Hawking says there are no gods

[psionl0]

“Absence of Evidence” arguments are a crock.

Evidence of Absence is NOT Absence of Evidence.

Evidence of a hand being absent of a jellybean is evidence of no jellybean being contained in the hand.

Evidence of Earth being absent of species that it once contained is evidence Earth doesn’t contain those (extinct) species.

Evidence of the currently observable Universe being absent of any gods is evidence that the currently observable Universe doesn’t contain any gods.

That is trivially true. You are just substituting "doesn't contain" for "absence".

 

[kellyb]

If there is an omnipotent god as the Abrahamic tradition claims then you automatically do not have free will.

They say yes, you do.

Paul in Romans basically answered the question with "STFU and stop asking so many questions!"

"One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?"

lol

 

[psionl0]

The theory is that god hides from science/evidence-gathering because revealing Himself would remove the faith aspect of belief, if not free will itself.

Free will simply means that you are not controlled by God nor are your actions predetermined by the deterministic universe. Whether God undeniably exists or not has no effect on your free will but it may motivate you to make different choices.

 

[ynot]

That is trivially true. You are just substituting "doesn't contain" for "absence".

In what way is a hand that doesn't contain a jellybean any different than a hand with an absence of a jellybean?

Feel free to replace "doesn't contain" with "is absent of"

I'll do it for you . . .

Evidence of Absence is NOT Absence of Evidence.

Evidence of a hand being absent of a jellybean is evidence that the hand is absent of a jellybean.

Evidence of Earth being absent of extinct species is evidence that Earth is absent of extinct species.

Evidence of the currently observable Universe being absent of any gods is evidence that the currently observable Universe is absent of any gods.

 

[kellyb]

Free will simply means that you are not controlled by God nor are your actions predetermined by the deterministic universe. Whether God undeniably exists or not has no effect on your free will but it may motivate you to make different choices.

The idea is that the moral aspect of free will would be diminished or non-existent if god's presence and mightiness was obvious. Obedience to "his will" would be akin to a plantation slave obeying the guy with the whip. It would be acting out of fear as opposed to ____________ [insert christian ideas about listening to the holy spirit, faith, love, etc and so on.]

 

[David Mo]

Your definition of what is and isn't science is your problem.

You have not addressed this:

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

Except to claim it doesn't meet your standards for language I guess.

Where this "overwhelming evidence" is? Can you present here some specific examples? If the evidence is overwhelming it would be easy to do it. Your manifest inability to present any proof of what you claim shows that you are talking about things you have not seen. This is the main characteristic of metaphysical thinking. The religion of science.

 

[David Mo]

Your definition of what is and isn't science is your problem.

Oh, really? And what is science to you? Because it seems to me that someone who confuses the sciences of nature with the human sciences has no idea what he is talking about.

 

[dann]

Right, we have no way of knowing what exists outside of the framework of what we do understand, so any fantasies that we can imagine to exist there are equally unlikely to be true.

Which is what I was hinting at with my reference to Russell's teapot.

I know, I know. When you started with:

I think the argument is that ...

I was aware that it wasn't your argument.

 

[psionl0]

Evidence of a hand being absent of a jellybean is evidence that the hand is absent of a jellybean.

Evidence of Earth being absent of extinct species is evidence that Earth is absent of extinct species.

Evidence of the currently observable Universe being absent of any gods is evidence that the currently observable Universe is absent of any gods.

And you think that these statements are not trivially true?

 

[psionl0]

The idea is that the moral aspect of free will would be diminished or non-existent if god's presence and mightiness was obvious.

There is no "moral" aspect to free will. You are either able to make your own choices independently or not. However, the freedom to make independent choices does not mean freedom from the consequences of those choices.

 

[David Mo]

The way he approached it could be considered scientific. The conclusion could of course have been wrong, as many conclusions have been.

I don't know what way you are speaking of. Did Newton apply the hypothetico-deductive method to the biblical interpretation? Where?

 

[ynot]

Where is this "overwhelming evidence"? Can you present here some specific examples? If the evidence is overwhelming it would be easy to do it. Your manifest inability to present any proof of what you claim shows that you are talking about things you have not seen. This is the main characteristic of metaphysical thinking. The religion of science.

The "overwhelming evidence" is that gods can't be anything other than fictional, because there's no other credible option.

If you have any credible evidence gods can be non-fictional please provide it.

 

[Roboramma]

There is no "moral" aspect to free will. You are either able to make your own choices independently or not. However, the freedom to make independent choices does not mean freedom from the consequences of those choices.

The issue is that omniscience includes knowledge of the future, which implies determinism, and thus rules out free will.

If God knows what you will do tomorrow, and he's always right, in what sense do you have the free will to do something different?

 

[ynot]

And you think that these statements are not trivially true?

So the "trivially true" has nothing to do with this?

That is trivially true. You are just substituting "doesn't contain" for "absence".

What then do you mean by "trivially true"?`

Are "trivial truths" any less true than other types of truths?

Are there also "trivial facts"?

 

[kellyb]

There is no "moral" aspect to free will.

In fundamentalist christianity, it's the only thing that matters about free will. It all revolves around Adam and Eve choosing to disobey god and eat the forbidden fruit. See: http://formerfundy.blogspot.com/2010/11/did-adam-and-eve-have-free-will.html and https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2018/01/29/adam-eve-failing-first-free-will-test/

eta:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy_and_the_Bible#Bible_and_free_will_theodicy

The free will theodicy, first developed by Augustine, defends God by placing all the blame for evil on "the misuse of free will by human beings." This free will theodicy is "perhaps the most influential theodicy ever constructed,"[40] and it is currently "the most common theodicy"[41]

Explaining the free will theodicy, Nick Trakakis writes that "the free will theodicist proceeds to explain the existence of moral evil as a consequence of the misuse of our freedom." Then "the free will theodicist adds, however, that the value of free will (and the goods it makes possible) is so great as to outweigh the risk that it may be misused in various ways."[42]

In parallel with the free will theodicy, The New Bible Dictionary finds that the Bible attributes evil "to the abuse of free-will."[43] Others have noted the free will theodicy's "compatibility with and reliance upon the [biblical Book of] Genesis account of creation" and the fall of Adam and Eve into sin.[44] Because of the compatibility between the free will theodicy and the Genesis account of the Creation and Fall of humanity "the Fall-doctrine" has been characterized as "fundamentally an exercise in theodicy-making."[45]

 

[David Mo]

The "overwhelming evidence" is that gods can't be anything other than fictional, because there's no other credible option.

If you have any credible evidence gods can be non-fictional please provide it.

You ask me to believe something because you say so. That is very unreasonable.

 

[ynot]

How could Adam and Eve (essentially innocent, naive, new-born adult/babies) possibly know they were being good or evil when they hadn't yet been "punished" with the knowledge of good and evil? Silly as punishing a toddler for peeing in it's nappies. Just as well that god dork is just a fantasy myth.

 

[dann]

The main gist was this:

Sometimes real things/entities/people are imagined to exist before they are proven/demonstrated to exist.

Yes, but what the God-might-exist-in-the-real-world guys fail to see is the difference between hypothesizing and pure and simple imagining. Lovecraft did not hypothesize Pluto. He imagined Yuggoth. They aren't and they never were the same thing: TragicMonkey's example.
Lovecraft did not predict the discovery of Pluto.
Jules Verne didn't hypothesize Apollo 11:

they could construct a cannon capable of shooting a projectile to the moon. (Wikipedia)

And even though Democritus's ideas of the atom may merit the term hypothesis, he did not really predict the discovery of the atom:

atoms are indestructible (...) the solidness of the material corresponded to the shape of the atoms involved. Thus, iron atoms are solid and strong with hooks that lock them into a solid; water atoms are smooth and slippery; salt atoms, because of their taste, are sharp and pointed; and air atoms are light and whirling, pervading all other materials. Using analogies from humans' sense experiences, he gave a picture or an image of an atom that distinguished them from each other by their shape, their size, and the arrangement of their parts. Moreover, connections were explained by material links in which single atoms were supplied with attachments: some with hooks and eyes others with balls and sockets. The Democritean atom is an inert solid (merely excluding other bodies from its volume) that interacts with other atoms mechanically. (Wikipedia)

It's thus sometimes better to try to suss out if it does or does not actually exist in the real world, as opposed to just writing it off as fiction/imaginary right off the bat.

Gods aren't and never were hypothesized. Wanting something (gods) to exist or simply playing around with imaginary characters (Donald Duck) doesn't constitute hypotheses. And I predict that neither gods nor Donald Duck will ever be found in the real world. And nowadays no real scientist would ever try to find them there - unless they are also schizophrenics like Newton.

 

[ynot]

You ask me to believe something because you say so. That is very unreasonable.

No, I ask you politely to provide credible evidence that contradicts or disproves what I say if you disagree with what I say. That is very reasonable . . .

If you have any credible evidence gods can be non-fictional please provide it.

 

[David Mo]

No, I ask you politely to provide credible evidence that contradicts or disproves what I say if you disagree with what I say. That is very reasonable . . .

I have evidence that gods don't exist. I have not scientific evidence that gods don't exist. If you have some you should present it.