Hawking says there are no gods

[David Mo]

You said, "What explain belief in gods is a different question of the truth of these beliefs."

Are you claiming real gods explains god beliefs? Despite the fact none have ever been found?

I see the difference but it doesn't change the facts. Said miracles are fictional. Said imaginary gods are fictional.

I have already answered to the first question: Social and psychological conditions explain the first issue. Not real gods.

It doesn't change facts. It change your wrong approach in your comment #2296

ADDED: The article about the Tasmanian Devil was an example of how it is easy to find a scientific article about many things. But not about God's existence.

 

[David Mo]

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.

Whether my method was good or bad I have find a lot of scientific articles with the word “proof” applied to the theory of the evolution.

Anyway, I had make both things with similar results: 21.500 and 12.500 results for 2018 only. You continue with your sostenella y no enmendalla tactic. It is evident that "proof" is an usual word to speak of evidence in experimental sciences.

Anyway, “proof” or “evidence” don’t change the meaning of my first comment.

 

[Pixel42]

It was Fred Hoyle who came up with the tornedo analogy, and it was a Boeing 747, not a helicopter.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_Earth-based_abiogenesis

 

[psionl0]

That fallacy comes from the Creationists arguments, I'm surprised to see you using it.

The reason you can't throw parts together and expect one time in a trillion or whatever it will come out a plane is because with evolution, parts are built up one at a time with successful sequences being kept and unsuccessful ones tossed. You don't get a buildup throwing everything together at once.

I agree with you on this one (see? I am not arguing that no god is impossible). Natural selection is a key ingredient in the evolutionary process.

As a matter of fact, computers can often be used to simulate an evolutionary environment to refine the design of machinery.

 

[psionl0]

I'e been reading your posts and I'm with Ginger on this one, for sure.

But at this point, we've all been reduced to the equivalent of Bugs and Daffy yelling "Duck season!", "Rabbit season!" at each other back and forth.

The problem is that criticizing Hawking's argument is seen by many as criticizing Hawking himself.

Actually, Hawking is just putting a scientific spin on an ancient philosophical argument which goes something like this:

If there is no god then
- either -
Everything that happens was predetermined and there is no place for God to alter the course of events.
- or -
Random chance plays a key role in what happens next in the universe.

 

[Minoosh]

For me to properly evaluate Stephen Hawking's statement, I would have to know everything he knows. Which IMO is never going to happen. I don't read a lot of cosmology because of this. I just literally don't get how a universe can arise spontaneously from nothing according to the laws of science. So if I take Hawking's word for it, I am accepting an argument from authority.

I'm willing to do that, provisionally. But when I look at his qualifiers, I have other questions. Where did the laws of nature come from? Is this the only universe ever, or did others form under the same laws of nature, or perhaps different ones? I can't conceptualize of time starting with the Big Bang; I'm always worrying away at the boundaries ... what came before the Big Bang? What's on the other side of the universe? Even asking those questions shows I don't have Hawking's understanding.

Science doesn't and maybe can't answer those questions. So, sorry if this sounds like a cop-out, but because of my own ignorance, the scientific explanation is something I have to take totally on faith. A universe from nothing violates all my mental models, but even if I did have deep and broad understanding of quantum mechanics, I might still be left with questions. And so Hawking's words do not dispel the mystery for me; they actually enhance my sense that there are still deep mysteries humans may never be able to unravel. Perhaps due to my ignorance, I have a niggling hunch that some kind of creative/destructive force might underlie ordinary reality. And though I've never found a religion that matches my admittedly vague concept of that force, I haven't ruled out its existence. If the laws of nature spontaneously created the universe out of nothing, I'm in awe of the the mysterious origins of the laws of nature; and those words, "awe" and "mystery" IMO come close to describing religious feeling - which keeps me from identifying as an atheist.

To me, being agnostic seems like a tenable position, though some people say there is no such thing. I have never embraced a religion; I do accept that many if not all gods have been proved fictional; but I still believe there is room for me to say "I don't know" if any god exists.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have already answered to the first question: Social and psychological conditions explain the first issue. Not real gods.

It doesn't change facts. It change your wrong approach in your comment #2296

ADDED: The article about the Tasmanian Devil was an example of how it is easy to find a scientific article about many things. But not about God's existence.

What do you suggest they study? Of course there's no scientific article, that's part of my point. You can find lots of research on god beliefs. But none on gods except studies like intercessory prayer (prayer the subject doesn't know is happening) which always find no result.

The fact no one seeks to find existing gods is more evidence there is nothing to find, only god beliefs.

Are there any studies looking for Hogwarts?

As for my "wrong approach"? I assert it's right and evidence supported and you assert it's wrong because you want to believe god believers have internal evidence?

Perhaps I have your POV wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree with you on this one (see? I am not arguing that no god is impossible). Natural selection is a key ingredient in the evolutionary process.

As a matter of fact, computers can often be used to simulate an evolutionary environment to refine the design of machinery.

Yay! See, I noticed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The problem is that criticizing Hawking's argument is seen by many as criticizing Hawking himself.

Actually, Hawking is just putting a scientific spin on an ancient philosophical argument which goes something like this:

If there is no god then
- either -
Everything that happens was predetermined and there is no place for God to alter the course of events.
- or -
Random chance plays a key role in what happens next in the universe.

I'm pretty sure you are describing a false dichotomy. Perhaps that's just because your wording isn't clear.

 

[David Mo]

The fact no one seeks to find existing gods is more evidence there is nothing to find, only god beliefs.

Your sentence is a hard positivist (philosophical) theory that is untenable --out of Internet forums, of course. Many things exist that science cannot study.

Are there any studies looking for Hogwarts?

As for my "wrong approach"? I assert it's right and evidence supported and you assert it's wrong because you want to believe god believers have internal evidence?
.

What seems really astonishing is the unability of understand the opposite position. I don't think there is an "internal evidence" of gods. I have said this a hundred times. We can have internal evidence only of internal states. The first philosophical criticism of religions is about that. Just because I don't accept positivism don't make me a sanctimonius. This is silly dogmatism.

Of course. Hogwarts is not a scientific subject. For diferent reasons that gods' existence.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just so people move past this misunderstanding of a logical fallacy:

The Rules of Logic Part 6: Appealing to Authority vs. Deferring to Experts

The appeal to authority fallacy (a.k.a. argument from authority) is easily one of the most common logical fallacies. This is the fallacy that occurs when you base your claim on the people who agree with you rather than on the actual facts of the argument. This may seem fairly straightforward, but it can actually be quite confusing, and I often see people incorrectly accuse others of committing this fallacy. The problem is that there are clearly times when it is fine to defer to an expert. For example, we constantly defer to doctors, and there is nothing wrong or fallacious about trusting their diagnoses and taking the recommended treatments. My intention is, therefore, to try to clear up some of the confusion about this fallacy and explain when it is and is not appropriate to defer to experts.

There are basically four ways that this fallacy occurs and I am going to deal with each one separately:

Citing an opinion as authoritative
Citing people who aren’t actually experts
Using authority as a logical proof
Citing a small minority of experts when an opposing majority consensus exists

If folks don't get it from the excerpt, read the whole thing. Or review other sources. Please. Thank you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your sentence is a hard positivist (philosophical) theory that is untenable --out of Internet forums, of course. Many things exist that science cannot study.

Are there any studies looking for Hogwarts?

What seems really astonishing is the unability of understand the opposite position. I don't think there is an "internal evidence" of gods. I have said this a hundred times. We can have internal evidence only of internal states. The first philosophical criticism of religions is about that.

Of course. Hogwarts is not a scientific subject. For diferent reasons that gods' existence.

Other than you disagree with my POV, have you actually addressed it?

There is overwhelming evidence all god are fictional.
There is no evidence any real gods exist.

Old POV: ask if gods exist and even though it's obvious they are fiction, cling to the problem one can't 'prove' the negative.

New POV: ask what explains god beliefs.
With no evidence of any real gods, one can conclude all gods are fiction and ignore the need to 'prove' there are no gods

I have mixed your posts up with Phlegm's regarding people's interpretation of their inner feelings being evidence. Sorry.

Back to your post: Claiming I don't understand other POVs because I don't agree with them is your mistake.

 

[kellyb]

For me to properly evaluate Stephen Hawking's statement, I would have to know everything he knows. Which IMO is never going to happen. I don't read a lot of cosmology because of this. I just literally don't get how a universe can arise spontaneously from nothing according to the laws of science. So if I take Hawking's word for it, I am accepting an argument from authority.

I'm willing to do that, provisionally. But when I look at his qualifiers, I have other questions. Where did the laws of nature come from? Is this the only universe ever, or did others form under the same laws of nature, or perhaps different ones? I can't conceptualize of time starting with the Big Bang; I'm always worrying away at the boundaries ... what came before the Big Bang? What's on the other side of the universe? Even asking those questions shows I don't have Hawking's understanding.

Science doesn't and maybe can't answer those questions. So, sorry if this sounds like a cop-out, but because of my own ignorance, the scientific explanation is something I have to take totally on faith. A universe from nothing violates all my mental models, but even if I did have deep and broad understanding of quantum mechanics, I might still be left with questions. And so Hawking's words do not dispel the mystery for me; they actually enhance my sense that there are still deep mysteries humans may never be able to unravel. Perhaps due to my ignorance, I have a niggling hunch that some kind of creative/destructive force might underlie ordinary reality. And though I've never found a religion that matches my admittedly vague concept of that force, I haven't ruled out its existence. If the laws of nature spontaneously created the universe out of nothing, I'm in awe of the the mysterious origins of the laws of nature; and those words, "awe" and "mystery" IMO come close to describing religious feeling - which keeps me from identifying as an atheist.

To me, being agnostic seems like a tenable position, though some people say there is no such thing. I have never embraced a religion; I do accept that many if not all gods have been proved fictional; but I still believe there is room for me to say "I don't know" if any god exists.

My thoughts and feelings about it all are very similar to yours, but I find that the definition of "agnostic-atheist" (which I usually shorten to just "atheist" for the sake of simplicity) fits me perfectly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who believes that one or more deities exist but claims that the existence or nonexistence of such is unknown or cannot be known

 

[kellyb]

The problem is that criticizing Hawking's argument is seen by many as criticizing Hawking himself.

Actually, Hawking is just putting a scientific spin on an ancient philosophical argument which goes something like this:

If there is no god then
- either -
Everything that happens was predetermined and there is no place for God to alter the course of events.
- or -
Random chance plays a key role in what happens next in the universe.

My take on his argument is nothing like that. I'm seeing him primarily argue that "god could not have sparked the big bang and thus created the universe, because before the big bang there was no time for god to exist in."

One could argue that god exists "outside of time", but that's a really incoherent, gibberish notion. Of course, "the universe created itself out of nothing" is also a pretty incoherent, gibberish notion in my head, so it's kind of a draw between Hawking vs "all the other theories people speculate about". LOL

 

[kellyb]

I agree with you on this one (see? I am not arguing that no god is impossible). Natural selection is a key ingredient in the evolutionary process.

As a matter of fact, computers can often be used to simulate an evolutionary environment to refine the design of machinery.

They're saying it's the initial "abiogenic event of life" that was a "one in '10 to the power of 40k' " improbability.

Which, put in perspective:

https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00533.x

“Who's there?”

“Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself” …

And so Hamlet begins. As is well known, if a monkey is placed at a typewriter and hits the keys at random, independently, he or she will produce a word‐for‐word reproduction of the text of Hamlet – eventually. The “eventually” is important. Our monkey has one chance in 26 of hitting W as his first letter; one in 26×26 (= 1 in 676) of hitting W as the first and h as the second letter; 1 in 263 of getting the entire word “Who”; and, ignoring things like punctuation, spaces, capitals and apostrophes, one in 26 to the power of 42 of getting the 42 letters in that first line of Hamlet right first time – which is, roughly, 1 chance in 3×1059.

There are about 130 000 letters in the whole of Hamlet. The chance of randomly typing out the entire play correctly at first trial therefore works out at one in 26130,000, which is one in 3.4 × 10183 946. A single monkey would need that kind of number of attempts before there was a reasonable chance of his or her getting it right.

 

[psionl0]

I'm pretty sure you are describing a false dichotomy. Perhaps that's just because your wording isn't clear.

I can't think of any other alternatives. It seems to me that we are dealing with either no external forces, external forces that are random or external forces with (some) intelligence.

If you can add to the list then I will happily read them but I doubt that we can scientifically test each alternative.

My take on his argument is nothing like that. I'm seeing him primarily argue that "god could not have sparked the big bang and thus created the universe, because before the big bang there was no time for god to exist in."

I find it hard to imagine a time before time began.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Okay fine but we have to have a starting point of a reason to think it exists as all to start this never ending game of 20 excuses why it's technically not impossible.

That's the point of the Dragon in the Garage. The Dragon in the Garage is perfectly logically congruous. Every reason we can't prove it isn't there is 100% valid.

The problem is there's millions of garages across the US and they all act is if they are 100% dragon free in every possible way... why would we bother disproving something we have no reason to even consider?

Sure the universe could, within reason, contain all manner of "undetectable, undefined" stuff. But we don't go looking for it without reason.

If somebody told you there was a dragon in his garage and his "evidence" was a list of after the fact reasons you can't prove him wrong... you wouldn't consider that evidence. A list of excuses why you're not wrong is not good evidence you are right in anything but pedantics and rule lawyering.

So why should God be nitpicked to death and back? Because someone... made up the idea and that somehow shifts the balance? No.

And again I need to point out the absurdity of God, the most powerful being in the universe in every way he's actually worshiped or thought of by anyone in real life, again being reduced to basically a homeopathic vague vagueness defined as something can't possibly do anything in order to defend him intellectually or argumentatively.

"Well you can't technically speaking according to the rule book 100% disprove God semantically, hypothetically, metaphysically, legally, argumentatively, and epistemologically (that needs to be a word)."

Okay? And? You'd be hard pressed to make something up you could disprove under those criteria. We don't waste our time going 60 pages about whether or not a super intelligent can of key lime pie filling with the voice of Marvin Hamlish lives on Kepler-16b.

Not why, how and what!!! Remember why questions are not science!

So how do I explain, what is going on in threads like this. Well, it is simple - take Popper, you know something, i.e. you have checked. You know there is a limit to human mobility.
So with Popper, you can ask: Are there other limits to human behavior e.g. for evidence, reason and logic?

I am a seeker, I seek answers to such questions. And you don't speak for me, because I am not a member of your "we". In cultural terms I am outside western culture in some sense, because I am no longer a member of this culture for such words as reason, logic, evidence, reality, real and so on. Yet no matter how unreal I am to you, I am real, otherwise you couldn't communicate with me.
So if it helps you to think of me as unreal, just remember that it is only you thinking that I am unreal and that you thinking that I am unreal, doesn't make me unreal. If that was the case, it would be magic.

You don't speak for an universal we and I will continue to remind you that your tribe of we, is a tribe and not humanity.

Your why is psychology. I know that. And I don't care if you don't know that. I just point it out. What you do with that is your problem and not mine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My take on his argument is nothing like that. I'm seeing him primarily argue that "god could not have sparked the big bang and thus created the universe, because before the big bang there was no time for god to exist in."
One could argue that god exists "outside of time", but that's a really incoherent, gibberish notion. Of course, "the universe created itself out of nothing" is also a pretty incoherent, gibberish notion in my head, so it's kind of a draw between Hawking vs "all the other theories people speculate about". LOL

Is that an actual Hawking quote?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Is that an actual Hawking quote?

From the OP:
"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science,"

Edit: If you didn't notice. The OP is by you. Didn't you check the reasoning? It appears it could be a case of confirmation bias, Hawking said there are no Gods. So I don't have to check the argument for the case, because it confirms what I already believe.

 

[kellyb]

Is that an actual Hawking quote?

No, it's a paraphrase. This is the quote from the article in the OP:

Because the universe also began as a singularity, time itself could not have existed before the Big Bang. Hawking's answer, then, to what happened before the Big Bang is, "there was no time before the Big Bang."

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."