Hawking says there are no gods

[JayUtah]

No...

That has nothing to do with my question, Tommy.

You are attempting to summarize my arguments. You are constantly getting them wrong. I believe you are doing so deliberately, but for a moment I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If I tell you that your summary is not what I'm arguing, do you agree that this makes you wrong?

It's a mind-bogglingly simple question, Tommy. See if you can answer it without all the irrelevant screed.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Of course, that is part of 'we don't know'

 

[LarryS]

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

I am referring to the Big Bang itself (not prior or after). It requires all matter and energy and laws of nature (created) in one instant - or more accurately, with zero passage of time.

 

[JayUtah]

...or more accurately, with zero passage of time.

Time itself is part of what came into being at the Big Bang. Does that affect the way you think about it?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

That has nothing to do with my question, Tommy.

You are attempting to summarize my arguments. You are constantly getting them wrong. I believe you are doing so deliberately, but for a moment I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If I tell you that your summary is not what I'm arguing, do you agree that this makes you wrong?

It's a mind-bogglingly simple question, Tommy. See if you can answer it without all the irrelevant screed.

No, because I can have gotten it wrong, but so can you. If there is something you have overlooked and I point it out, then that reverses it.

Science is authoritative, because it tells us how reality works independently of our beliefs as single humans. Science speaks for all.
So when you speak with knowledge of, how reality works in general, you speak with authority and you use science. That is what this is about. Do you have the authority to say, that you know, that there are no gods?
Start here:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/

I am deconstructing your authority over knowledge, because I say you don't have it.
You got it, right! I deconstruct.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Time itself is part of what came into being at the Big Bang. Does that affect the way you think about it?

Your claim about the singularity rests on deduction as you claimed about something you can't check; i.e. the singularity, so it is not experimental science.
It rests on the assumption that universe is fair and that your thinking actually says something about a singularity,

 

[JayUtah]

No, because I can have gotten it wrong, but so can you.

No. In most cases you're trying to tell me what my intent was or is. Unless you claim to read minds, you cannot possibly be a better authority than I on what I intend.

If there is something you have overlooked and I point it out, then that reverses it.

No. If I explicitly do not make a universalist argument, and you tell me I must be making a universalist argument, then you are simply wrong.

Now that we've reached the point where you're claiming to know better than someone else what is own argument is, I think we can just point and laugh at your unbridled arrogance.

That is what this is about.

No, that's not my argument. You're not "correcting" it or supplying something I've left out. You're simply rewriting it so that you can deploy the only argument you know how to talk about. You're elaborately trying to tell me that what I've specifically formulated not to be a nail must nevertheless still be a nail, only because the only thing you know how to use is a hammer.

You got it, right! I deconstruct.

And you wrongly think this makes you a philosopher.

 

[JayUtah]

Your claim about the singularity rests on deduction as you claimed about something you can't check; i.e. the singularity, so it is not experimental science.

Resting on a deduction does not make something experimental science? Bwhahaha! We already know you have no competence at experimental science. Now we can say that you don't understand the philosophy that underpins experimental science. Guess what; it's not relativism.

 

[LarryS]

Time itself is part of what came into being at the Big Bang. Does that affect the way you think about it?

No, this is what I am referring to. If the following are true:
energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, and
laws of nature are fixed
then the entire Big Bang, creation of the total energy and matter, all the laws of nature, occurred in 0 time.

 

[JayUtah]

...occurred in 0 time.

And how are you reckoning the time?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Because you have no clue what I am talking about is not an excuse to make up your own straw version.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So how does morality work?

Why would anyone think explaining it to you one more time will be the charm?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Responding to a claim two pages back that Deism wasn't really a religion or didn't have tenets or something to that effect:

Number of Deists in the US. (surveys vary widely)

The ARIS study estimated that there were 6,000 Deists during the year 1990, rising to 49,000 in 2001. 1 They listed Deism the fastest growing religion in the U.S. -- in terms of percentage growth -- with a 717% increase over 11 years. The next highest percentage increase was among Sikhs at 338%. Unfortunately, there are two problems with this massive telephone survey:

Famous Deists

Most famous people that one sees listed as "Deists" on various lists never actually identified themselves by name as "Deists," nor were they ever members of an organized Deist group.

This is not to suggest that such people were not in fact deists. They probably were. But identifying a person as a "deist" is not necessarily very informative because the term can be used so broadly, and it does not really provide any information about a person's upbringing, activities, rituals, congregational life, etc. ...

From a philosophical and theological perspective, however, it may indeed be best to consider the writings of Jefferson alongside the writings of people such as Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero. But doing that lies outside the scope of this website, which presents data primarily from a sociological perspective.

 

[JayUtah]

Because you have no clue what I am talking about is not an excuse to make up your own straw version.

Read above. He knows better than you what your argument should have been. If he takes it upon himself to include the stuff you left out, then he can't possibly be wrong about his representation.

 

[David Mo]

Something that isn't falsifiable is just as "Not there" as something that is falsifiable and has been falsified.

This philosophical claim is Karl Raimund Popper's. As every philosophical proposition it cannot be scientifically proved.

Welcome to the philosophical debate.

 

[David Mo]

I specifically defined that most people prefer the objects and methods of science rather than the objects and methods of philosophy as a pathway to truth (to establish what is actually true). Please provide a single example in which the objects and methods of philosophy are better than the objects and methods of science at establishing what is actually true.

Would it make no sense to you to fly in a plane designed and built by the objects and methods of science rather than the objects and methods of philosophy? Would that be a mere matter of subjective taste that wouldn’t concern you?

I cannot provide the example you demand because I think that there is no conflict between philosophy and science. You cannot say what is better between different things. Can you say if mathematics is better than medicine?

 

[David Mo]

Science isn’t in the business of exploring non-falsifiable claims. Asking for a scientific paper proving the non-existence of something is backwards.

This is a philosophical interpretation of science. If science had been in charge of proving that the existence of God is non-falsifiable there would have been some scientific literature about the subject. Where is it?
If this literature doesn't exist other is in charge of this task. Who or which? Answer: philosophy. Popper or Wittgenstein, for example.

Suppose that someone doesn't accept Popper's theory of falsifiability, who would debate with him? Scientists? No. Philosophers.

This is why the problem of God is not a scientific one.

 

[David Mo]

The evidence is overwhelming that humans make up god myths.
There is no evidence of actual gods.
There is enough evidence to conclude all gods are human generated fiction.

You won't find any of the above statements in a scientific journal.
They may be based on scientific data, but they are not scientific.

 

[ynot]

I cannot provide the example you demand because I think that there is no conflict between philosophy and science.

Liar! You know very well you can't provide the example I requested because you know there isn't one. Your "no conflict" claim is merely a ludicrous and dishonest attempt at obfuscation.

You cannot say what is better between different things.

What an absolutely stupid thing to say. I can easily say a steel hammer is a better thing to use to bang a nail into wood than a soft marshmallow. I can easily say a soft marshmallow is a better thing to eat than a steel hammer.

Can you say if mathematics is better than medicine?

Yes, I can say that mathematics is better to use to do mathematical tasks than medicine. I can say that medicine is better to use to do medical tasks than mathematics.

How the hell do you manage to get out of bed every morning? Is there a conflict between being in bed and being out of bed?

 

[Darat]

Liar! You know very well you can't provide the example I requested because you know there isn't one. Your "no conflict" claim is merely a ludicrous and dishonest attempt at obfuscation.


What an absolutely stupid thing to say. I can easily say a steel hammer is a better thing to use to bang a nail into wood than a soft marshmallow. I can easily say a soft marshmallow is a better thing to eat than a steel hammer.


Yes, I can say that mathematics is better to use to do mathematical tasks than medicine. I can say that medicine is better to use to do medical tasks than mathematics.

How the hell do you manage to get out of bed every morning? Is there a conflict between being in bed and being out of bed?

You aren't looking at this at the level of philosophy used in this thread, you haven't established yet whether the marshmallow is vanilla flavoured or not.