Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
dann said:
I don't know why it's so difficult for (irreligious) people to understand, so let me return to my Donald Duck analogy:
You can study the character of Donald Duck: What are his/its personality traits as an imaginary, made-up cartoon character, how does he/it evolve over time, what is the ideology/-ies of the Duckville universe etc. You can do this more or less seriously:
Donaldism: Donaldistic research (Wikipedia).
South Nordic Academy of Donaldism.
(Not to be confused with the ongoing studies of the character of the POTUS, who is an extremely unreliable character but unfortunately not at all imaginary! (Of course, it would also be possible to study the idea of this Donald as it can be found in his fan base and their fan fiction, but the two things, the POTUS and the idea of the POTUS as it exists in the imagination of his fans, have very little in common.)

The least scientific way of dealing with Donald Duck would be to make the mistake of trying to prove that he/it is a cartoon character by looking at the real world, beyond fiction, and trying to find him/it or dismiss the possibility of his existence there.

Gods and other mythological creatures? Same thing!
Click to expand...

No, there is a subset of gods and other mythological creatures. There is a reason, how come that there is a god of the gap. That gap is that that knowledge presumes time and space. All knowledge takes place in time and space, so what about a creator god, which is outside time and space and created the universe. Such a god would be unknown.

Now that someone that can think that there is such a god will not decide that there is one and that this god is an idea in the brain of person doesn't not mean that there is no such god.
So that all gods we have look for inside the universe has turned out to be something else, says nothing about a god outside the universe.
That you think there is no such god will not mean that there is no such god and that someone thinks there is such a god will not mean that there is such a god.
Now should you choose to go with the claim the unknowable is non-existence, but then I will point out that this "is", claims a property of the unknown, but to know that, requires that you can check and you can't.
We don't know if the unknown exists or not, because it is unknown.

Now we can go ontology on existence, but existence is not a property of a thing. It is the idea that beyond all properties of a thing is something more; i.e. existence. Existence is no different that a god. So far it is nothing but an idea.
In other words existence is redundant, you don't need it, just like you don't need to believe in a god.
 
David Mo said:
He was not Anglican. He defended a particular heretical position linked to Arianism. My question: was his belief scientific?
Click to expand...

How can you tell? He established the foundations of physics so he was scientific. Was science far enough advanced so would think like a scientist today? Everyone was religious then afaik so maybe people didn't subject their beliefs to critical scrutiny. Most people don't do that today, as a matter of fact, or there wouldn't be so much religion in the world.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
No, there is a subset of ducks and other mythological creatures. There is a reason, how come that there is a duck of the gap. That gap is that that knowledge presumes time and space. All knowledge takes place in time and space, so what about a creator duck, which is outside time and space and created the universe. Such a duck would be unknown.

Now that someone that can think that there is such a duck will not decide that there is one and that this duck is an idea in the brain of person doesn't not mean that there is no such duck.
So that all ducks we have look for inside the universe has turned out to be something else, says nothing about a duck outside the universe.
That you think there is no such duck will not mean that there is no such duck and that someone thinks there is such a duck will not mean that there is such a duck.
Now should you choose to go with the claim the unknowable is non-existence, but then I will point out that this "is", claims a property of the unknown, but to know that, requires that you can check and you can't.
We don't know if the unknown exists or not, because it is unknown.

Now we can go ontology on existence, but existence is not a property of a thing. It is the idea that beyond all properties of a thing is something more; i.e. existence. Existence is no different that a duck. So far it is nothing but an idea.
In other words existence is redundant, you don't need it, just like you don't need to believe in a god.
Click to expand...


FTFY! (The difference, of course, is that ducks do exist, also beyond the realm of fantasy. Gods don't.)
 
psionl0 said:
Re-defining "existence" to mean "detectable" in some manner doesn't rule out supernatural gods. Even if a god caused a change in the universe that has no apparent natural cause, the measuring instrument would have to be operating at the time this change happened otherwise there would be no confirmation. A god could easily avoid making his presence known if an appropriate scientific instrument were operating.
Click to expand...

You are thinking too simply without extending the thought to its logical conclusion. If a god caused a change in the universe we would not have to have the measuring instrument on at the time. That was my earlier point. Let's say god put a new planet in our solar system last night. We were asleep and didn't see this god do it but it would have profound detectable affects in the morning. Scientists would be saying "Something is different over there because all the planets in the solar system have shifted to accommodate a large body in that position" or they would say "What? There's a planet right there that has no affect on all the other bodies in the solar system, that's odd!"

That goes with everything, or anything, a god does. We either notice it because it exists but has no affect on the natural world, or we notice it because from out of the blue it has an affect on the natural world.
 
psionl0 said:
Re-defining "existence" to mean "detectable" in some manner doesn't rule out supernatural gods.
Click to expand...

Redefining "existence" to mean "leaves some form of evidence because that's literally what existence means" doesn't rule out magic.

We don't have to "rule out" stuff that was never ruled in.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
You have stated many times that it is "obvious" there are no gods. However, constant repetition of this mantra does not make it a scientific argument.

According to you, it would be impossible for a god to conceal himself - whether from our 5 senses or from a scientific instrument. That would make him not a god.
Click to expand...
You love these straw men, don't you.

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

Where in that statement do you see anything about it being impossible for anything? It's obviously possible to describe a god no one could detect. The problem with that is such a god would be irrelevant, and, no religion save Deists claim such a god and the Deist god is irrelevant.


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
 
JoeMorgue said:
Redefining "existence" to mean "leaves some form of evidence because that's literally what existence means" doesn't rule out magic.

We don't have to "rule out" stuff that was never ruled in.
Click to expand...

You don't define words other than checking meaning. A definition of word tells you how it is used,

Whether there is limit to knowledge as there is limit to human mobility, is something you check by checking how knowledge works. Now I know you don't have to do that, because you don't need to, but you don't speak for a "we".
There is a limit to knowledge because knowledge presumes time and space. Whether there is nothing or something outside time and space is unknown.
All of your examples with chairs and what not take place in time and space.
So you can ask this: Can I know what is outside time and space?

Now just because you don't find that interesting, doesn't mean that others don't find interesting. You don't speak for a "we" and neither do I. Keep your tribe out of the "we".
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
You love these straw men, don't you.

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

Where in that statement do you see anything about it being impossible for anything? It's obviously possible to describe a god no one could detect. The problem with that is such a god would be irrelevant, and, no religion save Deists claim such a god and the Deist god is irrelevant.


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
Click to expand...

Ask if there is a limit to knowledge.
 
dann said:
I don't know why it's so difficult for (irreligious) people to understand, so let me return to my Donald Duck analogy:
You can study the character of Donald Duck: What are his/its personality traits as an imaginary, made-up cartoon character, how does he/it evolve over time, what is the ideology/-ies of the Duckville universe etc. You can do this more or less seriously:
Donaldism: Donaldistic research (Wikipedia).
South Nordic Academy of Donaldism.
(Not to be confused with the ongoing studies of the character of the POTUS, who is an extremely unreliable character but unfortunately not at all imaginary! (Of course, it would also be possible to study the idea of this Donald as it can be found in his fan base and their fan fiction, but the two things, the POTUS and the idea of the POTUS as it exists in the imagination of his fans, have very little in common.)

The least scientific way of dealing with Donald Duck would be to make the mistake of trying to prove that he/it is a cartoon character by looking at the real world, beyond fiction, and trying to find him/it or dismiss the possibility of his existence there.

Gods and other mythological creatures? Same thing!
Click to expand...
If I'm reading this correctly, here is my angle of 'science does not seek to prove anything.'

This just goes round and round and it isn't me that is not listening to the debate.

Me: There is overwhelming evidence of X
Them: Science cannot prove there is no X
Me: I did not try to prove anything
Them: You cannot prove there is no X

And round and round it goes.

Until people stop replying to:
There is overwhelming evidence all god are fictional.
There is no evidence any real gods exist.
​
With the straw man "You can't prove there are no gods"

We might as well end the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Science does not seek to prove anything.

This just goes round and round and it isn't me that is not listening to the debate.

Me: There is overwhelming evidence of X
Them: Science cannot prove there is no X
Me: I did not try to prove anything
Them: You cannot prove there is no X

And round and round it goes.

Until you guys stop replying to:
There is overwhelming evidence all god are fictional.
There is no evidence any real gods exist.
​
With the straw man "You can't prove there are no gods"

We might as well end the discussion.
Click to expand...

Try understanding that there is a limit to knowledge.
 
So why is that every discussion of the giant invisible wizard in the sky turns into this, a scorched earth attempt to devalue knowledge as a concept?

Okay so there is a "Limit to knowledge." Okay so there is "something science can answer." Okay so "Sometimes my socks are made of pasta because the moon turned left at Albuquerque." Okay so maybe a philosopher 500 years ago said something and by virtue of it being said by a philosopher we have to accept it as 100% truth because of reasons.

Let's just say all of that is true. It isn't, but let's play make believe since that's what everybody on that side of the argument wants to do anyway.

And? How does that make God more likely to exist?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Meaningless twaddle.

"What's North of the North Pole?"
Click to expand...

North is a position on earth and thus is relative to earth.

Time and space are presumed in your answer, but are not limited to earth.
What was before the "Big Bang"?
Hawking thought about that.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
So why is that every discussion of the giant invisible wizard in the sky turns into this, a scorched earth attempt to devalue knowledge as a concept?

Okay so there is a "Limit to knowledge." Okay so there is "something science can answer." Okay so "Sometimes my socks are made of pasta because the moon turned left at Albuquerque." Okay so maybe a philosopher 500 years ago said something and by virtue of it being said by a philosopher we have to accept it as 100% truth because of reasons.

Let's just say all of that is true. It isn't, but let's play make believe since that's what everybody on that side of the argument wants to do anyway.

And? How does that make God more likely to exist?
Click to expand...

It doesn't make a creator god more likely or unlikely. It makes a creator god unknown.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Try understanding that there is a limit to knowledge.
Click to expand...

Is there? Only if you start from the assumption that there is something that exists outside of the physical universe. You believe in a god, scientific evidence contradicts that belief, so you attack science with philosophical sophistry.
 
Garrison said:
Is there? Only if you start from the assumption that there is something that exists outside of the physical universe. You believe in a god, scientific evidence contradicts that belief, so you attack science with philosophical sophistry.
Click to expand...

I am an atheist. I believe that the natural universe is fair; no gods and no Boltzmann Brains.
Try again.
 
You can't proudly reject knowledge as a concept and play the "there's a limit to our knowledge" card in the same hand.

Sure if you redefine stuff that doesn't exist as stuff that does sort of exist maybe but that's just more nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom