Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
Darat said:
Wow, so much straw you could build an entire village of straw houses populated with straw people.
Click to expand...

Nice counter. Could you use more words?

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.
Click to expand...
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

By definition because a natural assumption can say nothing about the supernatural, because naturalism as how the word works don't take into account the supernatural. That naturalism can deal with the supernatural is a contradiction in terms.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Nice counter. Could you use more words?


https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

By definition because a natural assumption can say nothing about the supernatural, because naturalism as how the word works don't take into account the supernatural. That naturalism can deal with the supernatural is a contradiction in terms.
Click to expand...
I've no obligation to support arguments and comments that I've never made. If you want to argue against your own comments and arguments feel free to do so.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
So science can't tell if there are any god?!! We agree, right?
Click to expand...

Not if those gods are expressly defined as being beyond science*, no.
This is not the gotcha you think it is.

*Which people only started to do when they saw that the progress of the sciences left smaller and smaller gaps for a god to hide in... Before that, science was seen as a tool for understanding the creation of the god-who-obviously-exists-so-why-doubt-that.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Not if those gods are expressly defined as being beyond science*, no.
This is not the gotcha you think it is.

*Which people only started to do when they saw that the progress of the sciences left smaller and smaller gaps for a god to hide in... Before that, science was seen as a tool for understanding the creation of the god-who-obviously-exists-so-why-doubt-that.
Click to expand...

You need to read yourself some Aristotle. You don't even need to read the primary texts.

Just google "first unmoved mover". That idea is older than science.
 
You make a lot of assumptions about what other people have and haven't read.

Also, being older than science is not the same as 'beyond the scope of science'.

You tried the same in your response to JayUtah's post about criteria for good philosophy... you tried to argue that because philosophy existed before degrees, you didn't need a degree to claim you were a greater expert than other posters.
Try that with practicing medicine and see how far it gets you.
 
Hi JayUtah.

Let me show you how it works.
We have science including biology.
So morality is a result of biology and science can do morality.
The first one is a fact and the second one is not a fact.

Skeptic Ginger seems to argue that I don't accept the first one. I do, I just don't accept the second one.
She linked to a philosophy site and showed that morality is biology and now I am waiting for her answer on whether science can do morality.
Just look up thread.

Now about the standard in philosophy.
There are 2 -
the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience
Click to expand...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy
Notice the "or".
You can tackle the universe using a metaphysical approach or a phenomenological one. I am in effect doing a combination, a sort of natural realism and phenomenology in the sense of "what matters".
"What matters" or "useful" or all these other words are in effect qualia.
So I maybe confuse you, because you are on the side of some sort of in effect naturalism, so you are not used to being questioned about the status of - "what we find useful". Neither about what the "we" and "useful" are in regards to the fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.
That are the 2 standards - what can we say using science about the universe and what can we say about the fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.
Well, they are connected but different because while the one is a result of the other, there is a non-reductive element to the fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience, which can't be answered using science alone, because of how science is done.
So Skeptic Ginger can answer the first part (reality as a whole), but she hasn't answered the second part.

That is how you can't pin me down, I accept methodological naturalism and switch to "what matters" as a part of the fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.
So what is that I want from you? To acknowledge both.
That what matters to you and the "we", that you are a part of, may not be the same for other humans.
What you do with your life is your life. When you talk about the universe and "what matters" for a "we", you are doing both.

That is the 2 standards in philosophy - what is real and how that matters! :)
Now back to God and the OP.
Whether there is a God and if God matters, are not the same. They are interconnected but the first is the universe as such(what is the universe?) and the second one is part of the fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience as how humans make sense of the universe. That is at best in part soft science and at worst humanities, philosophy and religion.

Regards
 
Last edited:
Porpoise of Life said:
You make a lot of assumptions about what other people have and haven't read.

Also, being older than science is not the same as 'beyond the scope of science'.

You tried the same in your response to JayUtah's post about criteria for good philosophy... you tried to argue that because philosophy existed before degrees, you didn't need a degree to claim you were a greater expert than other posters.
Try that with practicing medicine and see how far it gets you.
Click to expand...

Science can't do metaphysics about the supernatural.
You can do metaphysics, but then you are not doing science.
Science solved the problem of metaphysics by stop doing that and settle for philosophical naturalism in a sense.
 
- It made the world and it lives in the magic cave
- We took torches and went down there. There's nothing there.

- Oh, no, it lives on the really high mountain over there
- Yeah, we got crampons and ropes and went up there - There's nuttin.

- Oh, no, sorry, it made the world and lives in the sky
- We built a really big rocket and an absolutely awesome telescope. There's nothing there but spinning rocks.

- Oh, no, it's everywhere, you just can see, hear, smell, taste, touch or in any other way interact with it.
- Sure it is...
- See! You woin't go look for it, it must exist.
- You're a credulous idiot. How much money did you give the priest?
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Science can't do metaphysics about the supernatural.
You can do metaphysics, but then you are not doing science.
Science solved the problem of metaphysics by stop doing that and settle for philosophical naturalism in a sense.
Click to expand...

The knowledge we gain through the application of science can inform our metaphysics though. That's what people mean when they come to a conclusion about the existence of the gods that are claimed to exist, based on what we know about the natural world.

Just like when people claim 'science tells us we should eat lots of veggies, cut down on sugar, and exercise regularly', they don't mean that that's literally a natural force like gravity, and if you'd respond with "Science can't tell you to want to be healthy, it can just inform you what happens if you do certain things. Preferring not to have your feet amputated because of diabetes isn't science, so why won't you admit that the question of what is proper nutrition lies beyond the ken of mere science?", "You can't prove scientifically there isn't an abstract Essence of Foodness", or "Food existed before science, so you can't tell me a food scientist knows more about food than someone who's been eating stuff all his life", you'd be laughed at.

In fact, that's what's happening here.
 
kellyb said:
First line of last paragraph:
Click to expand...
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.
Click to expand...

I didn't watch the lecture, or read the book, but going on that quote, that just means our time started at the big bang, doesn't mean time didn't exist before that, it's just events that happened before the big bang (in time) have no influence on events happening after.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Cite the paper that shows there is no time prior to the Big Bang.
Click to expand...

Er... time and space are features of the universe. No universe, no space or time. Outside of a different universe with either, that is.

RecoveringYuppy said:
This forum can't be rescued from it's stupidity.
Click to expand...

Speaking of stupidity, it's "its", the possessive, not "it" followed by the verb "to be".

Also, it seems that you weren't genuinely asking about time before the big bang. Don't know what your point was, to be honest.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
The knowledge we gain through the application of science can inform our metaphysics though. That's what people mean when they come to a conclusion about the existence of the gods that are claimed to exist, based on what we know about the natural world.

Just like when people claim 'science tells us we should eat lots of veggies, cut down on sugar, and exercise regularly', they don't mean that that's literally a natural force like gravity, and if you'd respond with "Science can't tell you to want to be healthy, it can just inform you what happens if you do certain things. Preferring not to have your feet amputated because of diabetes isn't science, so why won't you admit that the question of what is proper nutrition lies beyond the ken of mere science?", "You can't prove scientifically there isn't an abstract Essence of Foodness", or "Food existed before science, so you can't tell me a food scientist knows more about food than someone who's been eating stuff all his life", you'd be laughed at.

In fact, that's what's happening here.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am a naturalist and atheist. And that is informed in part by science.
But don't use knowledge as to claim what the universe is as having existence independently of the mind. Because the only thing you can know is that the universe exists independently of the mind. It is true but a form of a tautology.
In practice it is different assumptions of what is independently of the mind, other than it being independent of the mind. Or apathy towards metaphysics and realism.
Now does naturalism works? Yes, but it stops at if there is anything or nothing "outside" the universe. And that is it in this thread.
"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?"
Click to expand...

Nobody's thinking or acceptance can cause there to be or decide if there is nothing or something. And you only know through observation, but you can't because observation is "inside" the universe and in time and space.

As for qualia, you don't have to tie that to metaphysics. You can deal with that as epistemology.
So what matters to you as you has the aspect of being a quale. That is tied to anti-realism in meta-ethics and yes, don't be a candidate for a Darwin Award, but there is more to life than jumping off a tall building and trying to fly.
You guys always choose thing that can get you killed if you don't do it "right". But there is more to life than that.

Science is awesome, I owe my life to science, but that doesn't mean I have to believe that science is everything. And I don't.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
That doesn't make sense. The only reason to change "not rule OUT <supernatural>" to "rule IN <supernatural>" and make such a big noise about it is to imply that I support <supernatural> as the most likely explanation.

i.e. it is the same strawman that ynot keeps trying on me.
Click to expand...
It's no strawman and the point, which was a quite small quiet point, wasn't that I thought you were implying that you support <supernatural> at all.

The point being that "I don't know" is the default position until we can show otherwise. Any mention of either ruling in or out the supernatural is not warranted at all is all I am saying. And until the supernatural (which to be honest I have no idea what on earth that can even be in reality - supernatural has no meaning for me) can be shown to exist there is no point in mentioning it with respect to any observed but unexplained phenomenon at all.
 
Last edited:
BadBoy said:
It's no strawman and the point, which was a quite small quite point, wasn't that I thought you were implying that you support <supernatural> at all.

The point being that "I don't know" is the default position until we can show otherwise. Any mention of either ruling in or out the supernatural is not warranted at all is all I am saying. And until the supernatural (which to be honest I have no idea what on earth that can even be in reality - supernatural has no meaning for me) can be shown to exist there is no point in mentioning it with respect to any observed but unexplained phenomenon at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is it. :)
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Let me show you how it works.
Click to expand...

Don't be condescending. Just answer the questions regarding by what criteria you judged yourself to be an expert philosopher.

That is how you can't pin me down...
Click to expand...

You can't be pinned down because you evade meaningful questions and respond to everything with heaping helpings of irrelevant home-cooked gibberish which you try to say is philosophy.

Just answer my questions without all the diversions, if you please.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Don't be condescending. Just answer the questions regarding by what criteria you judged yourself to be an expert philosopher.



You can't be pinned down because you evade meaningful questions and respond to everything with heaping helpings of irrelevant home-cooked gibberish which you try to say is philosophy.

Just answer my questions without all the diversions, if you please.
Click to expand...

I love how he says "pin me down" as if that would be a bad thing. Says a lot, really.
 
So basically people are trying to argue they aren't "wrong" because they define "wrong" as something other than "I am making a statement that doesn't align with the facts."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom