• 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.
LarryS said:
Does the God (of the average RC believer) exist? How is this even interesting?
Click to expand...

How is it not the only thing that's interesting? Gods that are actually believed in and worshiped instead of some ad hoc pseudo-philosophical abstraction!

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)
Click to expand...

Hawking's critics in this thread are suggesting a definition of a god based on nothing other than how well it would fit the gap in scientific knowledge that it would need to fit -- with not more than a little special pleading. You conjure that into hypothetical existence for those reasons, and then tell us "Yep, that's God." No, you've just changed what it means to be a god, not as we want to define it but as the believers in the various gods want to define it.

That's just an intellectual self-pleasuring exercise. It holds no interest at all for the people who aren't engaged in it.
 
LarryS said:
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)
Click to expand...

So you want to generate a definition of god that matches no actual definition of god held by any religion to what purpose exactly? All actually believed in gods contradict reality in some/many respects. So far the counters that are:

To question what we mean by reality.

To insist if science hasn't done some super specific investigation to disprove the concept of god then somehow science is irrelevant.

Or to design a completely new god tailored to fit the gaps in scientific knowledge or be beyond scientific understanding.

All of this apparently based on some desperate desire to prove that a bunch of cod philosophy has some sort of equivalence to scientific knowledge.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is more adjusted to what I am saying but not exact. I am not attacking the arrogance of science. I am attacking the excess of positivism. And science is not "too narrow". Science has its method and this method has its limits as everything in this world. Otherwise it would be divine. Its limits are empirical knowledge and laws. These are its limits and its force. Therefore I don't think that it is correct to say that science is "too narrow". Out of this limits is what is impossible to observe or to generalize by technical or natural reasons. For example: life in a planet of Alpha Centaury or a particular feeling. Therefore, science cannot predict all human behaviour either collective or individual.

The problem of the existence of gods is an extrascientific problem as I have shown:
(a) Because it is absent of scientific literature. There are not scientific articles in scientific papers dealing with this issue.
(b) Because it is absent in the scientific libraries. Ask your librarian.
(c) Because it cannot be solved by the hypotetico-deductive method.
(d) Because the arguments given by my opponents are philosophical, not scientific, although this make then mad.
(e) Because my opponents have not arguments, but only farces and personal attacks. In addition they ascribe me ideas which are not mine.
(f) And never answer my questions. They frighten them as the fire of hell.

...and some arguments more that can be easily confirmed in the previous comments.

If you think that my definition of science is too narrow I would be glad to discuss yours. Here everybody is against my concept of science but nobody seems abble to provide an alternative concept. Probably they have not any.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
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.

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.

So do you agree that malaria vaccines are off-topic?
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing the validity of that argument, whether it's Hawking's or yours. I'm arguing whether it's a scientific argument. It's not. It doesn't have the form of the experimental method nor is it a mathematical argument. You are using an argument that has been used by several philosophers. I can quote some. You cannot quote a scientific text that uses that argument.

I'm not saying more than that. I would be glad to discuss that. Not all the evils attributed to me by the chorus of self-proclaimed sceptics.

The malaria example is not off-topic. It is an example of how to look for a theory that is scientific. If you can try to answer it you will realize the absurdity of defending that a theory is scientific but does not appear in scientific journals.
 
David Mo said:
Is to say that science is not divine and has limits to attack science? I think the only true skeptic of this thread is me because I have no religion.
Click to expand...

Ah the "Science is just another religion" card. Truly every discussion with you is just going to be an "Anti-intellectualism Greatest Hits" album.

This is one of the core excuses of the Philosophizers, the idea that being really, really right about something and really, really wrong about something are somehow the same thing because of the "really, really" part.

This game of trying to paint people who stubbornly refuse to stop saying 2+2=4 as "the same" as the people who stubbornly refuse to stop saying 2+2=A Potato is old.
 
David Mo said:
I'm not arguing the validity of that argument, whether it's Hawking's or yours. I'm arguing whether it's a scientific argument. It's not.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. Your argument is based on your misunderstanding of science.

You cannot quote a scientific text that uses that argument.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. You don't know what scientific journals are for.

I'm not saying more than that. I would be glad to discuss that.
Click to expand...

It has been discussed. Your argument is a straw man based on your presumption that you know how science works, to the extent that you can proclaim things to be science or not-science. You don't, and further discussion can't seem to fix that.
 
JayUtah said:
Asked and answered. Your argument is based on your misunderstanding of science.

Asked and answered. You don't know what scientific journals are for.

It has been discussed. Your argument is a straw man based on your presumption that you know how science works, to the extent that you can proclaim things to be science or not-science. You don't, and further discussion can't seem to fix that.
Click to expand...

If you know what science is, prove it. Say what I'm wrong about. But don't expect me to believe you because you proclaim it.

Nothing I have raised here has been seriously discussed. Everything has gone in evasive manoeuvres to my questions and in personal attacks. You ar geting the same path.

David Mo said:
If you think that my definition of science is too narrow I would be glad to discuss yours. Here everybody is against my concept of science but nobody seems abble to provide an alternative concept. Probably they have not any.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
If you know what science is, prove it. Say what I'm wrong about.
Click to expand...

I did, at length.

Nothing I have raised here has been seriously discussed.
Click to expand...

Your argument is based on everyone accepting you as an authority on science. We don't, and we've given you the reasons why. You want a "serious discussion" that ignores the straw man in the room.
 
ynot said:
The Crusades and Spanish Inquisition were human endeavors aimed at what the perpetrators perceived as being good. Good is what people subjectively perceive good to be. Catchall definition achieved. No deep and meaningful philosophical brain-wank required. Next . . .
Click to expand...

Killing all their members would certainly been good. I would have enjoyed that.
 
JayUtah said:
Did you even read the post you quoted?
Click to expand...

I can see that. You say that yesterday you said something that you did not say in any of your comments yesterday. That's like the scientific subject that doesn't appear in science journals.

Another one that's on a bender.

I'm going to put it on again and see if you get the light :

A scientific subject that doesn't appear in scientific articles is like one that says he has a car that nobody sees and when you ask him where the car is, he gets offended.
Yes, it is a joke.
 
JayUtah said:
Did you even read the post you quoted?
Click to expand...

First, no one is talking about a science summary - whatever that is to you. It's about a subject that is or is not scientific. Like the malaria vaccine or the Tasmanian demon extinction.
Second: if in that comment there is a definition of science I am Muhammad. Where do you see it, dear?

I mean:
If you want to know if the malaria vaccine is effective, go to a medical journal.
If you want to know if the Tasmanian demon is extinct go to a biology magazine.
If you want to know if there is any proof that gods don't exist go to a philosophy magazine.

And that's it.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
How is it not the only thing that's interesting? Gods that are actually believed in and worshiped instead of some ad hoc pseudo-philosophical abstraction!



Hawking's critics in this thread are suggesting a definition of a god based on nothing other than how well it would fit the gap in scientific knowledge that it would need to fit -- with not more than a little special pleading. You conjure that into hypothetical existence for those reasons, and then tell us "Yep, that's God." No, you've just changed what it means to be a god, not as we want to define it but as the believers in the various gods want to define it.

That's just an intellectual self-pleasuring exercise. It holds no interest at all for the people who aren't engaged in it.
Click to expand...

OK, I take it the answer is NO. It seems (to me) a waste of effort to decree traditions and norms that are thousands of years old - as not meeting the standards of thought/evidence of today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom