Hawking says there are no gods

[Porpoise of Life]

You can't cite a single example of a god that is not a myth.

Your whole argument boils down to asserting that people's reports that the god they believe in feels real to them is evidence said god(s) exist. All the rest of your gobbledegook is just window dressing.

I don't think David is defending the existence of gods, as much as attacking what he sees as the arrogance of science. It appears that in his view, science is too rigid and too narrowly focused to be able to tackle the question of God. That's why he keeps asking for scientific publications on the absence of the divine.

But it is David's view of science that is too narrow.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The problem is "Science needs to stay in its lane" is always, always, always, always thinly veiled code for "Science needs to stop telling me my woo isn't true."

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Come on guys, you can't say God doesn't exist just because there is no evidence of his existence or of any of the things that he is claimed to have done. Or because all the evidence we do have points to gods being made up by people to explain or justify why this is are the way they are!
How about all those deep thoughts people have? Don't be arrogant...

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not the one who has to prove anything.

Well, yes you do. The proposition that Hawking disputes is that gods exist. He wouldn't need to address the subject if it weren't a specific affirmative claim made by believers in gods. His disputation is based on observing that the laws of nature are sufficient to explain things previously attributed to those gods. "There exists a god" is still an existential question, and we have a well-established way of placing the burden of proof for existential questions.

The reductio ad absurdum aspect of the argument in favor of an unnecessary, ineffectual, invisible god has been thoroughly explored in this thread.

Science is supposed to prove that all gods don't exist.

Well, no, just the gods that Hawking meant. You know, the ones actually believed in. Redefining "god" until it becomes absurdly ill-formed and obviously ad hoc does nothing but provide a shaky toehold from which to claim -- at best -- a victory in principle only over atheism.

That was the subject of the thread.

So do you agree that malaria vaccines are off-topic?

 

[JayUtah]

But it is David's view of science that is too narrow.

Agreed. It's a fairly typical anti-science polemic.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Eventually people will start to get that proving that a dog has 5 legs by calling a tail a leg isn't not clever in the slightest.

"I can make up some sort of God that no one actually believes in for the sole purpose of keeping the 'Does God exist' question going" doesn't strike me as that useful of an hobby.

 

[Belz...]

And you? The clever piglet surely not.

No, I'm all halal meat.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Agreed. It's a fairly typical anti-science polemic.

I wouldn't even call it anti-science per se. For people like David and Tommy "science" is just a poorly understood boogeyman and "philosophy" a poorly understood savior.

Their issue is with any conversational frame of reference that opens up the possibility of them being wrong.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not the one who has to prove anything. Science is supposed to prove that all gods don't exist. That was the subject of the thread.

Actually, no it wasn't. If you fail at the fundamental point, don't expect to be ever correct.

 

[Dancing David]

I am pretty sure the phrase in it's entirety is " What part of 'Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn' do you not understand?"

Read my lips Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not the one who has to prove anything. Science is supposed to prove that all gods don't exist. That was the subject of the thread.

A twofur, a dodge and a straw man all rolled into one.

It does tell me something, however, it's threatening for some people to hear all gods are mythical beings. They can't let go of 'you can't prove there are no gods'.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think David is defending the existence of gods, as much as attacking what he sees as the arrogance of science. It appears that in his view, science is too rigid and too narrowly focused to be able to tackle the question of God. That's why he keeps asking for scientific publications on the absence of the divine.

But it is David's view of science that is too narrow.

I agree with what you say. Tommy and David both make the claim [x,y,z] are all under the purview of philosophy. It's another out of date paradigm, all those subjective things science supposedly can't address even though there is a whole body of scientific investigation on things such as morality.

He has made contradictory statements on his own god beliefs, something I don't have much interest in.

 

[Darat]

Only because God has the tendency to retreat into ever greater vagueness when questioned.
Ah yes, of course the creation story in Genesis/Popol Vuh/Enuma Elish isn't literal... But it's still true from a certain point of view.
Ah yes, of course the stories of divine intervention where gods move mountains with their hands, show themselves to entire armies and raise the dead didn't literally happen...
Of course God doesn't really live on a mountain/above the sky dome/in a cave... But that's not important.
Ah, well, how about an abstract principle of creation that only interacts with us in a way that is indistinguishable from random chance?

God is placed beyond the scope of, as you say, common sense and our daily experience, on basis of nothing but the say-so of his believers, who simultaneously claim that no claim about God has to be literally true for God himself to be real anyway.

But this is the very strange thing, it is not the believers that say this it is those who want to be able to say science for whatever reason can’t deal with the question of god.

The believers in god are very clear their god and gods interfere in the world daily, in ways that are claimed to be apparent to everyone. For goodness sake the largest single religion on the planet has an entire department devoted to documenting these interactions with the world!

It is the likes of David and Tommy that are out of step with the believers not us that often disagree with the believers’ claims, it’s them that so condescendingly have to explain to the believers that they aren’t believing in the right way.

As I said so many posts back we would see David move to redefining what the believers in Zeus believed in, which of course he did.

When it comes to discussing or making claims about god or gods I accept what the believers say they believe in. Now I may disagree with them about that belief but I’m not going to arrogantly explain to them that they don’t understand their own beliefs, I’ll live that arrogance to the likes of David and Tommy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Good point there Darat.

 

[Darat]

I'd say more shapeshifting serial rapist than "dick" but at least he never drowned the whole world because his game of the Sims got away from him.

Personally I don’t blame him for doing that. I was involved in the roll out of The SIms and nearly everybody within the first days of playing would have locked their Sim into a room with no exit. It’s just human nature.....

 

[Porpoise of Life]

You know, I'm really open to the possibility of these pseudo-philosophers having some special insight into the nature of the world that I lack. That they might have a reason to be so condescending and appear so vague.

But so far not one of them has come up with anything more developed and challenging than "Oh yeah? And what if reality isn't really what we think it is?" without offering any alternative for what it might be.

 

[LarryS]

But this is the very strange thing, it is not the believers that say this it is those who want to be able to say science for whatever reason can’t deal with the question of god.

The believers in god are very clear their god and gods interfere in the world daily, in ways that are claimed to be apparent to everyone. For goodness sake the largest single religion on the planet has an entire department devoted to documenting these interactions with the world!

It is the likes of David and Tommy that are out of step with the believers not us that often disagree with the believers’ claims, it’s them that so condescendingly have to explain to the believers that they aren’t believing in the right way.

As I said so many posts back we would see David move to redefining what the believers in Zeus believed in, which of course he did.

When it comes to discussing or making claims about god or gods I accept what the believers say they believe in. Now I may disagree with them about that belief but I’m not going to arrogantly explain to them that they don’t understand their own beliefs, I’ll live that arrogance to the likes of David and Tommy.

I disagree with this - we 'ought' to critique the more reasonable and usable definition(s) of God. In doing so we are not telling folks what to believe - we are evaluating the most reasonable definition of God.
Unless the intent is to evaluate 'what people believe', but I see that as a seperate question.

IOW, a face-off of the smartest contempory definition/analytic of God(s) - and does it stand up to contermporary science.

 

[Darat]

You know, I'm really open to the possibility of these pseudo-philosophers having some special insight into the nature of the world that I lack. That they might have a reason to be so condescending and appear so vague.

But so far not one of them has come up with anything more developed and challenging than "Oh yeah? And what if reality isn't really what we think it is?" without offering any alternative for what it might be.

I’m open to “science” itself being relegated to one of those silly things we used to think was right, but anything that replaces it has to be better than science is at explaining, describing and modelling the world around us.

At the moment science is the best thing we have that does what it says on the tin but find me something better and I’ll start using that instead, I’ve zero emotional possessiveness in regards to science, I just want tools that work. Goodness me I even use both iOS and Android devices because each have their own strengths and the conflicts between science and religion and philosophy are a lovers tiff compared to the s OS wars!

 

[Darat]

I disagree with this - we 'ought' to critique the more reasonable and usable definition(s) of God. In doing so we are not telling folks what to believe - we are evaluating the most reasonable definition of God.
Unless the intent is to evaluate 'what people believe', but I see that as a seperate question.

But it is the religious that have gods, if we aren’t discussing what they define as gods why would we use the same word to mean something quite different?

 

[LarryS]

But it is the religious that have gods, if we aren’t discussing what they define as gods why would we use the same word to mean something quite different?

Because there's no challenge in that. Is the question: Do the gods of the ancient Greeks exist? Or. Does the God (of the average RC believer) exist? How is this even interesting? I'm simply suggesting a definition of God that is NOT thousands of years old, nor is the best of the Bud Light guzzling masses (not that there's anything wrong with that)