ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags atheism , stephen hawking

Reply
Old 23rd October 2018, 03:47 PM   #361
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,461
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Is there any brain actrivity that can't be defined as philosophy?
Sure. Just none that involves assessing good and bad and deciding how to pursue it.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2018, 03:55 PM   #362
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,849
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Assigning values to characteristics and deciding what course of action to take are not scientific questions. Your personal philosophy is what determines the values you assign, because it's your personal view of what is good and what is bad. Which course you pursue is based on your philosophy, whether you use the term or not.
I frequently apply the scientific (type) method to deciding what course of action to take and deciding what is good and bad. I make a concerted effort to make my decisions and actions more intellectual than emotional. Call that philosophy if you want to.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2018, 03:59 PM   #363
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,151
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Unjustified killing is wrong.
Justified killing is not wrong.
“Wrong” and “justified” are defined by a particular, subjective set of moral principles. What’s “wrong” and “justified” for one set of subjective moral principles may not be wrong” and “justified” for another. There’s no universal/intrinsic set of moral principles.
Now you're beginning to understand.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2018, 04:00 PM   #364
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,849
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Sure. Just none that involves assessing good and bad and deciding how to pursue it.
Are you defining philosophy as - "assessing good and bad and deciding how to pursue it"?
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2018, 04:01 PM   #365
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,849
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Now you're beginning to understand.
That beginning may have begun before you began.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 23rd October 2018 at 04:02 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2018, 04:33 PM   #366
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,849
deleted
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2018, 04:35 PM   #367
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,461
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Are you defining philosophy as - "assessing good and bad and deciding how to pursue it"?
It's one part of philosophy. The first line of one of Aristotle's more famous books is "All human endeavors aim at some good", and then proceed to attempt to define what is good.

The book is called Ethics.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2018, 04:36 PM   #368
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,461
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
I frequently apply the scientific (type) method to deciding what course of action to take and deciding what is good and bad. I make a concerted effort to make my decisions and actions more intellectual than emotional. Call that philosophy if you want to.
I don't know why you're contrasting "intellectual" and "emotional". They are not opposites, nor is philosophy "emotional" in contrast to science.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2018, 09:17 PM   #369
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,849
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
It's one part of philosophy. The first line of one of Aristotle's more famous books is "All human endeavors aim at some good", and then proceed to attempt to define what is good.

The book is called Ethics.
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 . . .
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 23rd October 2018 at 09:21 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2018, 10:01 PM   #370
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,991
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I was referring to the fact that all the scientist claims cannot be probed by the experimental method. How can they be "scientific"? This is what merite to be thought.
Well that's not true. The BS that there are questions that cannot be addressed by the scientific method goes back to the non-overlapping magisteria, and that nonsense fails on every level except rationalizing god beliefs.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2018, 10:39 PM   #371
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,316
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Well that's not true. The BS that there are questions that cannot be addressed by the scientific method goes back to the non-overlapping magisteria, and that nonsense fails on every level except rationalizing god beliefs.
What do you mean "BS"?

The assertion that science has limits concludes that science has limits and does not prove the validity of any alternative method. I am not arguing that there is an alternative method for what science does or for what science fails to do.

In my opinion religion is an illusory and socially pernicious way of thinking. I hope it is clear and I am not accused again of saying what I do not say.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2018, 10:51 PM   #372
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,316
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
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 . . .
Are you saying that you only know if a knowledge is correct if you can assign a specific portion to it in the brain?

No one here pretends that philosophy is more or less "deep" than other branches of thought.

TragikMonkey is trying to make you understand that you are making statements that cannot be proven empirically and that have been discussed by philosophy since time immemorial.
To affirm that man always decides for subjective reasons is not to affirm that man ought to decide for one reason or another. Neither is scientific. I do not know of any scientific experiment that demonstrates the first one. And the second is impossible to decide with a scientific experiment. If you know one, you can say it now. In the meantime, know that, whether you are upset or not, you are doing philosophy.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 12:20 AM   #373
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,849
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Are you saying that you only know if a knowledge is correct if you can assign a specific portion to it in the brain?
Can't decipher that. Are you saying something other than brains are capable of knowing.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
No one here pretends that philosophy is more or less "deep" than other branches of thought.
Yeah right

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
TragikMonkey is trying to make you understand that you are making statements that cannot be proven empirically
Science is more than empirical proofs (theory, logic, etc)

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
and that have been discussed by philosophy since time immemorial.
And yet still no progress or consensus. Hardly time well spent.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 02:56 AM   #374
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,316
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Are you saying something other than brains are capable of knowing.

Science is more than empirical proofs (theory, logic, etc)


And yet still no progress or consensus. Hardly time well spent.
No. I am not saying that other than brains are capable of knowing.

Science is more than empirical tests but science is nothing without empirical tests. This is how Stephen Hawking was speaking of science in the open post. I don't know other theoricist of science that says different.

I am not pretending that philosophy works by absolute consensus or objectivity. It is you who have said that your philosophical concepts of ethics are objective and scientifically testable. It is your turn to put here those hypothetical scientifical tests.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 06:10 AM   #375
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,597
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
No, it's not. I'm not claiming gods exist and purporting to have evidence. Hawking, per the OP, observed a phenomenon and didn't see evidence of gods in it, and people are therefore trying to extrapolate from that the nonexistence of gods. Hawking probably didn't (I didn't read the paper so correct me if I'm wrong) find evidence of goats in his research either. Does that mean goats do not exist?.....
Ugh. Back to this again. Still not answered.
If a particular god BY DEFINITION is "the creator of the universe" and Hawking says the universe "did not have a creator",

What conclusion can Hawking reach?

How do we resolve
"God is the creator of the universe"
with
"The universe did not require a creator"

Goats do not have the attribute the "creator of the universe" so Hawking' statement does not apply to goats, nor to gods who's attributes do not include "creator of the universe".

Last edited by The Sparrow; 24th October 2018 at 06:11 AM.
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 07:26 AM   #376
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,445
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Ugh. Back to this again. Still not answered.
If a particular god BY DEFINITION is "the creator of the universe" and Hawking says the universe "did not have a creator",

What conclusion can Hawking reach?

How do we resolve
"God is the creator of the universe"
with
"The universe did not require a creator".
With defenders like this Hawking sure didn't need any enemies. You have basically accused him of begging the question.

ie: "IF there is no god THEN <yadda> <yadda> <yadda> THEREFORE there is no god".
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 07:30 AM   #377
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,597
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
With defenders like this Hawking sure didn't need any enemies. You have basically accused him of begging the question.

ie: "IF there is no god THEN <yadda> <yadda> <yadda> THEREFORE there is no god".
Nonsense. Hawking is not setting out to disprove god, he is setting out to determine information about the universe.
His findings cause a conflict with the most popular western versions of god.

Can you address the contradiction I clearly spelled out or are you going to also just dance around it?

Here it is again.

How do we resolve
"God is the creator of the universe"
with
"The universe did not require a creator"
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 07:42 AM   #378
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,461
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Ugh. Back to this again. Still not answered.
If a particular god BY DEFINITION is "the creator of the universe" and Hawking says the universe "did not have a creator",

What conclusion can Hawking reach?

How do we resolve
"God is the creator of the universe"
with
"The universe did not require a creator"

Goats do not have the attribute the "creator of the universe" so Hawking' statement does not apply to goats, nor to gods who's attributes do not include "creator of the universe".
I disagree with the implication that a being could exist with sufficient powers and sagacity to create the universe but be unable to conceal its work from humans, either intentionally or not.

Secondly, 'does not require' is not the same as 'did not have'.

I'm not saying there are gods or that anything created the universe, I'm only saying that not finding evidence of creation is not the same as proving there are no gods. There is no need to assume there are any, lacking evidence for them, but that is not the same as disproving them.

I have no reason to believe there's a burglar in my house right now, there has been no noise or anything to suggest there is. That doesn't mean I have proved there are no burglars here. Obviously I will act as if there are no burglars present, as that is the sensible course.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 07:53 AM   #379
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,597
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I disagree with the implication that a being could exist with sufficient powers and sagacity to create the universe but be unable to conceal its work from humans, either intentionally or not.
...

Ok thanks for at least answering the question.

If I understand you then the way to resolve the contradiction is that god could have created the universe in a way that is undetectable, or in a way that looks just like a naturalistic process.
I would imagine that Hawking does not consider that option as reasonable. That one is perhaps intent on defining god in such a way as to keep him alive in the face of advancing science. Especially when in the past (at least in a christian sense) he has had no issue with making himself VERY known.

I will agree that it is pretty much impossible to disprove a god that acts in undetectable ways. That being said, I am not sure why one would ever believe in a god.
This pretty much sums up my atheism. Just like for Zeus, or the Kami of shinto, I remain a non believer due to lack of evidence.
Adding the attribute of 'undetectable' to the god gives me no reason to start believing in him.
How does one determine that an undetectable god exists?
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 07:56 AM   #380
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,210
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Nonsense. Hawking is not setting out to disprove god, he is setting out to determine information about the universe.
His findings cause a conflict with the most popular western versions of god.

Can you address the contradiction I clearly spelled out or are you going to also just dance around it?

Here it is again.

How do we resolve
"God is the creator of the universe"
with
"The universe did not require a creator"
Quote:
"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"
You start by asking how do you explain that Hawking used the words "think" and "accept". Further how come he didn't say that "I know that the laws of nature are fixed".
While you are at it, you ask yourself, how this site written by scientists claims the following:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/...atisscience_12
Quote:
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
So how could Hawking draw the conclusion that there is no creator god and this site claim that science can't answer supernatural questions?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:04 AM   #381
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,210
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Ok thanks for at least answering the question.

If I understand you then the way to resolve the contradiction is that god could have created the universe in a way that is undetectable, or in a way that looks just like a naturalistic process.
I would imagine that Hawking does not consider that option as reasonable. That one is perhaps intent on defining god in such a way as to keep him alive in the face of advancing science. Especially when in the past (at least in a christian sense) he has had no issue with making himself VERY known.

I will agree that it is pretty much impossible to disprove a god that acts in undetectable ways. That being said, I am not sure why one would ever believe in a god.
This pretty much sums up my atheism. Just like for Zeus, or the Kami of shinto, I remain a non believer due to lack of evidence.
Adding the attribute of 'undetectable' to the god gives me no reason to start believing in him.
How does one determine that an undetectable god exists?
How does one determine that an undetectable god exists? You don't!!!
You either believe in one or not. But what does reason have to do with that?
I would like an answer to that. I am honestly questioning how your reasoning determines/causes there not to be a god?

I reason that there is no god, seems to imply that my reasoning determines/causes there to be no god and that further how I think/reason can cause/determine how the universe is?!!
Do you think, that how you think/reason is the cause of how the universe is?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed

Last edited by Tommy Jeppesen; 24th October 2018 at 08:06 AM.
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:05 AM   #382
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,938
Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:09 AM   #383
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,305
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Here it is again.

How do we resolve
"God is the creator of the universe"
with
"The universe did not require a creator"
We don't actually know anything about the universe at t=0 and before. We don't know that there was a before, but we also don't know that there wasn't.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:13 AM   #384
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,461
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Ok thanks for at least answering the question.

If I understand you then the way to resolve the contradiction is that god could have created the universe in a way that is undetectable, or in a way that looks just like a naturalistic process.
I would imagine that Hawking does not consider that option as reasonable. That one is perhaps intent on defining god in such a way as to keep him alive in the face of advancing science. Especially when in the past (at least in a christian sense) he has had no issue with making himself VERY known.

I will agree that it is pretty much impossible to disprove a god that acts in undetectable ways. That being said, I am not sure why one would ever believe in a god.
This pretty much sums up my atheism. Just like for Zeus, or the Kami of shinto, I remain a non believer due to lack of evidence.
Adding the attribute of 'undetectable' to the god gives me no reason to start believing in him.
How does one determine that an undetectable god exists?
Some of the Greeks tried pure reason to posit the 'Unmoved Mover' sort of deity, and much later the Rationalists did the same. For something like the Tao or Gnosticism the approach was through mysticism. Neither approach is scientific, but that's my point: the existence of the divine is an inherently unscientific question, so a scientific approach is useless. A mystic doesn't want or need scientific proof of gods any more than a scientist wants or needs mystical proof of scientific facts.

Every question has an appropriate arena. I don't ask my lawyer for programming tips, I don't ask my pool boy for legal advice, I don't ask a physicist for theological ideas, and I don't ask a mystic for an explanation of how gravity works. Well, actually I do because the answers are funnier, but I don't accept them as authoritative.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:14 AM   #385
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,210
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush
Science can describe how you eat. So here is a test for you. You are not allowed to eat in any manner, you are only allowed to read about the science of eating as it connects to medicine and biology. Now do this test and get back to us in a year.

Your claim that science can describe ethics, doesn't mean that science can do ethics in the same manner as science can describe eating is not the same as eating.

So your claim fails in the following manner: Everything in the universe is not just the process of describing, humans do other things than describing, and while science is a human process/behavior, it is not the only one and you can't live only be doing science.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:19 AM   #386
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,461
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
We don't actually know anything about the universe at t=0 and before. We don't know that there was a before, but we also don't know that there wasn't.
From the little I grasp of the physics, that's the wrong question. Since time itself is involved there was no 'before'. It's natural to us to think of time as always being around, like a space for events to happen in in order, but in this kind of physics time is one of the actors and not the stage on which the other actors act. So Hawking et all are quite plausible when they find no need for divine involvement, as there is nothing yet observed or theorized that suggests or requires it. Not even time as brain-straining as it is to think about.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:21 AM   #387
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,938
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Science can describe how you eat. So here is a test for you. You are not allowed to eat in any manner, you are only allowed to read about the science of eating as it connects to medicine and biology. Now do this test and get back to us in a year.

Your claim that science can describe ethics, doesn't mean that science can do ethics in the same manner as science can describe eating is not the same as eating.

So your claim fails in the following manner: Everything in the universe is not just the process of describing, humans do other things than describing, and while science is a human process/behavior, it is not the only one and you can't live only be doing science.
The mulberry bush,
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:27 AM   #388
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,938
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Some of the Greeks tried pure reason to posit the 'Unmoved Mover' sort of deity, and much later the Rationalists did the same. For something like the Tao or Gnosticism the approach was through mysticism. Neither approach is scientific, but that's my point: the existence of the divine is an inherently unscientific question, so a scientific approach is useless. A mystic doesn't want or need scientific proof of gods any more than a scientist wants or needs mystical proof of scientific facts.
...snip...
Way too much of a sweeping generalisation and ignores the vast majority of believers in the world who believe in a god.

I struggle to understand why folk keep wanting talk about "god/s" that people don't actually believe in (or at the very best a very tiny percentage of the world's population who claim to believe in a god or gods believe in)?

What's wrong with discussing the gods that people say do exist or historically claimed did exist?

These aren't vague gods, these are gods some religions have spent literally millenia defining and describing and believing in.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:29 AM   #389
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,938
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Ethics isn't meant to describe how people do behave, it's meant to show them how they ought to behave.
And does it work?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:31 AM   #390
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,597
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
How does one determine that an undetectable god exists? You don't!!!
You either believe in one or not.
What reason would I have to believe in one?

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
But what does reason have to do with that?
I would like an answer to that. I am honestly questioning how your reasoning determines/causes there not to be a god?
My reasoning tool does not affect whether god actually exists, it affects whether I believe or accept god exists.
If god is undetectable, why should I believe he exists? Why should I not believe 300 gods exist? Why should I not believe invisible undetectable unicorns exist?

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
I reason that there is no god, seems to imply that my reasoning determines/causes there to be no god
Absolutely not.
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
and that further how I think/reason can cause/determine how the universe is?!!
Do you think, that how you think/reason is the cause of how the universe is?
Absolutely not. Not sure where you are getting all this.
Hawking seems to be saying he sees no evidence of gods actions therefore HE concludes there are no gods.
His conclusion does not somehow "kill" god suddenly (if he exists)
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:34 AM   #391
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,597
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Some of the Greeks tried pure reason to posit the 'Unmoved Mover' sort of deity, and much later the Rationalists did the same. For something like the Tao or Gnosticism the approach was through mysticism. Neither approach is scientific, but that's my point: the existence of the divine is an inherently unscientific question, so a scientific approach is useless. A mystic doesn't want or need scientific proof of gods any more than a scientist wants or needs mystical proof of scientific facts.
This statement is only true if the divine is by its nature undetectable or deliberately hiding.
If he is detectable (why is this so absurd a concept) then he falls into the domain of science.
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Every question has an appropriate arena. I don't ask my lawyer for programming tips, I don't ask my pool boy for legal advice, I don't ask a physicist for theological ideas, and I don't ask a mystic for an explanation of how gravity works. Well, actually I do because the answers are funnier, but I don't accept them as authoritative.
So god is absolutely by definition undetectable? How did you determine this?
The Sparrow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:38 AM   #392
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 39,283
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Here We Go Round the Mulberry Bush
Define Mulberry Bush!
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:38 AM   #393
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,210
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
The mulberry bush,
I like that you use effectively emotions and not reason, logic, evidence and so on. It confirms that you are a human, who do other things than science. And thus that science can describe what you do, is not the same as you doing it. Your answer is not science, Darat.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:43 AM   #394
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,461
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Way too much of a sweeping generalisation and ignores the vast majority of believers in the world who believe in a god.

I struggle to understand why folk keep wanting talk about "god/s" that people don't actually believe in (or at the very best a very tiny percentage of the world's population who claim to believe in a god or gods believe in)?

What's wrong with discussing the gods that people say do exist or historically claimed did exist?

These aren't vague gods, these are gods some religions have spent literally millenia defining and describing and believing in.
For my part I can't understand why you seem to believe reality operates by majority consensus. Either the divine exists or it doesn't, and whichever it is has nothing to do with how many people agree with either position. Likewise the nature of the divine is not settled by majority opinion. Just because you can't credit anybody believing in a divinity that's not your notion of a cartoon caricature of this century's Semitic god most popular with the peasantry doesn't mean I have to argue on behalf of that particular theology.

And if you think that cartoon caricature is an accurate reflection of Christian theology past or present then your education is sadly limited. There are much more sophisticated views than you realize.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:44 AM   #395
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,210
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
What reason would I have to believe in one?

...
None, as long as you accept it doesn't tell us if there is such a god. It only tells us that you don't believe in such a god.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

There are versions of deism, which can be held by an atheist without turning it into theism. In other words it is possible to believe in a natural god, who created this universe and there is no Heaven, souls and what not.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:45 AM   #396
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,340
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
So god is absolutely by definition undetectable? How did you determine this?
I think his actual point is that there is no way to rule out an undetectable god, but there is also no need to worship an undetectable god and, in fact, it would be silly to worship an undetectable god.

Or to put it another way: Science has pushed gods so far out of the room that there are no substantial gaps for them anymore. Such that any gods filling the remaining minor gaps are not worth considering in the daily lives of humans.

When gods controlled the weather there was a reason for prayer. But, when gods have to exist completely outside of the known universe, then that reason is gone. Whether the gods are or not.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

Last edited by Dr. Keith; 24th October 2018 at 08:47 AM.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:45 AM   #397
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,461
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
And does it work?
That's a matter of philosophical debate, of course. Again, if your expecting absolute 'final answers', settled and done, you're looking in the wrong garden. Philosophy doesn't give you that. Science might, although it makes no promises and all conclusions are tentative and presumptive no contrary further evidence surfaces.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:50 AM   #398
Tommy Jeppesen
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,210
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I think his actual point is that there is no way to rule out an undetectable god, but there is also no need to worship an undetectable god and, in fact, it would be silly to worship an undetectable god.

Or to put it another way: Science has pushed gods so far out of the room that there are no substantial gaps for them anymore. Such that any gods filling the remaining minor gaps is not worth considering in the daily lives of humans.

When gods controlled the weather there was a reason for prayer. But, when gods have to exist completely outside of the known universe, then that reason is gone. Whether the gods are or not.
Not quite. You can believe in a deism god which makes it certain as a feeling/belief that you are not a Boltzmann Brain.
I am an atheist, but in effect I believe in such a god. This god created the universe as it appears and there are no Heaven, souls and so on (to me as how I believe.)
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:51 AM   #399
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,461
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
This statement is only true if the divine is by its nature undetectable or deliberately hiding.
If he is detectable (why is this so absurd a concept) then he falls into the domain of science.
If a divine action is detectable by scientific means, then yes, I'll agree you could scientifically prove a divinity. But the inverse is not true; failure to scientifically detect divine action doesn't disprove divinity, at most it can conclude 'there is no evidence found to suggest there is divinity'.

Quote:

So god is absolutely by definition undetectable? How did you determine this?
I didn't say that. I'm the one arguing he [i]can't/I] assert the nature or qualities of the divine. You're the one insisting you can. I'm merely stating that undetectability is one of the theoretical possibilities, should the divine exist.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th October 2018, 08:52 AM   #400
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,151
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
The moral values have not been arrived at scientifically, they are like the temperature of a spring day. It isn't warm or cold, it just is. The measure of the temperature is scientific and whether it is warm or cool is decided by the context. Same with certain moral values. All cultures believe killing is wrong. Science can put a value on the specific act and then each culture decides if it is good or bad based on the context.
This is exactly the derived-from-assumptions crap I said I wasn't interested in.

The question is whether science can inform the foundational ethical assumptions that everything else is derived from. We agree that science can inform the derivation. I understood your claim to be that science can also inform the base ethical assumptions themselves.

I now see that I misunderstood your claim, and that science has not actually established a new ethical basis.

Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Please tell me you don't think we are talking about my personal ethics here? How can we hold a discussion when you can't even sort out the subject?
Your ethics seemed like as good a place to start as any. I'm assuming that you've reasoned from some general ideas about ethics to a specific ethical application that works for you. Since this discussion is in part a discussion of reasoning about ethics, I expected your reasoning about your own ethics to be a helpful example for discussion. Certainly more helpful than your reasoning about thermometers.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:38 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.