube and a long distance away people can clearly hear you.

The Acoustics of Eavesdropping - Where not to have a private conversation.

In 1824, naval officer Edward Boid described how a curve can dramatically amplify sound, and not always for the best. He wrote, “In the Cathedral of Girgenti, in Sicily, the slightest whisper is borne with perfect distinctness from the great western door to the cornice behind the high altar—a distance of two hundred and fifty feet.” Unfortunately, the confessional was badly sited: “Secrets never intended for the public ear thus became known, to the dismay of the confessors, and the scandal of the people … ​till at length, one listener having had his curiosity somewhat over-gratified by hearing his wife’s avowal of her own infidelity, this tell-tale peculiarity became generally known, and the confessional was removed.”

Bottom line, I don't go looking for ghosts or gods when something weird happens.

 

[kellyb]

A prank.

What do you do when you're in an old scary castle hotel that's supposed to be haunted and you hear clear footsteps above you and that's in a locked attic?

Ghosts were not on the differential despite the fact we never figured out the answer. Sounds did carry in the building in an interesting way though. I think that explained a lot of the spooky sounds.


Have you ever seen the Seattle Science Center exhibit where sound can be carried a long distance? You can whisper in one end of a tube and a long distance away people can clearly hear you.

The Acoustics of Eavesdropping - Where not to have a private conversation.

Bottom line, I don't go looking for ghosts or gods when something weird happens.

Ha! I was thinking this:

https://www.holosonics.com/
https://io9.gizmodo.com/335058/a-weapon-that-makes-you-hear-voices-in-your-head
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-woodwards-secret-weapon-in-iraq/

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The astrobiologists are pretty divided and wishy washy on the topic, it seems. The main thing they emphasize is that we really don't know, because we only have this one earth to extrapolate from. We really might be a one-off in the universe at this exact moment in time, though (which gets really weird when you look at long distances in the universe with matter traveling at vastly different speeds, where way far away, our future time is that spot's present, and at another place, it's still the past. See: the illusion of time, pbs, nova)

Meh, they have different reasons for different things.

I'm not confined by anything even pure science that might prevent one from stating the obvious. Given all the planets in all the galaxies, the odds we are a one-off are as close to zero as you can get. Rare, yes, but a one-off, no.

 

[ynot]

I think she's just undecided on the topic. She feels about the god question the way I feel about the question of if there's probably intelligent life elsewhere in the universe right now.

Sure, She hasn't decided to totally believe in a god right now, and you haven't decided to totally believe in intelligent life elsewhere in the universe right now.

She's not a confirmed god believer (theist) and your not a confirmed intelligent life elsewhere believer (alienist ).

Theism isn't an undecided position. Atheism is the lack or non-acceptance of theism. Some atheists are undecided and some are decided.

 

[David Mo]

Can you present a scientific study showing every single living organism on Earth, past and present, evolved? Of course not.

But we have no problem developing the theory of evolution.

You don't need a scientific paper that shows every single god belief on Earth, past and present is a myth in order to say the theory is correct that god beliefs are fiction.

Demonstrate this claim is wrong: The evidence is overwhelming that all god beliefs are human generated myths.

You need one god belief that isn't. I get it some of you don't like my using the word, 'all'. At what point do you say, we've seen enough genomes to say all life on earth evolved? At what point are you going to notice all god beliefs are myths?
Next year? In a hundred years? When all god beliefs die out except one?

As long as you start with the default position that gods exist, you need to prove they don't.

I say pshaw. There is no reason to start with the default position gods actually exist when all the evidence we have is that only god beliefs exist.

Evolutionary theory studies species (universal) and individuals only when they are been identified as individual of an species.
There is not any similar scientific study of gods.

There is a science that studies individuals: history. I don’t know any historical study that shows that God doesn’t exist.

Of course. There is evidence that beliefs in gods are false. But this evidence is not scientific. It is philosophical. As it is demonstrated by your inability to find a single scientific article about this issue. If you show a single scientific article about the existence of god (pro or counter) we can discuss about.

 

[kellyb]

Given all the planets in all the galaxies, the odds we are a one-off are as close to zero as you can get. Rare, yes, but a one-off, no.

See, some of the astrobiologists would argue that with a sample size of one (life on earth), there are no odds we can look at, really, and the universe is probably full of one-offs of various sorts. In fact, no two planets are probably exactly identical.

 

[ynot]

I had a person online argue with me once that she was an atheist because she believed in god but rejected all the current religions.

It takes all kinds.

I have a good and close friend that often says "I believe in a god but I'm not religious". What he actually means is he isn't a member of an organised religion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Evolutionary theory studies species (universal) and individuals only when they are been identified as individual of an species.
There is not any similar scientific study of gods.

The evidence is there in abundance. What you don't have is someone asking the right question: What explains god beliefs?

There is a science that studies individuals: history. I don’t know any historical study that shows that God doesn’t exist.

So?

Of course. There is evidence that beliefs in gods are false. But this evidence is not scientific.

OK here's your problem right here. You have an erroneous view of particular sciences like anthropology, psychology, sociology, and so on.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

See, some of the astrobiologists would argue that with a sample size of one (life on earth), there are no odds we can look at, really, and the universe is probably full of one-offs of various sorts. In fact, no two planets are probably exactly identical.

Interesting enough one can look at this problem from different angles as well.

OK so if you want to call the Earth a sample size of one, that's correct.

But if you take into consideration how small of a piece of the Universe we have sampled, the fact you only find one planet with life loses significance. That's where I say pedantic scientists would say we can't project.

That's silly. Of course we aren't a one-off.

 

[kellyb]

There is a science that studies individuals: history. I don’t know any historical study that shows that God doesn’t exist.

Of course. There is evidence that beliefs in gods are false. But this evidence is not scientific. It is philosophical. As it is demonstrated by your inability to find a single scientific article about this issue. If you show a single scientific article about the existence of god (pro or counter) we can discuss about.

So, do you think Zeus and Thor are just as plausibly real as Vague God Vaguely Vaguing?

 

[Roboramma]

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

You either have the word "exist" or the word "undetectable" poorly defined here. It's possible to both exist and be undetectable. Earlier in the thread I brought up regions of the universe that exist outside of our light cones. For instance, my light cone and yours don't overlap completely, so there are regions that are within mine but outside of yours. Those regions are in principle detectable to me but not to you. So, under your definitions, whose light cone defines what exists, mine, yours, or someone else's?

ETA: verb tense is a little tricky here as the regions I'm talking about are either in my (or your) past or future light cones. That should be obvious from the nature of light cones, but I realise I may have written that in a less than clear manner.

 

[Darat]

Like I said, Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

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

Of course it is, that is probably why no one has said that in this thread except for you.

I believe you have created what is known as a strawman.