Hawking says there are no gods

[JoeMorgue]

A lot of modern Christians seem to think god only hides from scientific tests and observation. "He" supposedly reveals "himself" quite clearly and obviously to people under other circumstances (the primary one being something like "having a receptive and open mind and heart".)

That's essentially it. "God totally exists he just hides using magic whenever big mean science looks for him."

 

[ynot]

"Time is what stops everything from happening at once."

I don’t like that definition (sounds clever though). Time isn’t a thing that stops or starts anything. Time is the consequence of everything not happening all at once. Everything happening all at once would be the same as nothing happening at all. Time is a generic term that recognizes everything happens in a contiguous sequence of events.

“Once upon a time there was a time when there was no time, then time unexplainably/magically happened”.

I don’t buy the story, either from religion or science.

 

[Garrison]

A lot of modern Christians seem to think god only hides from scientific tests and observation. "He" supposedly reveals "himself" quite clearly and obviously to people under other circumstances (the primary one being something like "having a receptive and open mind and heart".)

True, but still kind of hard to hide it if its only the Christian hearts that are getting their prayers answered.

 

[3point14]

A lot of modern Christians seem to think god only hides from scientific tests and observation. "He" supposedly reveals "himself" quite clearly and obviously to people under other circumstances (the primary one being something like "having a receptive and open mind and heart".)

And not having a camera handy.

 

[qayak]

Strangely, there is no way of knowing what there 'was' 'prior to the Big Bang".
In this universe it is a term without meaning and purely speculation.
In this universe time began at the moment of the big bang.

Anything else is unsupported speculation and the land of We Don't Know and Can Not Observe
It may be that there will a theoretical breakthrough at some point and observations.

None exist at this time

Back in the 1980's or 90's the pope of the time asked a group of physicists to the Vatican to discuss the Vatican's acceptance of the Big Bang Theory being true. At that time the Vatican's position was that god caused the Big Bang and the pope asked the physicists not to consider what came before the Big Bang. It was Hawking that pointed out it was too late, scientists had been working on that for over a decade already.

We actually get evidence of what is outside our universe by things that appear in our universe and then disappear from it. We also see evidence of things outside our universe having effects on our universe. Reading the book Flatland will give an idea of how that could work.

 

[ynot]

We actually get evidence of what is outside our universe by things that appear in our universe and then disappear from it. We also see evidence of things outside our universe having effects on our universe. Reading the book Flatland will give an idea of how that could work.

I don't accept/believe what you say here. Why can't these things simply disappear from our current ability to observe them but remain within our Universe? Why can't these effects simply be caused by currently unobservable things within our Universe? Why are these possibilities less likely than what you claim? At least we know our Universe DOES exist.

Flatland is fiction. The Bible (another work of fiction) also gives an idea how and why existence "could work". I find neither even slightly credible.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You don't even seem able to understand this: "... So all three metaethical views discussed here—expressivism, error theory and moral realism—remain on the table."
That is the end game. Meta-ethics as biology is either individual feelings and/or no facts; or facts.
You use a link to claim it is a fact and the link tells you it is not.

All of those philosophical paths start with the initial biological evolution.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is your source? Appart from Walt Disney Pictures.
My main source: Jean-Pierre Vernant: Mythe et religion en Grèce ancienne, Paris, Éditions du Seuil, 1990. Among others.

So a 30 year old book on ancient Greek myths is supposed to support what exactly?

 

[kellyb]

I don't accept/believe what you say here. Why can't these things simply disappear from our current ability to observe them but remain within our Universe? Why can't these effects simply be caused by currently unobservable things within our Universe? Why are these possibilities less likely than what you claim? At least we know our Universe DOES exist.

I don't think any of it is known for sure, or even necessarily more or less likely than any other possibility.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wikipedia against Jean-Pierre Vernant! I should have imagined.

For a deeper understanding of what the gods were, I advise you to read chapter V et seq. of Jean-Pierre Vernant: Myth and Society in Ancient Greece. You can see it here: https://philarchive.org/archive/TIEOONv1 .
Youre welcome.

Because we don't understand what gods are?

 

[ynot]

I don't think any of it is known for sure, or even necessarily more or less likely than any other possibility.

That's my point. I was challenging qayak's "We actually get evidence" and "We also see evidence" claims.

 

[kellyb]

That's my point. I was challenging qayak's "We actually get evidence" claim.

"Evidence" is a kind of slippery concept. Mere anecdotes are technically "evidence" - they're just not necessarily compelling evidence, or evidence of what the anecdote teller claims (it could be evidence that the person providing the anecdote is insane, or a liar.)

 

[ynot]

"Evidence" is a kind of slippery concept. Mere anecdotes are technically "evidence" - they're just not necessarily compelling evidence, or evidence of what the anecdote teller claims (it could be evidence that the person providing the anecdote is insane, or a liar.)

Irrelevant, qayak wasn't claiming mere anecdotes.

 

[kellyb]

Irrelevant, qayak wasn't claiming mere anecdotes.

I think seeing the mysterious appearance and disappearance of subatomic particles, and interpreting that as "evidence" (as in, possible evidence) of "things from outside our universe", is akin to evidence gathered from anecdotes.

 

[ynot]

I think seeing the mysterious appearance and disappearance of subatomic particles, and interpreting that as "evidence" (as in, possible evidence) of "things from outside our universe", is akin to evidence gathered from anecdotes.

Anecdotes don't start with "We actually get" or "We also see".

"Evidence" and "possible evidence" are distinctly different.

If you see a UFO don't claim it's an IFOFOS (Identified Flying Object From Outer Space).

 

[kellyb]

"Evidence" and "possible evidence" are distinctly different.

No, they're not. Not really. It's all a spectrum from "exceedingly weak evidence" to "proof" (or virtual proof), and the strength of the evidence is kind of in the eye of the beholder(s) at the end of the day.

 

[ynot]

No, they're not. Not really. It's all a spectrum from "exceedingly weak evidence" to "proof" (or virtual proof), and the strength of the evidence is kind of in the eye of the beholder(s) at the end of the day.

Philosobabble rubbish. I will leave you to wallow in it.

ETA - Would you be happy to fly in a plane that was designed and built based on "the strength of the evidence is kind of in the eye of the beholder(s)"

 

[kellyb]

Philosobabble rubbish. I will leave you to wallow in it.

Maybe you can explain to me the difference between evidence and possible evidence?

Also:

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion

https://app.shoreline.edu/doldham/SRR.html

Evidence is the concrete facts used to support a claim. Ideally, evidence is something everyone agrees on, or something that anyone could, with sufficient training and equipment, verify for themselves.

Evidence comes in many types, which I discuss in detail here.

At its most basic, evidence is something that can be perceived with the senses. A great deal of scientific evidence is observable phenomena, like the change in color when two chemicals are mixed in an experiment, or the light emitted by a distant star, or the structure of bones in a fossil. In some cases, though, what you’re observing is very removed from the claim. For example, if I say “Einstein said that space is curved” as a fact to support my claim, the observable fact is the written record of what Einstein said, not a physical phenomenon that relates directly to my claim.

There is no clear-cut line between a claim and a “fact.” Things that are facts in one context might be claims in another. For example, “the earth orbits the sun” was once a claim (i.e. an unproven or controversial assertion), but now nearly everyone accepts it as a fact.

 

[kellyb]

ETA - Would you be happy to fly in a plane that was designed and built based on "the strength of the evidence is kind of in the eye of the beholder(s)"

For some people, the statistics on commercial planes being safe to fly in is insufficient, and they refuse to fly. They just flat-out don't think it's safe.

I'm convinced commercial airlines are reasonably safe. I'd be a little twitchier about getting on a small, private airplane.

The evidence indicating that the Challenger space shuttle was going to be safe was compelling to a lot of people. Oops.

 

[ynot]

For some people, the statistics on commercial planes being safe to fly in is insufficient, and they refuse to fly. They just flat-out don't think it's safe.

I'm convinced commercial airlines are reasonably safe. I'd be a little twitchier about getting on a small, private airplane.

The evidence indicating that the Challenger space shuttle was going to be safe was compelling to a lot of people. Oops.

None of that addresses or answers the question (philosoevasion) . . .

Would you be happy to fly in a plane that was designed and built based on "the strength of the evidence is kind of in the eye of the beholder(s)"

ETA - The above represents "possible evidence". Or would you rather fly in a plane designed and built based on verified and confirmed evidence?