Hawking says there are no gods

[JayUtah]

The funny part that the standard for that is yours and your group's.

Incoherent nonsense.

 

[Garrison]

Right and wrong are also axiomatic.

Well no, in no way are either of those things 'self-evident',unless that's another word you're redefining, like 'god' and 'truth'.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

It is true, that there are no positive evidence for gods? Yes! Doesn't that mean that religion is not a fact? No! Is it a fact that humans can get away in some cases with different world-views, who when compared amount to contradictions? Yes.
What should "we" do about that? I don't know, because there is no "we" in that. That is a case of different social facts depending on who you ask.
That is the end game of the OP.
Even if you accept that there are no gods, it doesn't follow what you should do about that. That is the is-ought problem.

 

[Belz...]

It is true, that there are no positive evidence for gods? Yes! Doesn't that mean that religion is not a fact? No! Is it a fact that humans can get away in some cases with different world-views, who when compared amount to contradictions?

Yes, people believe in gods. That says nothing about the existence of these gods beyond the belief. You've been told this a long time ago. Why don't you learn?

 

[JayUtah]

Is it a fact that humans can get away in some cases with different world-views, who when compared amount to contradictions? Yes.

Irrelevant. The worldview in which Hawking is arguing that physics has no room for gods is the same worldview in which religious people are arguing gods exist. We know this because the pro-gods campe are the ones who keep trying to reconcile in a way that lets them believe both in their God and in the pieces of science they like. They're trying to bring God into Hawking's worldview.

What should "we" do about that? I don't know, because there is no "we" in that.

Irrelevant. The only "we" that matters in this thread includes both Hawking and the believers in the god he sees no room for.

We get it. You think you're a really intelligent philosopher. That doesn't mean you're saying anything that aids in understanding.

 

[Dancing David]

The problem is people equate "The Land of We Don't Know" (or "The Land of We Can Never Know" or "The Land of that Question Doesn't Even Make Sense and Isn't Valid") with "The Land Where I'm Not Wrong Yet."

Yes advanced God of the Gaps...

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yes advanced God of the Gaps...

Agreed. I early described as "God of the Gaps without even the courtesy of there actually being a gap."

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Irrelevant. The worldview in which Hawking is arguing that physics has no room for gods is the same worldview in which religious people are arguing gods exist. We know this because the pro-gods campe are the ones who keep trying to reconcile in a way that lets them believe both in their God and in the pieces of science they like. They're trying to bring God into Hawking's worldview.



Irrelevant. The only "we" that matters in this thread includes both Hawking and the believers in the god he sees no room for.

We get it. You think you're a really intelligent philosopher. That doesn't mean you're saying anything that aids in understanding.

They are different worldviews.
We end there. I accept them as different and you hold to the functional effect that there is only one correct worldview.
We can't bridge that.

 

[Belz...]

They are different worldviews.

And yet only one world.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Tommy answer this question. Yes or no. No word salad, no evasions, no gibbierish. Anything other than a yes or no answer will be an admission that you are not arguing honestly.

Do me and you share the same reality?

 

[dann]

That is a case of different social facts depending on who you ask.

I hope that by "different social facts," you don't mean alternative facts.
I'm pretty sure that Stephen Jay Gould would not have been a fan of the present U.S. Administration ...

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Yes, people believe in gods. That says nothing about the existence of these gods beyond the belief. You've been told this a long time ago. Why don't you learn?

And reductive and non-reductive physicalism can't both be true, yet that is irrelevant, despite for one of them it must be case, that it says nothing about how reality is beyond the belief itself.
That humans have beliefs about the universe as such, which are mere beliefs, are not unique for religious people.
Verification and falsifiable as methods in science can't both be correct. Positivism and non-positivism in science can't both be correct. The list goes on.
Yet somehow it is only relevant for religious people, because if you are an atheist and accept science, it doesn't matter that the different versions of atheistic beliefs, what reality is within the non-religious variants, what science is for the different variants and whether science can do morality or not all end up as contradictions.
Don't get me started on politics, rights and a better world.

It is not unique to religious people, that they hold mere beliefs. So this notion that you and I must hold the same worldview, just because we are atheists, is not a fact and indeed for all cases where atheists disagree about what the universe is beside the no-belief in gods, the same thing happens as for different religious beliefs. With logic some of those beliefs must be mere beliefs, yet I am not supposed to say that, right?

The only way I can explain that is with cognitive relativism. And I accept that you as a human do so differently. But I don't accept that if we are going to claim that we can explain the universe.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Tommy YOU DO NOT GET YOUR OWN REALITY. NOD YOUR HEAD IF YOU UNDERSTAND.

 

[Belz...]

And reductive and non-reductive physicalism can't both be true, yet that is irrelevant, despite for one of them it must be case, that it says nothing about how reality is beyond the belief itself.
That humans have beliefs about the universe as such, which are mere beliefs, are not unique for religious people.
Verification and falsifiable as methods in science can't both be correct. Positivism and non-positivism in science can't both be correct. The list goes on.
Yet somehow it is only relevant for religious people, because if you are an atheist and accept science, it doesn't matter that the different versions of atheistic beliefs, what reality is within the non-religious variants, what science is for the different variants and whether science can do morality or not all end up as contradictions.
Don't get me started on politics, rights and a better world.

It is not unique to religious people, that they hold mere beliefs. So this notion that you and I must hold the same worldview, just because we are atheists, is not a fact and indeed for all cases where atheists disagree about what the universe is beside the no-belief in gods, the same thing happens as for different religious beliefs. With logic some of those beliefs must be mere beliefs, yet I am not supposed to say that, right?

The only way I can explain that is with cognitive relativism. And I accept that you as a human do so differently. But I don't accept that if we are going to claim that we can explain the universe.

Word salad is not an argument.

Stop playing with words. Beliefs in a thing does not make that thing exist.

 

[kellyb]

Tommy YOU DO NOT GET YOUR OWN REALITY. NOD YOUR HEAD IF YOU UNDERSTAND.

He's totally shaking his head left to right in the "no" signal. He says that's nodding. Axiomatically.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Tommy answer this question. Yes or no. No word salad, no evasions, no gibbierish. Anything other than a yes or no answer will be an admission that you are not arguing honestly.

Do me and you share the same reality?

No, not exactly the same reality. We are different in time, space and other aspects. We share the regularities and differ as individuals. E.g. if I die, you don't die, but we all die yet at different times and in different parts of space.

If the laws of the universe are fixed, the individual differences are also fixed and we are not exactly the same.
Regularities and variations.
All humans, which can function in reality have functional brains(regularity), yet there are observable differences for some cases as how they function individually(variations).

The exactly same is not the same as similar. So, no, we don't share the exactly same reality. Reality is similar to us in some cases and different in others.
Causation is the same overall to us both, but because of nature(biology)/nurture there are shared regularities and differences; i.e variations.
We share brute physical facts, but are different because of variations in biology and culture.

So no!!!

Hope it confirms to you, that I am not in reality.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No, not exactly the same reality.

THEN WHY THE EVERLOVING CHEESCAKE ON TOAST ARE YOU ARGUING WITH US?

If we're in the goddamn Star Trek mirror universe and you're in the Abrahms Universe what... is... the... point?

The rest was just more gibberish.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

THEN WHY THE EVERLOVING CHEESCAKE ON TOAST ARE YOU ARGUING WITH US?

If we're in the goddamn Star Trek mirror universe and you're in the Abrahms Universe what... is... the... point?
The rest was just more gibberish.

Well, that can't be the case, because you are debating me.
You seem to have a problem with differences in time and space and other aspects. We are at different time and space, yet some aspects of reality are similar, otherwise we couldn't communicate.
Someone(S1): Reality is the same to all humans.
S2: Yes.
S3: No.
I can't help you. Reality is a combination of regularities and variations starting with physics, but reality is not one regularity; i.e. the same reality.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh so we're in the same universe when it's convenient for you, in different universes when it's not.

Great you've discovered a reality semi-permeable membrane.

You're in the Matrix and the code is drunk.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Oh so we're in the same universe when it's convenient for you, in different universes when it's not.

Great you've discovered a reality semi-permeable membrane.

You're in the Matrix and the code is drunk.

Since we are communicating, it would seem that so are you. And we share the same code.