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 21st October 2018, 03:50 AM   #81
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,771
As usual the only evidence for any supernatural agent running the universe is rhetoric and philosophy.

Funny how there is never any actual empirical, objective evidence for any kind of god.
Captain_Swoop 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 21st October 2018, 04:00 AM   #82
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,291
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Maybe, maybe not. But not knowing if the universe is deterministic is a serious handicap to knowing how the universe works.
Except that it's not as simple as just saying that our modern understanding of quantum mechanics is non-deterministic.

Here's Sean Carroll again:
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...n-determinism/
Quote:
Quantum mechanics is where things get interesting. When a quantum state is happily evolving along according to the Schrödinger equation, everything is perfectly deterministic; indeed, more so than classical mechanics, because the space of states (Hilbert space) doesn’t allow for the kind of non-generic funny business that let non-deterministic classical solutions sneak in. But when we make an observation, we are unable to deterministically predict what its outcome will be. (And Bell’s theorem at least suggests that this inability is not just because we’re not smart enough; we never will be able to make such predictions.) At this point, opinions become split about whether the loss of determinism is real, or merely apparent.
__________________
"... 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 21st October 2018, 04:28 AM   #83
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 13,981
"Sure we could figure things out and learn more and more about how the universe operates... but what if the universe really runs on random dream logic with no cause and effect?"

"Sure these scientist are discovering more and more about how the universe operates... but that only under the assumption that reality is real."

"Sure these scientist are able to make more and more accurate predictions based on centuries of accumulated knowledge... but what if God makes things happen differently with magic when we aren't looking?"
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 21st October 2018 at 04:58 AM.
JoeMorgue 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 21st October 2018, 04:46 AM   #84
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 30,542
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
As usual the only evidence for any supernatural agent running the universe is rhetoric and philosophy.

And as usual it isn’t even good rhetoric or philosophy.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo 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 21st October 2018, 05:20 AM   #85
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,395
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
As usual the only evidence for any supernatural agent running the universe is rhetoric and philosophy.

Funny how there is never any actual empirical, objective evidence for any kind of god.
You must be posting in the wrong thread.

The claim here is that it has been proven that there is no room for a god in this universe. And this claim is being made by Stephen Hawking so it must be true (authority and all that).
__________________
"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 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 21st October 2018, 05:21 AM   #86
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 17,771
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You must be posting in the wrong thread.

The claim here is that it has been proven that there is no room for a god in this universe. And this claim is being made by Stephen Hawking so it must be true (authority and all that).
Can't think of one better.
Captain_Swoop 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 21st October 2018, 06:20 AM   #87
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,896
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You must be posting in the wrong thread.

The claim here is that it has been proven that there is no room for a god in this universe. And this claim is being made by Stephen Hawking so it must be true (authority and all that).
By using the weasel "a god" you of course are not refering to the gods people believe 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 21st October 2018, 06:59 AM   #88
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 13,981
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The claim here is that it has been proven that there is no room for a god in this universe. And this claim is being made by Stephen Hawking so it must be true (authority and all that).
Hawking said no such thing, stop lying.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue 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 21st October 2018, 07:03 AM   #89
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,300
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You don't clarify something by obfuscating it. Having a handful of formulas that allow us to predict some behaviours in the universe is a long way from knowing all about it - let alone proving a negative.
That's how science works. It gives explanations of concrete facts and extends them as far as it can. There is no science and no possible knowledge of the Whole. We allways know something within limits.

But the best "negative" test is the continued failure to "positively" demonstrate something. This is the case of gods.
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 21st October 2018, 07:04 AM   #90
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 13,981
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
There is no science and no possible knowledge of the Whole. We allways know something within limits.
Especially when you can just make up where the limits are.

So what you can "And then?" any epistemology. Okay and? The point?
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue 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 21st October 2018, 07:49 AM   #91
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,395
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
By using the weasel "a god" you of course are not refering to the gods people believe in.
Maybe in Swahili "a god" doesn't mean "any god" but there is no way that any reasonable person could possibly believe that I am not including the "gods that people believe in".

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Hawking said no such thing, stop lying.
I read the OP. Did you?
__________________
"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 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 21st October 2018, 08:25 AM   #92
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,595
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Maybe in Swahili "a god" doesn't mean "any god" but there is no way that any reasonable person could possibly believe that I am not including the "gods that people believe in".
Well, perhaps it comes from years of experience debating theists who are very quick to point out what their god is "not", but very loose and vague when asked to point out what their god "is".
Apologies in advance if perhaps you are different. Could you define god?
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 21st October 2018, 08:52 AM   #93
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,395
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Well, perhaps it comes from years of experience debating theists who are very quick to point out what their god is "not", but very loose and vague when asked to point out what their god "is".
This is not a theological debate but a scientific one. The question is whether our scientific knowledge is advanced enough to rule out the possibility that a god could exist. I would suggest that we are still standing on Newton's beach and have yet to wet our feet in the vast ocean of knowledge.

Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Could you define god?
I doubt that I could come up with a very good definition.

From past and present examples of "gods" I might suggest a supernatural being that may or may not have some human characteristics and possibly has the power of life and death over mere mortals and maybe can shape their futures and destinies. A powerful enough god can create or destroy entire worlds or even the entire universe.

I'm sure that others can come up with better definitions.
__________________
"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

Last edited by psionl0; 21st October 2018 at 08:55 AM.
psionl0 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 21st October 2018, 09:01 AM   #94
GDon
Muse
 
GDon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 953
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The claim here is that it has been proven that there is no room for a god in this universe. And this claim is being made by Stephen Hawking so it must be true (authority and all that).
I suspect Hawking is addressing the Kalam Cosmological Argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_...gical_argument
Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause.
If, as Hawking and others propose, the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, then that impacts on the KCA and any arguments based on it.

Last edited by GDon; 21st October 2018 at 09:03 AM.
GDon 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 21st October 2018, 09:03 AM   #95
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,595
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
This is not a theological debate but a scientific one. The question is whether our scientific knowledge is advanced enough to rule out the possibility that a god could exist. I would suggest that we are still standing on Newton's beach and have yet to wet our feet in the vast ocean of knowledge.
Possibly. But I believe what Hawking has suggested is that we have adequate models of the universe which do not require (in our local representation of the universe) an additional "actor".

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I doubt that I could come up with a very good definition.

From past and present examples of "gods" I might suggest a supernatural being that may or may not have some human characteristics and possibly has the power of life and death over mere mortals and maybe can shape their futures and destinies. A powerful enough god can create or destroy entire worlds or even the entire universe.

I'm sure that others can come up with better definitions.
Would such actions by this possible god leave a detectable trace or evidence after the fact?
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 21st October 2018, 09:10 AM   #96
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You must be posting in the wrong thread.

The claim here is that it has been proven that there is no room for a god in this universe. And this claim is being made by Stephen Hawking so it must be true (authority and all that).
Hawking did nothing but make a small leap of logic: In all scientific inquiry there has never been one iota of evidence for a god. In fact, in all human history there has never been any evidence, only ignorance. Stating that their is no room for a god in the universe is a far smaller leap that claiming there is a god, or even room for a god.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak 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 21st October 2018, 09:41 AM   #97
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,012
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Ron don't forget the baby for us to eat at the next Evil Atheist Membership Dinner. You forget last time and we had to send Dawkins out to get one and you know fresh baby is never as good as one that's been marinating for several hours.
I know, I'm sorry. I always forget. But the good news is one of my friends just had a baby, so we have fresh meat for next supper.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins 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 21st October 2018, 10:21 AM   #98
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,896
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Maybe in Swahili "a god" doesn't mean "any god" but there is no way that any reasonable person could possibly believe that I am not including the "gods that people believe in".


I read the OP. Did you?
Then your sentence is proven false since there are many, many gods that people people believe in that we know do not exist.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 21st October 2018 at 10:24 AM.
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 21st October 2018, 10:23 AM   #99
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,896
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Hawking did nothing but make a small leap of logic: In all scientific inquiry there has never been one iota of evidence for a god. In fact, in all human history there has never been any evidence, only ignorance. Stating that their is no room for a god in the universe is a far smaller leap that claiming there is a god, or even room for a god.
We know there is "no room" for the god that the RCs believe in, no room for the god Muslims believe in, no room for the gods the Hindus believe in. That covers the gods of the vast majority of the religious folk in the world.
__________________
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 21st October 2018, 10:48 AM   #100
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,395
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Then your sentence is proven false since there are many, many gods that people people believe in that we know do not exist.
If you have to go through so much linguistical acrobatics just to strawman me then you have no credibility at all.
__________________
"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 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 21st October 2018, 10:50 AM   #101
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,395
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Hawking did nothing but make a small leap of logic confirmation bias:
ftfy,
__________________
"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 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 21st October 2018, 10:59 AM   #102
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,031
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Then your sentence is proven false since there are many, many gods that people people believe in that we know do not exist.

If e.g. Christians insist that we can't know that their one God does not exist, I can't see how they can make us rule out the rest of them ... or all the other creatures of fiction: Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, Donald Duck, Ford Prefect, Elizabeth Bennet, Kilgore Trout, Scrooge, Wonder Woman, Simon Wagstaff ... to name but a few.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann 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 21st October 2018, 11:34 AM   #103
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,395
Originally Posted by dann View Post
If e.g. Christians insist that we can't know that their one God does not exist, I can't see how they can make us rule out the rest of them ... or all the other creatures of fiction: Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, Donald Duck, Ford Prefect, Elizabeth Bennet, Kilgore Trout, Scrooge, Wonder Woman, Simon Wagstaff ... to name but a few.
That is philosophy again.

Science makes no statement about the possibility of god(s) and quantum mechanics does not prove that there is no room for any god in the universe.
__________________
"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 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 21st October 2018, 11:48 AM   #104
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,995
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That is philosophy again.

Science makes no statement about the possibility of god(s)
When god-botherers manage to make some sort of claim about existence, then science is the only tool which can make informed and truthful statements. Not religion, not philosophy.


Quote:
and quantum mechanics does not prove that there is no room for any god in the universe.
Quantum mechanics per se may or may not (I think it does) but there are other arguments which prove such.
The Norseman 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 21st October 2018, 11:51 AM   #105
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,395
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Quantum mechanics per se may or may not (I think it does) but there are other arguments which prove such.
No. There are plenty of scientific arguments against the possibility of a god or gods but no scientific proof of such.
__________________
"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 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 21st October 2018, 12:04 PM   #106
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
ftfy,
You fixed nothing, you just added your own error to my words. If there was relatively balanced evidence between the universe being controlled by a god and a universe that follows natural laws you could say anyone making a firm statement had succumbed to confirmation bias but the evidence isn't balanced, In fact the evidence so far is 100% in support of a universe governed by natural law and 0% in support of gods. Hawking was only expressing where the evidence has overwhelmingly led us.

Carrying your claim further, as you have been attempting to do, brings you up against the brick wall of infinite regression. "A god must have set the laws in motion!"

"Who set your god in motion?"

You are behaving like the gambler playing Texas Holdem who has gone all in after seeing the flop on a full house of aces over queens only to find out his opponent has aces over kings but figures he has a pretty good chance at quad aces on the river. Yeah, it's possible if there was a screw up at the playing card company but would Hawking be suffering from confirmation bias if he said the gambler wasn't gonna make it?
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak 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 21st October 2018, 12:34 PM   #107
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,995
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
No. There are plenty of scientific arguments against the possibility of a god or gods but no scientific proof of such.
How are you meaning "scientific proof" then?
The Norseman 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 21st October 2018, 12:35 PM   #108
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,031
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That is philosophy again.

Science makes no statement about the possibility of god(s) and quantum mechanics does not prove that there is no room for any god in the universe.

So Donald Duck actually exists?! He isn't just some fictitious cartoon character?
(I would be very disappointed in quantum mechanics if it wasted time trying to prove or disprove that Duckburg is a real town!)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann 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 21st October 2018, 12:41 PM   #109
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,595
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post

Science makes no statement about the possibility of god(s) ...
When it is dealing with the origins of the universe, it certainly does. Unless you are saying god had no hand in creating the universe.
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 21st October 2018, 01:25 PM   #110
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,936
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That is philosophy again.

Science makes no statement about the possibility of god(s) and quantum mechanics does not prove that there is no room for any god in the universe.
I don't think you define "no room for" the same way I do. I define it as science doesn't need a god of the gaps, there is no observable evidence left over that needs a god to explain.

I take it you want to hang onto the 'can't rule a god or gods out'. That's not what Hawking is saying. He's saying there is nothing at all left to base a god on.

You're equating the evidence for a god to the evidence for an invisible pink unicorn. There is none but you don't think you need any to say, "we don't know". Hawking says you do need something and there is no something there.
__________________
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 21st October 2018, 02:02 PM   #111
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 13,981
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
I know, I'm sorry. I always forget. But the good news is one of my friends just had a baby, so we have fresh meat for next supper.
That's good. You should always source local when possible.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
JoeMorgue 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 21st October 2018, 02:10 PM   #112
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 83,896
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That is philosophy again.

Science makes no statement about the possibility of god(s) and quantum mechanics does not prove that there is no room for any god in the universe.
Of course it does. Science tells us Zeus doesn't exist.
__________________
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 21st October 2018, 02:12 PM   #113
Thor 2
Illuminator
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 4,090
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That is philosophy again.

Science makes no statement about the possibility of god(s) and quantum mechanics does not prove that there is no room for any god in the universe.
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I don't think you define "no room for" the same way I do. I define it as science doesn't need a god of the gaps, there is no observable evidence left over that needs a god to explain.

I take it you want to hang onto the 'can't rule a god or gods out'. That's not what Hawking is saying. He's saying there is nothing at all left to base a god on.

You're equating the evidence for a god to the evidence for an invisible pink unicorn. There is none but you don't think you need any to say, "we don't know". Hawking says you do need something and there is no something there.

That's the way I see it too Ginger.

I might add that I get annoyed by those that say "Science says this or science says that", as if science is sitting in an office somewhere making statements.

Science is just a method, a method we all use, (although some shun the method when it leads to conflict with illogical convictions), and leads us to understanding and informed decisions.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 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 21st October 2018, 10:15 PM   #114
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,300
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Especially when you can just make up where the limits are.

So what you can "And then?" any epistemology. Okay and? The point?
There is no other method of explaining facts that can go beyond the limits of science. You have to put up with that.
Other knowledge in the form of hypotheses (and probability) is possible as long as it does not contradict science and clearly delimits its field of action.

I am leaving aside analytic-formal knowledge which is something else. I am talking about facts.
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 21st October 2018, 10:36 PM   #115
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,300
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
This is not a theological debate but a scientific one. The question is whether our scientific knowledge is advanced enough to rule out the possibility that a god could exist. I would suggest that we are still standing on Newton's beach and have yet to wet our feet in the vast ocean of knowledge.
.
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That is philosophy again.
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
When god-botherers manage to make some sort of claim about existence, then science is the only tool which can make informed and truthful statements. Not religion, not philosophy.
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Of course it does. Science tells us Zeus doesn't exist.
I regret to say that you are like Molière's Bourgeois gentilhomme, who spoke in prose and did not know it. You are doing philosophy, as much as it kills you.

The existence of God is not studied in the faculties of physics, astronomy, biology, etc. It is studied in the faculties of theology and in some chairs of philosophy.
There is not a single respectable journal of science that has published a single article dedicated to prove or refute the existence of God. Do you know any? Can you say any theorem or physical law that talks about this subject?
A strange scientific subject that is not studied in science faculties or specialized journals.

The problem is that you are so philosophobic that you do not see what is before you. The existence of God is a philosophical problem and atheism is a philosophical issue. You are making philosophy. You will have to confess to your scientist confessor.

Last edited by David Mo; 21st October 2018 at 10:37 PM.
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 21st October 2018, 10:49 PM   #116
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,300
To ask me to prove that there is no god who operates in some place far from the galaxy or in the depths of the volcano Etna is like asking me to prove that there is no space coffee pot circling Mars.

The one who has to prove that some god exists on Alpha Centauri or on the Islands of the Blessed is the believer. Since believers of any known type have been frankly incompetent to prove the existence of any god of any shape and fur, I believe I am authorized to say that gods do not exist.

But I do not know this from science. But by common sense and philosophy. To Caesar what is Caesar's.
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 21st October 2018, 10:58 PM   #117
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 3,300
The mania of confusing philosophy with theology is very Anglo-Saxon and Roman Catholic. The latter because of the all-embracing power that the Church had over society until the 19th century. In the Anglo-Saxons countries I think it is because of the influence of the USA, where the religious pressure is much stronger than in the old Europe. Here the existence of God stopped worrying philosophers long ago and people such as Levinas o Ricouer seem a little exotic now.
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 21st October 2018, 11:05 PM   #118
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The existence of God is not studied in the faculties of physics, astronomy, biology, etc. It is studied in the faculties of theology and in some chairs of philosophy.
Many scientists, including Hawking, have waded in on the god question. As soon as a theist makes a testable claim about god science can test it. All those claims have been shown to be false thus far. Proving god is up to those who claim there is one but all their other claims as to how the universe got to be the way it is are testable. God didn't do it.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak 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 21st October 2018, 11:22 PM   #119
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,395
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I might add that I get annoyed by those that say "Science says this or science says that", as if science is sitting in an office somewhere making statements.
"Science" is shorthand for the results or inferences that are drawn after applying a "scientific method". I should not have to spell that out every time I refer to "science". To suggest that I am implying that "science is sitting in an office somewhere making statements" is as dishonest as accusing me of intellectual dishonestly because I did not use somebody's preferred formula when discussing gods that are known or unknown or believed in or not believed in (how DARE I just say "a god").

Regarding the scientific method and gods, this is effect partially begging the question. We are saying that if we assume that there are no gods, can the scientific method account for the existence and form of this universe? In this primitive era of science, it appears very feasible to account for a universe scientifically without assuming anything about "a god". Of course, scientific knowledge will have to be refined to the nth degree before we can consider such inferences reliable.
__________________
"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 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 21st October 2018, 11:58 PM   #120
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,936
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
"Science" is shorthand for the results or inferences that are drawn after applying a "scientific method". I should not have to spell that out every time I refer to "science". To suggest that I am implying that "science is sitting in an office somewhere making statements" is as dishonest as accusing me of intellectual dishonestly because I did not use somebody's preferred formula when discussing gods that are known or unknown or believed in or not believed in (how DARE I just say "a god").

Regarding the scientific method and gods, this is effect partially begging the question. We are saying that if we assume that there are no gods, can the scientific method account for the existence and form of this universe? In this primitive era of science, it appears very feasible to account for a universe scientifically without assuming anything about "a god". Of course, scientific knowledge will have to be refined to the nth degree before we can consider such inferences reliable.
Only if you keep asking the wrong question.

Wrong question because there is no evidence to base the hypothesis on: Do gods exist?

Logical question based on over whelming observable evidence, what explains 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
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 04:02 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.