Hawking says there are no gods

[LarryS]

Jesus Goddamn Christ I never thought I would have describe basic object permanence to so many adults in my life.

Re 'object permanence', if we can't demonstrate/prove objects exist, we can hardlydemonstrate/ prove they are permanent.
Myriad above offers that objects physically exist is a reasonable explanation for consistency between observers - I can except that.
Object Permananence is an explanation, not a fact beyond questioning.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Re 'object permanence', if we can't demonstrate/prove objects exist, we can hardlydemonstrate/ prove they are permanent.
Myriad above offers that objects physically exist is a reasonable explanation for consistency between observers - I can except that.
Object Permananence is an explanation, not a fact beyond questioning.

Again if you want to argue "Okay but you can't prove everything we know isn't really an illusion and magic makes stuff happen when we're not looking" knock yourself out. At least you can do it in fewer words that Tommy.

If you don't think the tree is still there when you close your eyes because we can't prove magic doesn't make it disappear and reappear when we open and close our eyes, fine, I can't argue against that. I also can't converse with you as a rational human being.

 

[LarryS]

Again if you want to argue "Okay but you can't prove everything we know isn't really an illusion and magic makes stuff happen when we're not looking" knock yourself out. At least you can do it in fewer words that Tommy.

If you don't think the tree is still there when you close your eyes because we can't prove magic doesn't make it disappear and reappear when we open and close our eyes, fine, I can't argue against that. I also can't converse with you as a rational human being.

This is because you are entrenched in the dogma, like any decent priest.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is because you are entrenched in the dogma, like any decent priest.

So "Reality exists" is now dogma. We've reached this level.

No I can't. If you think you have the right to hold a "Reality doesn't really exist, magic can make anything happen at any time, even basic cause and effect as a concept isn't real" card in your hand and play it anytime you get an answer you don't like, you are operating on the level of the functionally insane.

 

[LarryS]

So "Reality exists" is now dogma. We've reached this level.

No I can't. If you think you have the right to hold a "Reality doesn't really exist, magic can make anything happen at any time, even basic cause and effect as a concept isn't real" card in your hand and play it anytime you get an answer you don't like, you are operating on the level of the functionally insane.

I never said 'reality exists' is dogma, I'm saying 'object permanence' is dogma.
Nor am I speaking of magic - this is some wild strawman you bring to every conversation.
I am simply referring to our experience - - We see (smell, touch, etc) an elephant in the room. We turn away. We have to turn back to verify it's still there. 'Object Permanence' is a belief.

 

[JoeMorgue]

*Rubs my temples* No "Object Permanence" is when an infant, and I thought this happened to all of us but boy was I wrong, stopped thinking that things just disappear when they stop looking at them.

Little did I know that infants are in fact amazing Philosophers daring to question the dogma of... the world actually exists.

 

[ynot]

I never said 'reality exists' is dogma, I'm saying 'object permanence' is dogma.
Nor am I speaking of magic - this is some wild strawman you bring to every conversation.
I am simply referring to our experience - - We see (smell, touch, etc) an elephant in the room. We turn away. We have to turn back to verify it's still there. 'Object Permanence' is a belief.

Do you know the difference between disappearing from vision and disappearing from existence?

We don't have to "turn back" to smell, hear, touch, taste an elephant to verify "it's still there".

Does anything actually exist for blind people?

 

[LarryS]

Do you know the difference between disappearing from vision and disappearing from existence?

We don't have to "turn back" to smell, hear, touch, taste an elephant to verify "it's still there". Does anything actually exist for blind people?

Yes I know the difference. And after leaving the room yes we do have to verify the elephant is still there thru direct experience or by proxy (ie video, sensors, etc.).

Blind people have other senses (hopefully) - they have touch to verify thye elephant is still there.

 

[xjx388]

You're so convinced that you're so smart that you don't know what is going on.



The Greeks did not believe that gods were things that could be obseved like vulgar things ("photographed"). They didn't believe that they lived in palaces like temples on the top of a mountain that anyone could visit as if they were a tourist. Your ignorance of the history of religions is as imposing as your arrogance.

If humanity don't believe in the gods of Olympus today it is not because of increased rationality, but because they were replaced by other god and demigods as irrational as them.



What we are discussing is whether science has presented evidence that gods, in general, do not exist. I am waiting for you "and yours" to present some evidence of it.

Oh yeah, it is so obvious that you don't find a single one. This evidence is like gods! Invisible.

We’ll hold on a minute...if you leave open the possibility that a god can be undetectable or even that there is a possibility that real things can be undetectable, then can you really say that any belief in god is irrational?

IOW, on what basis are you saying that gods are irrational?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yes I know the difference. And after leaving the room yes we do have to verify the elephant is still there thru direct experience or by proxy (ie video, sensors, etc.).

Blind people have other senses (hopefully) - they have touch to verify thye elephant is still there.

WTF?

I'm going to assume you don't understand the term. JoeM and Ynot are explaining it to you. I suggest you re-read their posts then maybe do some homework looking the concept up.

 

[ynot]

Yes I know the difference. And after leaving the room yes we do have to verify the elephant is still there thru direct experience or by proxy (ie video, sensors, etc.).

Blind people have other senses (hopefully) - they have touch to verify thye elephant is still there.

Ynot covers his eyes with his hands , , ,

"Where has LarryS gone? LarryS has disappeared! Aaaaannnd . . . BOO!

 

[ynot]

IOW, on what basis are you saying that gods are irrational?

Gods are purely imaginary. God beliefs are therefore irrational.

 

[BadBoy]

Once again: I didn't ask for an explanation of why I perceive an elephant. I asked for an explanation of why, when I perceive an elephant, I also perceive that any other people who are nearby also perceive an elephant.

My explanation is that elephants exist independently of our experience. This is a very robust and reasonably parsimonious explanation; for instance, it also explains how I could be born into a world, and my species could evolve into a world, prior to having experienced it. The world existing independently of our experience neatly solves such mysteries. That's why we posit existence in the first place. It's a conclusion based on experience, not an assumption.

Tommy has promised an explanation, which I hope will prove to be of at least comparable quality, and which he claims does not need to posit existence. I eagerly await that explanation.

Am I allowed to use your TLA Winner post, with due reference to you of course?

It's great, more people need to read it.

 

[David Mo]

We’ll hold on a minute...if you leave open the possibility that a god can be undetectable or even that there is a possibility that real things can be undetectable, then can you really say that any belief in god is irrational?

IOW, on what basis are you saying that gods are irrational?

I have said many times that believing in gods is irrational. You can believe in an undetectable thing if you have rational hints of it. This is not the case of gods.

What I am defending here is that only science cannot show that gods don't exist. The arguments against the existence of god are basically philosophical. Of course, science aids as in many other philosophical issues.

The discussion about the gods of the Greeks raised when I demanded a scientific article about the inexistence of gods. If the issue is scientific it should be studied in some scientific paper. Logic, is it not? As they don't find anyone someone claimed that a photo of Olympus (science?) can show that Greeks' gods don't exist. I was trying to explain that Greeks' concept of gods was more complex that that and would not be refuted simply by a photo.
It seems that they think that this explanation implies that I believe in Zeus and Aphrodite.

I think that their problem is an irrational hate of philosophy --which they don't really know-- and the admission that if one don't accept his reasons to believe X this is because he doesn't believe in X.
Since they worship science if you say that our reasons to be atheist are not only science, you are a camouflaged sanctimonious or worse.

It is not easy calmly discuss with some people. They are dogmatic believers and never listen. Sometimes I would rather argue with Mother Teresa of Calcutta than with them.

 

[ynot]

I have said many times that believing in gods is irrational. You can believe in an undetectable thing if you have rational hints of it. This is not the case of gods.

What I am defending here is that only science cannot show that gods don't exist. The arguments against the existence of god are basically philosophical. Of course, science aids as in many other philosophical issues.

The discussion about the gods of the Greeks raised when I demanded a scientific article about the inexistence of gods. If the issue is scientific it should be studied in some scientific paper. Logic, is it not? As they don't find anyone someone claimed that a photo of Olympus (science?) can show that Greeks' gods don't exist. I was trying to explain that Greeks' concept of gods was more complex that that and would not be refuted simply by a photo.
It seems that they think that this explanation implies that I believe in Zeus and Aphrodite.
I think that their problem is an irrational hate of philosophy --which they don't really know-- and the admission that if one don't accept his reasons to believe X this is because he doesn't believe in X.
Since they worship science if you say that our reasons to be atheist are not only science, you are a camouflaged sanctimonious or worse.

It is not easy calmly discuss with some people. They are dogmatic believers and never listen. Sometimes I would rather argue with Mother Teresa of Calcutta than with them.

Spoken like an irrational science hater and worshiper of philosophy. (see how that works?)

 

[David Mo]

Spoken like an irrational science hater and worshiper of philosophy. (see how that works?)

Those are empty words. I don't believe that philosophy solves everything and that everything that isn't philosophy is rubbish as the worshippers of science believe. See the difference?
On the contrary, I am very critical of philosophy that believes it can establish facts for itself like metaphysics. But I also see the limits of science. Do you see the difference?

 

[ynot]

Those are empty words. I don't believe that philosophy solves everything and that everything that isn't philosophy is rubbish as the worshippers of science believe. See the difference?
On the contrary, I am very critical of philosophy that believes it can establish facts for itself like metaphysics. But I also see the limits of science. Do you see the difference?

You obviously don't "see how that works". My deliberately "empty words" were intentionally mimicking and mocking your "empty words" to demonstrate how easy it is to use "empty words". Your emotional investment in philosophy is reflected in your emotional defence of it.

The reason most people prefer science over philosophy as a pathway to truth is because science has been conclusively proven to be a far better pathway to truth than philosophy (or any other method). Not because they hate philosophy or worship science. Do you see the difference?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

I have learned that if I close the tab I'm viewing this thread in, I have no way of knowing if it, or any of you guys still exist, or were ever more than a figment of my magical Boltzmann brain imagination.

That gives me some peace of mind...

 

[Belz...]

So what is unreal?

Look up a dictionary.

 

[Roboramma]

If you don't think the tree is still there when you close your eyes because we can't prove magic doesn't make it disappear and reappear when we open and close our eyes, fine, I can't argue against that. I also can't converse with you as a rational human being.

Myriad made a perfectly reasonable argument against exactly the point that you say you can't argue against.

I think his argument is quite good and is basically the one that we all intuitively apply. LarryS admitted that it's a valid argument, so I don't think there's really much left to say about it.