Hawking says there are no gods

[JoeMorgue]

All of science is a refutation of Kant’s moral argument. So is all of human experience.

We've already been through this with David in a previous thread, he latches on to a random famous philosopher, digs through until he finds some little piece of linguistic fluff that sounds to him like "Magic is real and you get to make stuff up and anyone who doesn't agree isn't 'enlightened' like you are" and basically elevates them to some sort of all-powerful Anti-Intellectual Savior.

In an earlier thread he was basically... religious style witnessing about Humes, presenting Humes as another of David's "Philosophy says magic is real" authorities he sees in all philosophy even after several people pointed out that was a gross misrepresentation of Humes.

Very, very few of the truly historic philosophers really preached the level of anti-intellectualism woo-woo that David and Tommy see in them but you could show David or Tommy the back page of the Cheesecake Factory menu and they'll see a "Respected Philosopher saying that science doesn't get to tell me I'm wrong and you aren't allowed to disagree and by the way I'm smarter and better than you."

 

[Garrison]

You're right. Science is not about proving that Santa Claus doesn't live at the North Pole. Nor does it deal with proving that God does not exist. So we agree. Case closed.

And yet again you are wrong.
The point you are deliberately missing is of course that when something contradicts known scientific facts there is no need to carry out the specific investigation you seem so set on. Science has no need to ask about the aerodynamics of Reindeer because the notion of flying Reindeer is nonsense to begin with and it has no need to investigate if there is a god because all actual believed in gods contradict the laws of nature and are right up there with Santa's workshop in the pointless investigations options.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Scenario 1: Factor X has a tangible effect on the universe. This puts it under the purview of science as testing that effect to determine the cause is literally what science is on the most basic of levels.

Scenario 2: Factor X has no tangible effect on the universe. Then tt doesn't exist by any meaningful, practical concept of "exist."

 

[JayUtah]

It is you that have no idea of how scientific journals function.

If you say so. The career I've pursued for thirty years generally requires me to publish in them, which I have. And to read the journals in the several fields my clients practice. But I supposed you must know best.

This is why the articles about the existence of God don't enter in scientific reviews. Because no scientific conclusion can be drawn about this subject.

But you have to grossly misrepresent the sciences that do deal with gods in order to say this.

This is an enormous absurdity only produced by your ignorance on the issue.

I'm interested. How often does calling everyone else ignorant work for you? And how often does it work when you know practically nothing about the people you're talking to?

 

[JayUtah]

No science is dedicated to proving or denying that God exists.

You seem to think we won't notice these straw men.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's no different than demanding a scientific paper detailing all the efforts made to prove Santa's workshop isn't at the North Pole, or disproving the existence of flying Reindeer.

It's been page after page of cod philosophy, inventing a definition of 'god' that is unfalsifiable, claiming this constitutes a limit on scientific knowledge and that those who refuse to accept this fictional limit are being dogmatic and are thus no different from religious believers.

It doesn't even possess the merit of being an original strategy.

Good post.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're right. Science is not about proving that Santa Claus doesn't live at the North Pole. Nor does it deal with proving that God does not exist. So we agree. Case closed.

Some relevant comments:

You're stuck at "Science is not about things I don't agree with science on" and seem unable or unwilling to go beyond that.

But you have to grossly misrepresent the sciences that do deal with gods in order to say this.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

After wading through a slew of papers with distortions of science (example claiming life's complexity is evidence of a designer, it's actually the opposite) and claiming because the Earth is perfect for life is evidence of god (classic scientific error, fitting the evidence to the conclusion) I found out there are indeed many scientific papers on the existence of god.

Many of them hold to the old paradigm that one cannot prove the negative, not an argument for god but theists prefer to think it is.

Here is a discussion along the line Hawking concluded:

According to Science, God Does Not Exist

To understand why "God does not exist" is a legitimate scientific statement, it's important to understand what the statement means in the context of science. When scientist say, "God does not exist," they mean something similar to when they say "aether does not exist," "psychic powers do not exist," or "life does on the moon does not exist."

All such statements are shorthand for a more elaborate and technical explanation, which is that this alleged entity (or God) has no place in any scientific equations, plays no role in any scientific explanations, cannot be used to predict any events, does not describe anything or force that has yet been detected, and there are no models of the universe in which its presence is either required, productive, or useful.

Answering David's main premise, he needs to see science addressing the existence of god:

In "God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist," Victor J. Stenger offers this scientific argument against the existence of God:

Hypothesize a God who plays an important role in the universe.
Assume that God has specific attributes that should provide objective evidence for his existence.
Look for such evidence with an open mind.
If such evidence is found, conclude that God may exist.
If such objective evidence is not found, conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a God with these properties does not exist.
This is basically how science would disprove the existence of any alleged entity. If God existed, there should be concrete evidence of His existence—not faith, but tangible, measurable, consistent evidence that can be predicted and tested using the scientific method. If we fail to find that evidence, then God cannot exist as defined.

[/thread]

 

[Thor 2]

If you think arguing about the existence of God is a waste of time, what are you doing here?
I think it's a funny topic. I have fun refuting the proofs of God's existence. And now I have discovered that I also have fun refuting scientificist dogmatism.

What is this scientificist bollocks?

We have had posters talking about atheist dogma, are we now to hearing claims that scientific dogma exists? How does this work ...... is there some scripture we can refer to?

Convenient but dodgy way to make an argument that is. Just throw a word at the opposing side and then move on as if you have made a salient point.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Alright let us, in vain most surely, attempt to pull this away from meaningless semantics and categorization and shelf the big bad "science" word that makes the Phil-os-oh-phers cry.

Let us try to take this down the brassiest and tackiest of brass tacks.

The argument from the Pro-Phil-os-ph-phe side seems to be:

1. Different questions required different methodologies to answer.
2. Logic, reason, falsefiability just "don't work" on some questions.
3. Therefore any methodology can be used, regardless of... how it works or its effectiveness.
4. All of that is "Philosophy."
5. You can't criticize anything called philosophy because everything is called philosophy.

So yet again. For the 50th billionth time in the 50th billionth thread. When... look at the facts and evidence stops working... what does?

In actual words, not word salad or gibberish, please explain a non-logic/reason/falsefiability based methodology for determining truth. Please give examples what questions it has answers (not made up gibberish questions without answers are not questions that have been answered) and how we can tell when the "truth" has been determined.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It's a valid point. Not feeding the trolls achieves the result of depriving them of attention. However, if done prematurely or dismissively, it also has the effect of providing a silence from which an spurious claim of victory can be argued. This is how Jabba worked. People often gave up on him because he was just as prolific at stone-walling as Tommy has been. Jabba then boasted that he had bested them in debate with his superior intellect and skills, and that's why they went away. Hence there is a sort of art in making sure there is enough of a claimant's foolishness on the record to preclude crowing of that sort.

And on a related topic, I wonder how "Buddha" is doing..

 

[LarryS]

For example, I can make the two following claims:
1. The buying and selling of human beings as property is wrong.
2. Black Holes exist.

Which of the two above claims is (likely) the more certain?
The first.
The first claim needs no proof or evidence - we know it to be true.
The second claim may turn out to be false (Black Holes do not exist), or our current understanding of Black Holes is far off the mark - rendering opur current belief in their existence childish.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Yes I know the difference. And after leaving the room yes we do have to verify the elephant is still there thru direct experience or by proxy (ie video, sensors, etc.).

Blind people have other senses (hopefully) - they have touch to verify thye elephant is still there.

Don't get a job as a zoo keeper. The stress would kill you.

 

[LarryS]

Don't get a job as a zoo keeper. The stress would kill you.

HaHa - and the physicalist zookeepers don't even have to do a count or verification to do a 'head-count'

 

[Solitaire]

For example, I can make the two following claims:

1. The buying and selling of human beings as property is wrong.
2. Black Holes exist.

Which of the two above claims is (likely) the more certain?

The first.
The first claim needs no proof or evidence - we know it to be true.

The second claim may turn out to be false (Black Holes do not exist),
or our current understanding of Black Holes is far off the mark - rendering
our current belief in their existence childish.

Given that societies from ancient times, and even now come to think of it,
practice slavery and have no moral qualms about it. The first has way less
certainty, even though I personally find slavery repulsive.

Blackholes have massive amounts of observational evidence, from the motion
of stars, jets of gas shooting out at the speed of light from in falling disks of
matter, even gravitational waves detected by LIGO. Doubt about the centers
due to a conflict between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, but black
holes themselves, never!

They're here to stay and I actually fear them quite a bit. Gods, not so much.

 

[David Mo]

All of science is a refutation of Kant’s moral argument. So is all of human experience.

If you can’t acknowledge the leaps Kant made in formulating his ideas about morality and God...well, it would be futile for me to point them out. But I will say this: there is no scientific evidence that his ontological idea is true. If he’s wrong about that, the whole thing falls apart.

The first paragraph is nice but empty. "All science" is nothing without its parts. How does "all" science "demonstrate"? Either you are more precise or we stay the same as we were.
The second paragraph is completely misguided. Kant's moral argument has nothing to do with any ontological idea. Make sure you know what you're talking about. I already proposed a text by Russell (philosopher) that explained this.

Scientists have been to the North Pole. No Santa. They don’t need to publish a paper entitled, “Proven: No Santa at North Pole.”

Before any scientist went to the North Pole all children knew that Santa Claus is a legend. As soon as they reached the age of reason. By common sense. It is not the same with the idea of God. It cannot be disarmed with only common sense. Given that science doesn't deals with this, what is the method to criticising the belief in God? Search in a library. On philosophy shelves, of course, In those of science you will not find any book on the subject.
By the way everybody knows that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. They are the Three King Magi.

And yet again you are wrong.
The point you are deliberately missing is of course that when something contradicts known scientific facts there is no need to carry out the specific investigation you seem so set on. Science has no need to ask about the aerodynamics of Reindeer because the notion of flying Reindeer is nonsense to begin with and it has no need to investigate if there is a god because all actual believed in gods contradict the laws of nature and are right up there with Santa's workshop in the pointless investigations options.

The fact that it is for different reasons does not mean that the result is not the same: science does not deal with either of the two subjects. It is not true that all kind of God's ideas contradict the laws of nature. If it were so, there would be no believing scientists. And there are. There will be some idea of God compatible with the exercise of science, don't you think?
If you want to know something about this subject, go to a library and look in the philosophy section. I don't recommend the theology because it's sectarian. And in science you won't find anything.

If you say so. The career I've pursued for thirty years generally requires me to publish in them, which I have. And to read the journals in the several fields my clients practice. But I supposed you must know best

If after thirty years you have not learned that scientific articles should base their conclusions on scientifically established data and rigorous implications and not on "reasonable" speculations, your case is serious. This is one of the first things I was taught when I was preparing my thesis. Maybe this can help you in the future: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5862244/ Specially this:

Scientific rigor can be visualized as a ship that has to be built with expert and sturdy craftsmanship. This will not only ensure it is kept afloat, but with ethical scientists to captain the ship, it will keep sailing in the appropriate direction (Figure 1A). The endpoint would be solid, repeatable, enduring data that can be confidently built upon to move a field forward with the full confidence of our colleagues and the public. The front end (the bow) involves proper project design before grant submission and initial project review by funding agencies. The middle of this ship is in the laboratory, performing experiments during testing of the hypothesis. For the most part, this is not scrutinized by peers, and is investigator-driven in that it is up to the investigator to be rigorous both scientifically and ethically. At the back end are peer and editor reviews during the publication process. Finally, at the far end are the published results and further scrutiny by peers and the public. All these parts need to be there for the ship to sail in the right direction.
​

You seem to think we won't notice these straw men.

Can you explain to me what you mean by "straw man"? Certainly not the fallacy that bears that name.
The "straw man" fallacy consists of deforming what the opposite claims in order to attack it more comfortably. I don't know what of your ideas I am deforming.

After wading through a slew of papers with distortions of science (example claiming life's complexity is evidence of a designer, it's actually the opposite) and claiming because the Earth is perfect for life is evidence of god (classic scientific error, fitting the evidence to the conclusion) I found out there are indeed many scientific papers on the existence of god.

Many of them hold to the old paradigm that one cannot prove the negative, not an argument for god but theists prefer to think it is.

Here is a discussion along the line Hawking concluded:

According to Science, God Does Not Exist

Answering David's main premise, he needs to see science addressing the existence of god:

I hope you realize that this article you cite is neither an article in a scientific journal nor is it scientific. It's in the humanities section. It is not a scientific article, but a philosophical one. The same for Stenger’s books. I can present you right now so many other articles from scientists who believe otherwise. If they are opinions, they are not science.
You cannot present those many scientific articles about the existence of God that you mention.
If you want to be well informed on the issue I asvise you to go to a library. You will find plenty material in the shelves of philosophy or humanities. Not science.

What is this scientificist bollocks?

We have had posters talking about atheist dogma, are we now to hearing claims that scientific dogma exists? How does this work ...... is there some scripture we can refer to?

The dogma is not of science. Science has no dogmas. Ideally at least. The dogma I mean is that of scientism or positivism. Whatever you want to call it. Of course, one can be a non-dogmatic positivist, but that specimen does not exist in this forum. Everyone here believes that if you say that science has limits - which is a rather banal idea - you go to hell. Anathema!

 

[David Mo]

I suggest to my opponents that they think about the difference between cosmology based on science, philosophy of science and science itself. Knowing how to make distinctions is a good thing. Very philosophical utility.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I suggest to my opponents that they think about the difference between cosmology based on science, philosophy of science and science itself. Knowing how to make distinctions is a good thing. Very philosophical utility.

I suggest we are not your opponents. Your philosophy ponderings don't meet any standards of debate.

You asked for scientists addressing the existence of gods, we provided it and now you say it's not a research paper. Do you know how ignorant that sounds?

 

[David Mo]

I suggest we are not your opponents. Your philosophy ponderings don't meet any standards of debate.

You asked for scientists addressing the existence of gods, we provided it and now you say it's not a research paper. Do you know how ignorant that sounds?

In order to qualify a debate you must first find out what is being said.

I do not ask for scientists who talk about God. There are quite a few. From the beginning I am asking for scientific articles that speak of the existence of God.

If you don't see the difference between the two things, refrain from giving your opinion because your opinion is null and void.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I have learned that if I close the tab I'm viewing this thread in, I have no way of knowing if it, or any of you guys still exist, or were ever more than a figment of my magical Boltzmann brain imagination.

That gives me some peace of mind...

So that's why I can't remember Saturday night!