Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
No.

The proposition of a Big Bang is a conclusion drawn by extrapolating what we can observe about the universe, i.e., that it is expanding. If we were to observe it to contract, we would instead conclude a Big Crunch. If we were to observe it at a steady state, we would instead conclude an eternal universe. The properties of the singularity are a deducible consequence of the conclusion.

This is vastly different than faith in the God that people actually worship.
Click to expand...

what I said only with fancy words
 
LarryS said:
You're technically correct in that the Big Bang theory requires as much of a belief in a miracle as does believing in a God . . . that all the matter and energy and a fixed set of laws of nature came into existence in (less) than an instant.
Click to expand...

Nope, the BBE theory does not say what happened at all 'prior' to the BBE, in fact the BBE theory expressly deals with the solely the events after the big bang.

Any discussion of 'before the BBE' or ''what caused the BBE' is pure speculation. And they are not part of the BBE theory
 
LarryS said:
what I said only with fancy words
Click to expand...

Not really at all

Your words are
that all the matter and energy and a fixed set of laws of nature came into existence in (less) than an instant
Click to expand...
And that is not what Jay Utah said at all, Jay said
The proposition of a Big Bang is a conclusion drawn by extrapolating what we can observe about the universe, i.e., that it is expanding. If we were to observe it to contract, we would instead conclude a Big Crunch. If we were to observe it at a steady state, we would instead conclude an eternal universe. The properties of the singularity are a deducible consequence of the conclusion.
Click to expand...

No where did Jay make any statements about "came into existence"

What 'caused' the BBE is not part of the BBE theory
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
...

And you want the entire field of study of where human morality comes from dismissed because you don't understand how science deals with measurements like deviation from the mean.

...
Click to expand...

So e.g. cheating is deviation from the mean, if fair cooperation is the mean?

I want to learn.

I read somewhere about birds, who cheat to get more food. So it is natural. I get that. But how did you decide that deviation from the mean means bad, if that is what you are saying?
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
what I said only with fancy words
Click to expand...

Then maybe I don't understand the details of your argument, because my intent was to disagree with you. I don't agree that the same kind or degree of faith is required to believe in the Big Bang as to believe in God. I see belief in God -- especially as he is formulated by those who worship him -- as almost entirely propositional. I see belief in the Big Bang as a conclusion reasonably drawn on observation.

Perhaps you meant that belief in the singularity, where the laws of physics as we know them now, don't exist. As a radical departure from the nature we currently know and understand, you would equate that with a belief in something as radical as a god. Am I on the right track?
 
Belz... said:
Nonsense, as usual. You're stringing words and thoughts together than mean nothing. Stop that.

You're still off topic.
Click to expand...

Not quite, it evolved through using this site about the limits of science and I quoted the part of morality. Here is the part about gods:

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

So no, it is not off topic. It is related to what science can't do:
Science doesn't make moral judgments
Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments
Science doesn't tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Click to expand...
 
Dancing David said:
What 'caused' the BBE is not part of the BBE theory
Click to expand...

Cosmology does consider things like an elastic universe in which the singularity that instantiated the Big Bang arose from something. But the other edge to that sword is that the nature of the singularity prevents any causes within what might have given rise to it from affecting us after the Big Bang. The Big Bang is what it is, but the singularity is an effective tabula rasa.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Cosmology does consider things like an elastic universe in which the singularity that instantiated the Big Bang arose from something. But the other edge to that sword is that the nature of the singularity prevents any causes within what might have given rise to it from affecting us after the Big Bang. The Big Bang is what it is, but the singularity is an effective tabula rasa.
Click to expand...

I am just curious now. Does that have any relationship to the different models of probability of a Boltzmann Brain?
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
It is related to what science can't do...
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. Gods as they are worshiped are not limited to the supernatural. Their worshipers explicitly claim also ordinary existence and ordinary influence for their God. The causes and effects attributed to God are testable by science. That much is accepted even by worshipers. They even have elaborate explanations for why the tests might still be right, and their beliefs might still be true.
 
JayUtah said:
Philosophy correctly argues that its duty is to investigate what truth actually means, what knowledge actually entails, and so forth.
Click to expand...
Has philosophy ever succeeded in this duty and reached a consensus as to what truth actually means? If so, then what is the answer? Does philosophy know what truth actually means in a practical sense any better than my three year old grandaughter knows? If not then of what practical use has philosophy been?


JayUtah said:
Real philosophy would realize that an appropriate set of axioms can be adopted which would result in a calculus that's able to achieve the desired result.
Click to expand...
Essentially then, philosophy would adopt the methods of science to design and build a plane? Anything non-scientific philosophy could offer that would be of any practical use in the designing and building of a plane?
 
JayUtah said:
Asked and answered. Gods as they are worshiped are not limited to the supernatural. Their worshipers explicitly claim also ordinary existence and ordinary influence for their God. The causes and effects attributed to God are testable by science. That much is accepted even by worshipers. They even have elaborate explanations for why the tests might still be right, and their beliefs might still be true.
Click to expand...

Not all deists. They are not an organized religion and have no scripture. I bet you that someone of them don't even believe in Heaven and Hell or that God reveals herself.
They just believe in some higher intelligence created the universe and even in some cases are in us and gives us reason. Some of them don't believe in prayer. They believe with reason, that there is something, which created this universe.
 
LarryS said:
You're technically correct in that the Big Bang theory requires as much of a belief in a miracle as does believing in a God . . . that all the matter and energy and a fixed set of laws of nature came into existence in (less) than an instant.
Click to expand...
Actually it doesn't since there is something.
 
ynot said:
Has philosophy ever succeeded in this duty and reached a consensus as to what truth actually means?
Click to expand...

Not to my knowledge.

If not then of what practical use has philosophy been?
Click to expand...

Among other things, I would say that it has shown that while many different (and occasionally discordant) modes of thinking are possible, the existence of that variety alone does not reduce the strength of individual modes. Realizing that one can think outside the box does not immediately refute the thinking that came from the box.

Essentially then, philosophy would adopt the methods of science to design and build a plane?
Click to expand...

Essentially yes. One can be a scientist without stopping being a philosopher.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Not all deists.
Click to expand...

Great. Name some who worship the god whose existence you're arguing.

They are...
Click to expand...

Yes, we can classify them by enumerating their properties.

They just believe...
Click to expand...

Yes, you can name properties that weren't in the original list.

This has been elaborated at length in this thread. The only god whose existence matters is the god that has an observable effect. No effect, no god. You're just arguing the tired god of the gaps. There's a gap before the Big Bang, so that's where you shoehorn your god. And you speculatively attribute to him the properties that derive from nothing besides how well an entity with those properties would fit the gap.
 
JayUtah said:
Curiosity is good, but since you have several questions from me on the table, and are presently pulling out all the stops to avoid answering them, I am not going to engage you directly on any topic other than your answers to my questions.
Click to expand...

Right back at you! Are you an anti-realist or metaphysical realist? What is your stance on metaphysics?

Now morality is not irrelevant. So morality should be left to scientists? Are you with SG on that one?

I get that I deconstruct. I deconstruct metaphysics and that we can't know about metaphysics and thus:
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
 
JayUtah said:
...


Among other things, I would say that it has shown that while many different (and occasionally discordant) modes of thinking are possible, the existence of that variety alone does not reduce the strength of individual modes. Realizing that one can think outside the box does not immediately refute the thinking that came from the box.
...
Click to expand...

So you take for granted that we are in a natural world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom