Hawking says there are no gods

[kellyb]

What killed off Thor wasn't scientific explanations. It was the lightning rod.

I'd say what primarily, initially killed Thor/Jupiter was Constantine making Christianity the Roman Empire's state religion.

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.

Definitely, although it's interesting to note that the earliest mythologies tended to not involve any afterlife, really. Sky Cake didn't pop up till later.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

Oh this should be good. This is like hitting a vein of gibberish.

So, dear Tommy, please be ever so kind to explain a problem that

1. Can't be solved by using the scientific concepts (not whatever strawman version of science you have rattling around in your head) like collection of evidence, falsefiability, testing of hypothesis and so forth.

2. Can be solved by any other method, please be precise and give examples.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Oh this should be good. This is like hitting a vein of gibberish.

So, dear Tommy, please be ever so kind to explain a problem that

1. Can't be solved by using the scientific concepts (not whatever strawman version of science you have rattling around in your head) like collection of evidence, falsefiability, testing of hypothesis and so forth.

2. Can be solved by any other method, please be precise and give examples.

Nice try.
1. Can't be solved by using the scientific concepts (not whatever strawman version of science you have rattling around in your head) like collection of evidence, falsefiability, testing of hypothesis and so forth.

2. Can't be solved by using reason and logic or faith.

There is no universal ethical system neither by science, philosophy nor religion.

So here: I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Nice try.
1. Can't be solved by using the scientific concepts (not whatever strawman version of science you have rattling around in your head) like collection of evidence, falsefiability, testing of hypothesis and so forth.

2. Can't be solved by using reason and logic or faith.

There is no universal ethical system neither by science, philosophy nor religion.

So here: I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.

Gibberish. Answer the question.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Gibberish. Answer the question.

It is a trick question. You are trying to set me up, but you won't get the answer that you want. So again.

Nice try.
1. Can't be solved by using the scientific concepts (not whatever strawman version of science you have rattling around in your head) like collection of evidence, falsefiability, testing of hypothesis and so forth.

2. Can't be solved by using reason and logic or faith.

There is no universal ethical system neither by science, philosophy nor religion.

So here: I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.

 

[Darat]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover
That is a version of god, which other humans started believing in.
Again read the links I gave to deism, but this time you find them yourself.

Zeus and Hera are properly not believed in any more, but different versions of a first unmoved mover god are believed in.
Remember that there are deists today.

From wiki, direct quote.


Aristotle placed them outside time and space, hence you can't observe if they are there and thus science can't answer if they are there.

Nothing of course to do with anything I've posted.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Nothing of course to do with anything I've posted.

Yeah, you only accept beliefs in gods, which can be tested by science. I get your MO.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It is a trick question. You are trying to set me up, but you won't get the answer that you want. So again.

No. You've fallen back on the old, tired "science doesn't know everything" chestnut.

Your claim is that there are other methodologies/epistimologies that can provide answers. Expecting you to describe them is not a trap.

Answer the question.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No. You've fallen back on the old, tired "science doesn't know everything" chestnut.

Your claim is that there are other methodologies/epistimologies that can provide answers. Expecting you to describe them is not a trap.

Answer the question.

No, there are no correct methodologies/epistemologies for ethics. There are only different world views.

All ethical world views require a belief in them, otherwise they don't work.

 

[Thor 2]

Yeah, you only accept beliefs in gods, which can be tested by science. I get your MO.

You persist with this approach about science not being able to test the existence of gods. Hawking gave us a new angle on this if you would take note. With his in depth insight into his scientific speciality he observed there was no time for a creator to exist in.

"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."

Can you make comment about this observation instead of beating that same old drum?

 

[Thor 2]

Just a little more from the article:

Black holes, like the universe before the Big Bang, condense into a singularity. In this ultra-packed point of mass, gravity is so strong that it distorts time as well as light and space. Simply put, in the depths of a black hole, time does not exist.

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."

Interesting that there are places within our universe, (in black holes), where time does not exist, according to this theory.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

You persist with this approach about science not being able to test the existence of gods. Hawking gave us a new angle on this if you would take note. With his in depth insight into his scientific speciality he observed there was no time for a creator to exist in.

"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."

Can you make comment about this observation instead of beating that same old drum?

He didn't know that. He took the math within the field of physics, which is within the universe and claimed that could tell us if there is something or nothing outside the universe. That is not possible. What is on the inside of the universe can't know what is on the outside. You can only know that if you can check through observation. That is not possible.
Knowledge and science presumes time and space and takes place within the universe.

In other words the math he used for the calculation is inside the universe and the math can't cause there to neither something or nothing.

Notice this, from the OP:

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

That he thought something doesn't decide, if there is nothing or something outside the universe.
The same with the acceptance. That doesn't decide, if there is nothing or something outside the universe.

That was figure out by Immanuel Kant. You can account for human knowledge by listing, what human knowledge presumes.
That includes that we are in time and space inside the universe.

The only thing we can say about objective reality as independent of the mind, is that objective reality is independent of the mind.
And if you are not a solipsist, that the mind is caused by objective reality.
The rest is what axioms you use and what you can say about the limits of knowledge, reason and logic.

There is a reason, science is based on methodological naturalism.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific "dead ends" and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.

The core axiom in science is that you start by assuming that the universe is natural.
But there is still a limit to knowledge and one of them is that we can't know what is outside the universe, nothing or something, because we can't check.

Hope it helps.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Just a little more from the article:




Interesting that there are places within our universe, (in black holes), where time does not exist, according to this theory.

There is a reason it is called theoretical physics.
It is not like the law of gravity.

 

[ynot]

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.

Explain how you differentiate between "evidence" and "scientific evidence"? (in 200 words or less would be good)

Is the "evidence" you "have" credible? If so then that's all I asked for. . . .

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

I don't care if you define the evidence you claim to "have" as being "scientific" or "not scientific".

To anticipate your obvious "define credible" obfuscation, by "credible" I mean stuff like "trustworthy, reliable, logical, plausible, and the like".

ETA - I didn't ask for evidence that gods don't exist. I asked for evidence that gods can exist beyond being fictional characters ("can be non-fictional"). In case you still miss the point, I'm not asking if gods do exist, I'm asking if there's any credible evidence they merely could exist. To put it even more simply, is there any known method by which invisible, magical, sky-daddies even could exist?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

You persist with this approach about science not being able to test the existence of gods. Hawking gave us a new angle on this if you would take note. With his in depth insight into his scientific speciality he observed there was no time for a creator to exist in.

And that isn't supported by science. That goes way beyond what are current theories are capable of explaining. It's almost like Hawking was confused by some pop-sci TV show.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So I'm just never going to get anyone to explain to me how any of these methodologies/epistemologies that explain things "past the limits of your feeble science!" actually work or give examples of them or walk through a process where something wasn't answered a question am I?

"Science can't answer everything!"
"Okay so what can?"
"Squawk! Science can't answer everything!"
"Okay. So... what can?"
"Squawk! Science can't answer everything!"
"Okay, I heard you. What can?"
"Squawk! Science can't answer everything!"
"I... heard... you. I... asked... you... what... can?"
*Beat*
"Squawk! Science can't answer everything!"

People keep either pointing to or wiggling their eyebrows at things like ethics and morality and who we decide to love as things "outside of science" and even if I bough that (I don't, it's far more a overly narrow labeling of science and hair splitting between scientific process and process that science understand) there still hasn't been even a token attempt at explaining how we do make those decisions that isn't just "happens at random" or "invoke magic."

 

[Garrison]

There is a reason it is called theoretical physics.
It is not like the law of gravity.

Which simply shows you don't understand the meaning of the word theory in the context of a scientific theory. Allow Wikipedia to explain:

The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.

So basically you are arguing about the limits of science without even a basic understanding of the concepts of science.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is not scientific evidence that gods don't exist. This is just what common sense says about a pious legend. This would be recognised by many Catholics without difficulty.

Clearly you believe you are making a valid argument.

In reality you are not, and you are not convincing any critical thinker that you are.

I asked you if scientists should look into the Hawaiian volcanoes and see if Péle might be in there. You dismiss that then repeat your same claim that there is no scientific evidence of mythical gods.

Which is it, there is no evidence or gods aren't myths. That's one of the most ludicrous arguments for real gods I've heard.

It would appear you are claiming the same old argument, one can't prove there are no gods.

Nothing to see here... I'll move along.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...Yeah, but there is no correct/true information for this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/...atisscience_12
Quote:

Science doesn't make moral judgments
Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments
Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations​

Science is not a person or a thing so science can't do anything. It is the scientific process people are referring to and there are ways to address all those topics, especially the last one, using the scientific process.

What you are saying about the first three is essentially that there are no objective measurements like one finds in physics and cosmology. But no objective measurement doesn't prevent one using the scientific process to address hypotheses using scales one generates for the problem.

 

[BadBoy]

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.

The other and more rational option is to say "I don't know", "we don't know", "no one knows"

AND, it is possible to make situational decisions based on the understanding that we don't know something - which IMO is better than pretending to know because it makes you feel good.