• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
BadBoy said:
I think Lawrence Krause said that all matter and energy add up to 0, which is why we have something from nothing. You didn't need a something there to create the universe from.

So there was no time when energy and matter were created as such.

My understanding is also that the laws of physics were not "created" but are emergent properties of the reality we live in.
Click to expand...

I have a friend (right wing and religious but..). who has a giant problem with the idea that the laws of physics were not created but were figured out (and are still being so discovered/figured out) by humans, not handed down by some godthing(s)…………………..
 
fuelair said:
I have a friend (right wing and religious but..). who has a giant problem with the idea that the laws of physics were not created but were figured out (and are still being so discovered/figured out) by humans, not handed down by some godthing(s)…………………..
Click to expand...
I don't really understand what it mean for the laws to be "created" anyway. The laws are just facts about how the natural world appears to behave in a consistent way.


So in other words, did God create the universe, then the earth, then created gravity, then created the laws of gravity which decided how strong the force is and how distance affects that force?

Seems crazy, but in line with a creation myth. Unfortunately scientists use language that can be jumped on and interpreted incorrectly by creationists all the time. Like DNA Code, and Physical Laws of the Universe and the fact the Dawkins keeps saying how particular animals grew stuff and lost stuff (and skips the whole natural selection thingy, which he assumes is taken for granted in those type of statements) as if humans just decided to get rid of their tails one day.
 
p0lka said:
1. Did stephen hawking say there's no possibility of god?
2. Who made stephen hawking the expert on god?
Click to expand...

I have always been certain where always means since I was old enough to realize it was a useless and pointless idea. there were no god/gods/personlike creators re: the Universe and us. That was around 5 or 6 and nothing I have read or seen has given me reason to change.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Tommy and David appear to view people who agree with Hawking's observation that the laws of nature as we know them leave no room for the kinds of gods we find in our religions as dogmaticists stuck in their own paradigm..
Click to expand...

I beg you once again not to attribute to me ideas that I do not have. Everything you have written is a meaningless farce.

I find the opinion that science proves that gods do not exist very respectable, albeit wrong. It has been held by many respectable philosophers and some scientists with philosophical interests.
I accused of dogmatism the way some people defend that idea in this forum. This is showed by the fact that, for lack of reasons, they have taken on the path of insults, personal disqualifications and farce.

Hawking —that is neither a good theologian nor philosopher— is in an evident mistake. The Christian god is supposed to be outside and within the world. A beginning of time in the Big Bang would not affect those who believe in the Creator, since time could be created from outside it.

Since you don't seem to understand what I'm writing (this is not condescension, it is a fact) I clarify that I don't defend the position of Christians, but I say that Hawking's is not conclusive on this point.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
:rolleyes:

You're in denial and you are using an incredibly flimsy argument "won't find that specific wording in a scientific journal."
Click to expand...

JayUtah said:
Yeah, I've always loved that argument. "If you're telling me my statement is wrong according to some area of study, you have to find where in its literature someone anticipated the exact wrong argument I've made, and refutes it." The literature in any particular field is not a laundry list of refutations of all the ways laymen can misunderstand something.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking for a rebuttal to be found to anything. I am asking that a demonstration be found. If I doubt that the a malaria vaccine has been proven to work, where do I go to look for confirmation? To an internet forum? Won't it be in Nature, The Lancet or similar magazines?

You guys are really amazing in your reasoning.
 
xjx388 said:
The whole of science can be viewed as a refutation of god ideas. The sun is driven across the sky by a chariot god: nope. Ok, god set the earth as the center of the universe: nope. Fine, god miraculously heals people: nope. Well, prayer works: nope.

We can go on and on about all the concrete things god is supposed to be able to do in our lives, the world and the universe at large and show science that refutes “god did it.” Not one supposed god-effect has escaped this.

All that’s left is god stuff we can’t possibly measure, detect or otherwise interact with. That stuff can be dismissed on two grounds: 1)All the other god-stuff has been refuted and 2)if we can’t observe an effect than who cares about a supposed source of the effect?
Click to expand...

This is an interesting philosophical argument against the concepts of Creation and Providence.

But note that it does not affect other ideas of god such as Kant's practical Reason argument or the concepts of God associated with faith and inner effects. You have a tendency to consider a primitive form of cosmological religion and pretend that by dismantling it you attack all kinds of religiosity. This is not true.
 
Last edited:
Allow me a general analysis of your comments: you are wrong about two things.

1. I am not saying that the positivism you defend is necessarily wrong. What I'm saying is that the positivism you defend is a philosophical theory. Not scientific.
2. I am not saying that if positivism is false, religion is justified. There are other better ways to combat the belief in God. You have a dogmatic stance because you believe that positivism is the only way to criticize religion and all that is not positivism is magic or superstition.

And I ask you to consider the following question: How do you demonstrate that science is the only possible knowledge? Through science? Or by analyzing science and its history?
 
BadBoy said:
So in other words, did God create the universe, then the earth, then created gravity, then created the laws of gravity which decided how strong the force is and how distance affects that force?
Click to expand...

Let's not forget this is a God who somehow created the light on Earth and the Sun on different days, and had days before there was a Sun or an Earth rotating.
 
David Mo said:
Allow me a general analysis of your comments: you are wrong about two things.

1. I am not saying that the positivism you defend is necessarily wrong. What I'm saying is that the positivism you defend is a philosophical theory. Not scientific.
Click to expand...

And what exactly does that mean? You really can't seem to get that calling thing "philosophy" does not have the power over us that it does over you.

Since everything is "philosophy" calling things "philosophy" makes no point, carries no weight, and means absolutely nothing but you obviously mean it as some sort of argument or point and it's not asking too much for you to just say what that point or argument is.

Outside of just the silly game of "You're doing a type of philosophy, ergo you don't get to criticize anything I do as long as I call it philosophy" there's no obvious point to your continue kneejerk need to defend philosophy as equally vigorously as you fail to define it or understand it.

Again for someone who's defending the virtue of Philosophy like it's your young daughter you caught in the hayloft with one of the local boys you have yet to show any real grasp of what it is beyond an on call "This philosopher said so and sod" and "I can never be wrong because I can always just invoke magic you can't prove doesn't exist because it's magic."

I am not saying that if positivism is false, religion is justified. There are other better ways to combat the belief in God. You have a dogmatic stance because you believe that positivism is the only way to criticize religion and all that is not positivism is magic or superstition.
Click to expand...

The idea that answer have more and less correct answer is not dogma. A person who absolutely believes that 2+2=4, a person who absolutely believes 2+2 = Pi, and a person who absolutely believes that 2+2=A Potato are not all equally dogmatic and don't all need to open their minds to each other more. One person is correct, one person is wrong, and one person is not even wrong.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
I'm not asking for a rebuttal to be found to anything. I am asking that a demonstration be found.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. You're still demanding a specific thing that I suspect you already know won't be found in that exact form, and suggesting that that's the only argument you will accept. It's the same straw man, just dressed up in a slightly different hat.

You guys are really amazing in your reasoning.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
This is, again, the strawman version of science where no statement can be made outside of some double blind, 6 month long placebo controlled experiment published in a major journal.

People are trying, desperately, to create a false face to put on science that has to be so rigorous that it can never actually achieve its own standards, all for end goal of yet more "You're precious science isn't allowed to have an opinion on so and so" tedium and excuse making.

Science is not obligated to disprove every piece of nonsense to the nonsense's strawman version of science's standards.

You will not find the phrase "A super-intelligent can of key lime pie filling does not live on the far side of the moon." in any scientific text or journal. No experiment has ever been conducted for the specific purpose of testing this hypothesis. This does not mean "There's no super-intelligent can of key lime pie filling on the far side of the moon" is not scientific.
 
JayUtah said:
Irrelevant. You're still demanding a specific thing that I suspect you already know won't be found in that exact form, and suggesting that that's the only argument you will accept. It's the same straw man, just dressed up in a slightly different hat.
Click to expand...

So if you say something manifestly false and I ask you to prove it in some way I am riding a straw man. Amazing reasoning.

Maybe it's not the only way to know whther a subject is scientific or not. For now you have not explain why my method fails. If you know another one, it would be good if we could discuss it calmly and honestly.

Please, note that I am not discussing if something is true or false. Just if this a scientific issue.
 
JoeMorgue said:
This is, again, the strawman version of science where no statement can be made outside of some double blind, 6 month long placebo controlled experiment published in a major journal.
Click to expand...

It's really interesting that the people most likely to rail against science and extol the superlative virtues of philosophy are those least likely to understand either science or philosophy.
 
Belz... said:
It's really interesting that the people most likely to rail against science and extol the superlative virtues of philosophy are those least likely to understand either science or philosophy.
Click to expand...

It's further interesting that science is held to the standard of ULTIMATE LEVEL OF ALL THE RIGOROUS AT ALL TIMES! while philosophy is held to the "I made something up" or "Some philosopher said once" standards.
 
Belz... said:
Yes, it seems all very convenient.
Click to expand...

Yep. "Science" (which is at this point almost a slur used against anyone who suggest any intellectual standards) has to prove water is wet via a 6 month, lab controlled study before it can take a bath while "Philosophy" gets to make stuff up and declare it the ultimate truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom