Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Yeah, but there is no correct/true information for this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12


In short, truth is as a process/behavior is limited like human mobility; i.e. the ability to move around.
There are four kinds of questions:
What if any is outside the universe?
How do things work?
How do reason and logic work?
What does it matter and how do the universe matter?
Evidence and truth only apply to the 2 in the middle.
Of course there are some combinations, but there is no single methodology for all 4; i.e. there is no one truth and as you pointed out, that truth matters, is not true. It is a belief.
Click to expand...
Without going down the morality wormhole too far, science can indeed inform decisions about what is moral and what isn't when we use Well Being as the foundation of morality.

The two outside questions are indeed entirely scientific when viewed from the standpoint of well being.

It maybe "What if any is outside the universe" can never be answered, but we don't know that yet. And "What does it matter and how do the universe matter" I think is not necessarily answered if God does in fact exist anyway - I mean "why god and why does he do anything and why does he do what he does" comes next. But if we want to find an explanation to that question it may be that it has some bearing on our well being and so finding an answer and working out how it impacts us with respect to well being could be important, though I suspect it's actually a nonsense question.

that truth matters, is not true. It is a belief
Click to expand...
Again, if we base our decisions on the outcome with respect to well being then truth absolutely matters, and should in principal be scientifically investigated in each case.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
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.
Click to expand...


As I have said myself many times.

The scientific process can certainly be used to make moral judgments however. If we take for example the situation of the pedophile. (So topical these days with so many clergy involved.)

It must be a most frustrating experience to find yourself attracted to children, and know that the fulfilment of your lust, will cause terrible suffering to any children you target. You know this because you have gathered information about it from the news and other sources. You have used science to find out information that will enable you to make a moral judgement.
 
Last edited:
Science accounts for an infinitesimal amount of our knowledge - for example, what an apple tastes like, or what a tender embrace feels like - or the knowing I exist.
Very little of what I know required an hypothesis, or a peer review.
This is not to take anything away from science - just to put in into perspective.
 
Depending on how oner defines 'gods' - there plenty of evidence that gods exist. I am a god in that I can manipulate matter, have far reaching effects on earthworms, and as my wife will substantiate - have been known to create thunder.
So, if we are speaking of 'august deities' - they abound.
Now re a Supreme Deity - can there be evidence of such? A Supreme Deity could not belong to any collection of all possible things, or belong to any collection of all possible beings . . . there can be no definition of a Supreme Deity by definition.
 
LarryS said:
Science accounts for an infinitesimal amount of our knowledge - for example, what an apple tastes like, or what a tender embrace feels like - or the knowing I exist.
Very little of what I know required an hypothesis, or a peer review.
This is not to take anything away from science - just to put in into perspective.
Click to expand...
Untrue. Science can tell us why an apple tastes the way it does, and probably can identify why somethings taste good (sugar) from an evolutionary perspective.

Tender embrace in theory could be explained by studying the brain and I imagine the feel good factor has an evolutionary foundation.

The knowing I exist - not entirely sure what you mean - but I assume is mixed up in some way with the problem of consciousness - of which the "self" is just part of. This is currently being worked on by scientists and is clearly a scientific question.
 
BadBoy said:
Untrue. Science can tell us why an apple tastes the way it does, and probably can identify why somethings taste good (sugar) from an evolutionary perspective.

Tender embrace in theory could be explained by studying the brain and I imagine the feel good factor has an evolutionary foundation.

The knowing I exist - not entirely sure what you mean - but I assume is mixed up in some way with the problem of consciousness - of which the "self" is just part of. This is currently being worked on by scientists and is clearly a scientific question.
Click to expand...

I never said science has nothing to say about 'taste of an apple' - only that what I know of 'taste of an apple' (and most of what I do know) does not require nor did it come from science or the scientific method.
 
Again we keep getting caught up on the big, mean "science" word and it's obvious that just sets people off for reasons I doubt I will ever understand. "Science" just triggers some people.

So forget the big scary "science" word. Call it whatever you want.

If it doesn't include evidence gathering, testing hypothesis, falsiefiability, and everything that science is about, any conclusion it reaches is no better than guessing.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
I don't understand your post. What do you think he meant that is wrong according to that article (which I happen to agree is perfectly correct)?
Click to expand...
I had to reread that too. I think Garrison was quoting wikipedia to explain what a theory is. It's what he was responding too that was wrong I believe:

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

There is a theory of Gravity which explains the law of Gravity. It appears to be obvious that the poster didn't understand that based on the quote above.
 
Last edited:
BadBoy said:
There is a theory of Gravity which explains the law of Gravity. It appears to be obvious that the poster didn't understand that based on the quote above.
Click to expand...

That's not obvious to me. It would appear to me that particular understanding was essential to understanding his point.
 
BadBoy said:
There is a theory of Gravity which explains the law of Gravity. It appears to be obvious that the poster didn't understand that based on the quote above.
Click to expand...
From The Onion website:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University​
 
LarryS said:
Science accounts for an infinitesimal amount of our knowledge - for example, what an apple tastes like, or what a tender embrace feels like - or the knowing I exist.
Very little of what I know required an hypothesis, or a peer review.
This is not to take anything away from science - just to put in into perspective.
Click to expand...
Biting into the apple and examining it with your taste buds is exploration.

Hmm, red object. Hypothesis: It might be edible. Experiment: Taste the apple. Senses reveal taste, smell, color, texture consistent with being edible. Don't develop unpleasant systems or drop dead. Hypotheses confirmed.

Others like the apple and don't drop dead. Peer review.

Exploration is science.
 
If I understand cosmology at all, which is doubtful, theories are proposed and tested, sometimes in an observational way, but sometimes more indirectly. You don't so much determine if something's true, but whether it's possible. Determining something to be possible doesn't tell you that it's true, but it does tell you it's not impossible.

A universe from nothing sounds impossible to me, but not to people who have a vastly superior understanding of how it could occur mathematically.
 
Garrison said:
Which simply shows you don't understand the meaning of the word theory in the context of a scientific theory. Allow Wikipedia to explain:

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

Google:
Theoretical physics is a branch of physics that employs mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena. This is in contrast to experimental physics, which uses experimental tools to probe these phenomena.
Click to expand...

We can go deeper if you like.
 
LarryS said:
I never said science has nothing to say about 'taste of an apple' - only that what I know of 'taste of an apple' (and most of what I do know) does not require nor did it come from science or the scientific method.
Click to expand...
what you know about it? what does that even mean. your memory of a taste of an apple?
 
GDon said:
From The Onion website:

Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University​
Click to expand...
oh dear lord
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, take that up with these people.
About Understanding Science
The mission of Understanding Science is to provide a fun, accessible, and free resource that accurately communicates what science is and how it really works. The process of science is exciting, but standard explanations often miss its dynamic nature. Science affects us all everyday, but people often feel cut off from science. Science is an intensely human endeavor, but many portrayals gloss over the passion, curiosity, and even rivalries and pitfalls that characterize all human ventures. Understanding Science gives users an inside look at the general principles, methods, and motivations that underlie all of science.

This project has at its heart a re-engagement with science that begins with teacher preparation and ends with broader public understanding. Its immediate goals are to (1) improve teacher understanding of the nature of the scientific enterprise, (2) provide resources and strategies that encourage and enable K-16 teachers to reinforce the nature of science throughout their science teaching, and (3) provide a clear and informative reference for students and the general public that accurately portrays the scientific endeavor.

The Understanding Science site was produced by the UC Museum of Paleontology of the University of California at Berkeley, in collaboration with a diverse group of scientists and teachers, and was funded by the National Science Foundation1. Understanding Science was informed and initially inspired by our work on the Understanding Evolution project, which highlighted the fact that many misconceptions regarding evolution spring from misunderstandings of the nature of science. Furthermore, research indicates that students and teachers at all grade levels have inadequate understandings of the nature and process of science, which may be traced to classrooms in which science is taught as a simple, linear, and non-generative process. This false and impoverished depiction disengages students, discourages public support, and may help explain current indications that the U.S. is losing its global edge in science. Even beyond the health of the U.S. economy, the public has a genuine need to critically assess conflicting representations of scientific evidence in the media. To do this, they need to understand the strengths, limitations, and basic methods of the enterprise that has produced those claims. Understanding Science takes an important step towards meeting these needs.
Click to expand...
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/about.php

The quote, I used, was from there.

Now here are at least 3 positions on killing other humans.
Someone: I like it.
Someone else: There can be cases where it is okay and others where it is wrong.
Someone else: It is wrong to kill another human.

But no objective measurement doesn't prevent one using the scientific process to address hypotheses using scales one generates for the problem.
Click to expand...

You have 3 different "scales" in the above example of killing another human. So which scale is correct?
Skeptic Ginger, who made you boss of humanity and why should we use your scale? There are other ones generated than yours. That is your problem.
Take Newton's law of universal gravitation, it has limits in regards to QM, but it is common to all humans.
That you generate a scale, doesn't make it common to all humans, because someone else can generate another scale.

Gravity is common to all humans and Skeptic Ginger's scales are the source of all morality.
Both claims can be tested using science and with different outcomes:
Gravity is common to all humans.
Skeptic Ginger's scales are not the source of all morality, because we can observe other scales for morality.

Hi Skeptic Ginger. Your claim of morality is falsified by looking at the fact, that there are different sets of morality, where as gravity is not different to different humans. It is that simple.
 
Minoosh said:
A universe from nothing sounds impossible to me, but not to people who have a vastly superior understanding of how it could occur mathematically.
Click to expand...
One thing I have not been sure about when listening to Krause talk about this is if he means there was nothing and the universe appeared from that, or if there was something (possibly) but the universe was created from nothing (while sitting in the something).

Because the current physics (apparently) suggests that it is at least 'possible' to get this entire universe from nothing, but does not say (can't say currently?) if there was a place - a 'something' that then had an event to create the new universe - from nothing. In other words we can say that we can create all matter and energy from nothing, but there may have or may not have been something before it was created - even if it wasn't created from that stuff.

Oh good grief.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom