Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
And the weird thing is... this is actually a very common stance. It gets argued sideways and in the margin all the time here but whenever the fluff is stripped away the only person left arguing for it is the ying and yang twins and a couple of other usual suspects.

There's a lot more "Facts don't matter" people on this board than are in this thread. Most people seem to have a "Shut up and stop asking me" response to this.

Of course, facts matter to me. The problem is that I tried to turn everything into facts as I was told and I found it is not possible.

Your "Facts don't matter" is only so for some relativists and not all. So if you apply it to me, you are arguing a straw man.

Everything is absolute.
Everything is relative.
Everything is a combination of regularities, variations, abilities and limitations.
I am the 3rd option.
 
Yeah I added a line to my post about that but I was too slow! Tommy is not arguing that it’s fair game to ignore facts in favor of whatever you like, but rather that when facts are by definition absent, “insert my idea here” vs “there obviously isn’t anything here” (or “we currently can’t see anything here so we’ll pencil in a zero until something changes”) is essentially just a slapfight. The importance of which one is true is a value we assign.
 
Last edited:
Of course, facts matter to me. The problem is that I tried to turn everything into facts as I was told and I found it is not possible.

Your "Facts don't matter" is only so for some relativists and not all. So if you apply it to me, you are arguing a straw man.

Everything is absolute.
Everything is relative.
Everything is a combination of regularities, variations, abilities and limitations.
I am the 3rd option.

Gibberish.
 
Yeah I added a line to my post about that but I was too slow! Tommy is not arguing that it’s fair game to ignore facts in favor of whatever you like, but rather that when facts are by definition absent, “insert my idea here” vs “there obviously isn’t anything here” is essentially just a slapfight. The importance of which one is true is a value we assign.

Short and to the point. :)
 
I think they were. I think in the very ancient pre-science days, the deity theories were not only genuinely believed, but reasonable enough as a hypothesis, for the time.

People all over the planet came up with the same sort of gods to explain the mysterious, too.
See:

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


Yes, to some extent, but still wishful thinking. When the thunder is rolling, it's not difficult to imagine that somebody is behind it, but when you're utterly impotent faced with the power of nature, you're bound to want and need somebody to appeal to in order to make it stop. Not because you've considered it carefully and come to the conclusion that this is the most likely explanation. You need to feel able to be a little bit in control of this uncontrollable force of nature that may even kill you, to assuage your own fears as well as those of your tribe. What killed off Thor wasn't scientific explanations. It was the lightning rod.
(By the way, it's interesting how much the tool of the Yoruba orisha Chango resembles the Mjølner of our Norse god Thor.)

The Hebrews (and thus early Christians) had their own cosmology they postulated/hypothesized, as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibli...e:Early_Hebrew_Conception_of_the_Universe.png

It wasn't all just wishful thinking back then - it was the best they could come up with to explain how the world worked.


I wasn't talking about cosmology. I was talking about gods. But, yes, based on their pre-scientific observations of the world, they probably couldn't come up with anything better. However, the whole Heaven-and-Hell thing still contains an element of wishful thinking as well: What happens to us when we are confronted with the one thing that science and technology, to this very day, haven't overcome, only to some extent postpone.
 
Last edited:
I think that everybody is aware that the two of you are thinking differently.

And that is the joke, because there is an Internet claim to the following effect:
If I think differently than you and you can't understand it, I am not actually thinking and understanding it differently.
Example and if JayUtah wants to butt in, he will.

There are some people, who don't understand how 2+2=11 can be true, so nobody can understand that.

The most extreme version I have come across was this: People, who don't understand science, don't have a life.

I am used to not being a part of the real reality. I have that effect on some people. :D
What they can't explain, is how come they can communicate with me and others, who think and understand differently. They always end up doing an evaluation of the worth of a different person, based on the assumption that there is an universal standard of worth and they hold it.
 
And the weird thing is... this is actually a very common stance. It gets argued sideways and in the margin all the time here but whenever the fluff is stripped away the only person left arguing for it is the ying and yang twins and a couple of other usual suspects.

There's a lot more "Facts don't matter" people on this board than are in this thread. Most people seem to have a "Shut up and stop asking me" response to this.


In an interview (Skeptical Inquirer, March/April 2017), James Randi mentions that Martin Gardner, who - in most respects - didn't belong in the "Facts don't matter" group, openly admitted to him that he was a deist:

He called me one day, we were chatting away, and there was a pause on the other end of the line when he said, “Randi, I have to tell you something.” I said, “Yes?” and I thought, “What can this be?” He told me, “I’m a deist.” A deist is someone who has a basic belief in a god of any shape or form, someone who has an interest in a superior power of some kind.

He said, “I have no evidence whatsoever to support my belief in a god. None.” He said, “You have all the evidence to the contrary. I’ve read it, I’ve read what you’ve said, I’ve heard what you’ve said, I’ve read books and books and books on it. They have all the reason on their side, the people who say there is no god.” I interrupted, I said, “Martin, I’ve never claimed there’s no god because I can’t prove that.” He said, “No, I know that’s your stance,” and it always has been my stance. I don’t say there is no god because I can’t prove there is no god. I barely say, “I don’t see enough evidence in nature to believe in a deity.”

He said, “I’ll tell you again, you have the whole case in the bag. I have no evidence to support my view at all.” That’s the kind of guy that Martin Gardner was. He would state the whole case. I said, “Martin, if that makes you comfortable,” and he said, “Yes, it does.” He said, “That’s why I have that belief; it makes me a little more comfortable about my life.”

I said, “That’s all I need. You’re a good friend. You’re an excellent friend, long time friend. All I need to do is hear you say that, and I accept that that is your conviction and I won’t argue with you about it.” He just said, “Thank you.” That’s how Martin was. If it gave him comfort, I was all for it.
 
Yes, to some extent, but still wishful thinking. When the thunder is rolling, it's not difficult to imagine that somebody is behind it, but when you're utterly impotent faced with the power of nature, you're bound to want and need somebody to appeal to in order to make it stop. Not because you've considered it carefully and come to the conclusion that this is the most likely explanation. You need to feel able to be a little bit in control of this uncontrollable force of nature that may even kill you, to assuage your own fears as well as those of your tribe. What killed off Thor wasn't scientific explanations. It was the lightning rod.
(By the way, it's interesting how much the tool of the Yoruba orisha Chango resembles the Mjølner of our Norse god Thor.)




I wasn't talking about cosmology. I was talking about gods. But, yes, based on their pre-scientific observations of the world, they probably couldn't come up with anything better. However, the whole Heaven-and-Hell thing still contains an element of wishful thinking as well: What happens to us when we are confronted with the one thing that science and technology, to this very day, haven't overcome, only to some extent postpone.

And some people today believe that science can be used for everything including the worth of life, how to do morality and what the universe really is.
They just replaced gods with Science, Reason and Logic.
 
They always end up doing an evaluation of the worth of a different person, based on the assumption that there is an universal standard of worth and they hold it.


I haven't seen anybody in this thread question your worth. I think that you are the one who tries to bring worth into the discussion again and again.
 
Last edited:
And some people today believe that science can be used for everything including the worth of life, how to do morality and what the universe really is.
They just replaced gods with Science, Reason and Logic.

Well, science is suppose to answer the question of what the universe is, but not the others.

I'd rather have Science, Reason and Logic than some vengeful arbitrary god driven by intolerant religions spreading fear and hate around the world.
 
In an interview (Skeptical Inquirer, March/April 2017), James Randi mentions that Martin Gardner, who - in most respects - didn't belong in the "Facts don't matter" group, openly admitted to him that he was a deist:

He called me one day, we were chatting away, and there was a pause on the other end of the line when he said, “Randi, I have to tell you something.” I said, “Yes?” and I thought, “What can this be?” He told me, “I’m a deist.” A deist is someone who has a basic belief in a god of any shape or form, someone who has an interest in a superior power of some kind.

He said, “I have no evidence whatsoever to support my belief in a god. None.” He said, “You have all the evidence to the contrary. I’ve read it, I’ve read what you’ve said, I’ve heard what you’ve said, I’ve read books and books and books on it. They have all the reason on their side, the people who say there is no god.” I interrupted, I said, “Martin, I’ve never claimed there’s no god because I can’t prove that.” He said, “No, I know that’s your stance,” and it always has been my stance. I don’t say there is no god because I can’t prove there is no god. I barely say, “I don’t see enough evidence in nature to believe in a deity.”

He said, “I’ll tell you again, you have the whole case in the bag. I have no evidence to support my view at all.” That’s the kind of guy that Martin Gardner was. He would state the whole case. I said, “Martin, if that makes you comfortable,” and he said, “Yes, it does.” He said, “That’s why I have that belief; it makes me a little more comfortable about my life.”

I said, “That’s all I need. You’re a good friend. You’re an excellent friend, long time friend. All I need to do is hear you say that, and I accept that that is your conviction and I won’t argue with you about it.” He just said, “Thank you.” That’s how Martin was. If it gave him comfort, I was all for it.

Just highlighted the relevant claim.
So you disagree with James Randi. So he is one of the "facts don't matter", because it is fact that there are no gods.
Good to know, that James Randi is one of the "facts don't matter".
 
Last edited:
Well, science is suppose to answer the question of what the universe is, but not the others.

I'd rather have Science, Reason and Logic than some vengeful arbitrary god driven by intolerant religions spreading fear and hate around the world.

I rather have something else than both.

You are aware of the difference between Science and science, right?
 
Just highlighted the relevant claim.
So you disagree with James Randi. So he is one of the "facts don't matter", because it is fact that there are no gods.
Good to know, that James Randi is one of the "facts don't matter".


He definitely isn't one of the facts-don't-matter guys! On the contrary. And I don't disagree with him, I think. He and I can probably agree that it would also be absurd to try to prove that there is no Donald Duck. There very much is! He's a cartoon character. And so are gods.
 
Last edited:
Tommy is going to vomit word salad gibberish at us that is going to say:

1. Science has "turned into a religion."

or

2. He has a narrow strawman version of science that he thinks can't apply to anything real world.

or

3. Both.
 
Go ahead, that's your right. When you've worked it out, don't bother to tell us.

Yeah, it's the shift key.

Capital letter use in philosophy means you can answer everything with the word(s) placed in capital letter.
That is not the case for neither Science, Philosophy nor Religion.
 
Tommy is going to vomit word salad gibberish at us that is going to say:

1. Science has "turned into a religion."

or

2. He has a narrow strawman version of science that he thinks can't apply to anything real world.

or

3. Both.

Well, there are some people, who are fanatics and dogmatists, when it comes to science.
I was glad to read that James Randi was one of the "facts don't matter".
Read above.

Science applies to a lot of things in the word, just not everything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom