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 22nd October 2018, 12:58 PM   #201
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
One could theorize, though. And either be correct or incorrect, although they wouldn't know which.
Why would you theorize about gods when one, we see that god myths are prevalent and two, we see that those myths were developed when people tried to explain events they didn't understand, and tried to explain and deal with death.

God beliefs now explained based on the evidence and you are still hanging on to what?
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 12:59 PM   #202
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,857
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Of course, but the assumption lies in the non-scientific claim that only science provides knowledge of things. This cannot be scientifically proven.
You need to define your use of proven and science in this context.
__________________
"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 22nd October 2018, 01:35 PM   #203
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Basically what you are saying is that we have two systems for figuring things out, science and guessing.

I guess if one is the type to give the two equal weight guessing is the smart choice because it's so easy.
No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have science and things that aren't science, and expecting science to answer questions unsuitable to science is as ridiculous as expecting things which aren't science to answer scientific questions.
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 01:36 PM   #204
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
From where I stand, science is overtaking philosophy as we learn more and more about how moral thinking is biological.
That may tell you how people arrive at particular ethical beliefs, but it can't tell you whether those ethical beliefs are correct or not.
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 01:38 PM   #205
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Why would you theorize about gods when one, we see that god myths are prevalent and two, we see that those myths were developed when people tried to explain events they didn't understand, and tried to explain and deal with death.

God beliefs now explained based on the evidence and you are still hanging on to what?
Just because you are satisfied with the answers science can bring in its limited scope doesn't mean everyone else is. If you aren't interested in nonscientific things that's fine. But your distinterest in a thing doesn't make it valueless for everybody else.
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 02:13 PM   #206
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 415
Hawking's beliefs (which were well-known prior to his death, as I recall) were of such paramount importance, and so honoured by all those who'd known him and sought to cherish his memory, that the memorial service of thanksgiving in his honour at Westminster Abbey was secular and non-Christian and barely mentioned God.

NOT.

https://www.westminster-abbey.org/me...ng-service.pdf

I mean, I believe/think/hope/pray Hawking was wrong, but if someone of any other religion dies, I expect their funeral will be in accordance with that religion, at least as a matter of politeness and respect to their beliefs while they were alive. Why was Hawking not accorded the same respect?
epeeist 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 22nd October 2018, 02:46 PM   #207
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,857
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have science and things that aren't science, and expecting science to answer questions unsuitable to science is as ridiculous as expecting things which aren't science to answer scientific questions.
The existence of gods is a scientific question every bit as much as the existence of the Higgs boson is a scientific question. And science answered the god question awhile ago.
__________________
"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 22nd October 2018, 02:52 PM   #208
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
The existence of gods is a scientific question every bit as much as the existence of the Higgs boson is a scientific question. And science answered the god question awhile ago.
Okay, then. What was the experiment that disproved the existence of gods?
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:03 PM   #209
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,615
I can only presume my posts are being ignored due to they being overshadowed by much more awesome posts. So I will say it again differently.

religion/philosopy: God is a being who created the universe
science: No gods were required to create the universe

Seems to me there is a problem here that can be solved by
a) God exists but he didn't create the universe.
b) God doesn't exist

Seems to me also that if god intervenes in the natural world, then the question of 'god' moves from a purely philosophical one to a scientific on as well.
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 22nd October 2018, 03:10 PM   #210
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying we have science and things that aren't science, and expecting science to answer questions unsuitable to science is as ridiculous as expecting things which aren't science to answer scientific questions.
You say not science and I say guessing.
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:11 PM   #211
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,883
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
science: No gods were required to create the universe
Nope.


science: We don't know how the universe was created.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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 22nd October 2018, 03:12 PM   #212
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You say not science and I say guessing.
You post a lot in Politics, don't you? How did you formulate your political opinions? What makes you think your opinion on any given issue is the correct one? Is it science? Or is it something else?
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:13 PM   #213
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Nope.


science: We don't know how the universe was created.
Not quite. Science: we have a theory about how the universe began, and it doesn't involve deities.

That is not the same thing as saying deities do not 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 22nd October 2018, 03:13 PM   #214
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
That may tell you how people arrive at particular ethical beliefs, but it can't tell you whether those ethical beliefs are correct or not.
Neither can pulling 'correct or not' out of the philosophical ether.
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:15 PM   #215
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
As long as you ignore the fact those biological determinant of "correct or not", neither can pulling it out of the philosophical ether.
I can't parse this. Whether a given ethical belief is correct or not is a separate question from how one arrived at the belief. Is killing wrong? Why or why not? You can come up with biological reasons why we might feel a need to kill, or reasons why we might feel we shouldn't kill, but that doesn't answer the question of whether it's wrong or not.
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:16 PM   #216
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,857
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Okay, then. What was the experiment that disproved the existence of gods?
There were thousands of them and together they led to the Big Bang Theory, abiogenisis, Evolution, genetics, the germ theory of disease, etc.

We no longer have to guess which god is angry and why.
__________________
"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 22nd October 2018, 03:17 PM   #217
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Just because you are satisfied with the answers science can bring in its limited scope doesn't mean everyone else is. If you aren't interested in nonscientific things that's fine. But your distinterest in a thing doesn't make it valueless for everybody else.
Straw man. It's not about my interests, it's about observable evidence. If you want to ignore that evidence and go with some magical explanation, fine. But my rejecting your premises is not about disinterest or values.
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:19 PM   #218
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,932
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
That may tell you how people arrive at particular ethical beliefs, but it can't tell you whether those ethical beliefs are correct or not.
Okay, I'll bite . . .

What CAN tell you whether ethical beliefs are correct or not?
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot 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 22nd October 2018, 03:19 PM   #219
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by epeeist View Post
Hawking's beliefs (which were well-known prior to his death, as I recall) were of such paramount importance, and so honoured by all those who'd known him and sought to cherish his memory, that the memorial service of thanksgiving in his honour at Westminster Abbey was secular and non-Christian and barely mentioned God.

NOT.

https://www.westminster-abbey.org/me...ng-service.pdf

I mean, I believe/think/hope/pray Hawking was wrong, but if someone of any other religion dies, I expect their funeral will be in accordance with that religion, at least as a matter of politeness and respect to their beliefs while they were alive. Why was Hawking not accorded the same respect?
Rituals have value without needing god beliefs behind them. More than a few Jews, for example, continue all their rituals despite rejecting the religion.

Family get togethers on Christmas is another example of a ritual one doesn't need god beliefs to find value in it.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 22nd October 2018 at 03:39 PM.
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 22nd October 2018, 03:19 PM   #220
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
There were thousands of them and together they led to the Big Bang Theory, abiogenisis, Evolution, genetics, the germ theory of disease, etc.

We no longer have to guess which god is angry and why.
That's not answering my question. What was the experiment that disproved the existence of gods? That there are alternative theories to explain occurrences once attributed to gods does not disprove the existence of gods; at best it proves the noninvolvement of gods in those occurrences.

My great aunt Booboo doesn't cause thunder, we know that now. But that knowledge doesn't inform us whether my great aunt Booboo exists or not, does 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 22nd October 2018, 03:23 PM   #221
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Okay, then. What was the experiment that disproved the existence of gods?
Wrong question. What best explains god beliefs is the correct question as there can then be objective evidence upon which to base hypotheses to answer the question.

Do you really truly honestly spend any time contemplating invisible pink unicorns because one cannot devise an experiment to prove they don't exist?

Why the double standard?
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:23 PM   #222
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,615
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
That's not answering my question. What was the experiment that disproved the existence of gods? That there are alternative theories to explain occurrences once attributed to gods does not disprove the existence of gods; at best it proves the noninvolvement of gods in those occurrences.

My great aunt Booboo doesn't cause thunder, we know that now. But that knowledge doesn't inform us whether my great aunt Booboo exists or not, does it?
It does if the definition of aunt booboo is "the being who creates thunder"
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 22nd October 2018, 03:23 PM   #223
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,932
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Okay, then. What was the experiment that disproved the existence of gods?
Another nibble . . .

The "experiment" of thousands of years of looking for any evidence of gods actually existing without any positive outcome.

Same "experiment" by which we conclude extinct species don't exist any more (but unlike any claimed god at least we know they once did)
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 22nd October 2018 at 03:26 PM.
ynot 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 22nd October 2018, 03:24 PM   #224
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,615
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Nope.


science: We don't know how the universe was created.
Pretty sure Hawking is saying he does know. - Hence him saying no gods required.
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 22nd October 2018, 03:25 PM   #225
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
I can only presume my posts are being ignored due to they being overshadowed by much more awesome posts. So I will say it again differently.

religion/philosopy: God is a being who created the universe
science: No gods were required to create the universe

Seems to me there is a problem here that can be solved by
a) God exists but he didn't create the universe.
b) God doesn't exist

Seems to me also that if god intervenes in the natural world, then the question of 'god' moves from a purely philosophical one to a scientific on as well.
And if said god does not interact with the Universe, there is no way for anyone to know about such a god. IOW Deism loses on that logical problem.
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:25 PM   #226
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Okay, I'll bite . . .

What CAN tell you whether ethical beliefs are correct or not?
You can't, you can only theorize. You can't expect the Real Answer from philosophy, it's not how it works. That's how science works, but you can't get science answers from philosophy questions any more than you should expect philosophy answers from science questions. Jupiter's mass is X, regardless of your opinions on it. Whether killing is ever justified or if compassion is the highest virtue are debatable.
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:27 PM   #227
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Nope.


science: We don't know how the universe was created.
Which brings us back to the OP. Hawking is saying that we know enough about how the Universe was created to know there is no room for gods in that explanation.
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:28 PM   #228
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Another nibble . . .

The "experiment" of thousands of years of looking for any evidence of gods actually existing without any positive outcome.

Same "experiment" by which we conclude extinct species don't exist any more (but unlike any claimed god at least we know they once did)
The coelecanth was extinct until we found one. In the gap between learning it ever existed and finding a live one was it extinct? Everything suggested it was. It would have been the most scientific conclusion that yes, it was extinct. Was that conclusion correct?
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:31 PM   #229
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,883
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Not quite. Science: we have a theory about how the universe began, and it doesn't involve deities.

That is not the same thing as saying deities do not exist.

Bit of a quibble but it could be important: We know how our universe has changed over the past 13 billion years. How did it arrive at that starting point and what came before it? No clue.


Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Pretty sure Hawking is saying he does know. - Hence him saying no gods required.

He didn't know in any scientific sense.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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 22nd October 2018, 03:33 PM   #230
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You post a lot in Politics, don't you? How did you formulate your political opinions? What makes you think your opinion on any given issue is the correct one? Is it science? Or is it something else?
Biologically I inherited a strong sense of altruism. And I know a fair bit about economics to know the best system is a mix of capitalism and socialism where socialism (because the term is being demonized and distorted) is the things best done with collective resources.

Health care, social safety nets, police, fire, infrastructure and defense are best managed collectively. Most everything else and some parts of health care have the best outcomes when capitalism is applied.

Philosophy is not going to get me any closer to deciding what is the best outcome than that.

Some people have less biological altruism, they don't give a rat's ass about contributing to the commons.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 22nd October 2018 at 03:34 PM.
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 22nd October 2018, 03:33 PM   #231
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Wrong question. What best explains god beliefs is the correct question as there can then be objective evidence upon which to base hypotheses to answer the question.
That sounds like you begin with the premise that gods don't exist, then work to explain why anyone would think they did.

Quote:
Do you really truly honestly spend any time contemplating invisible pink unicorns because one cannot devise an experiment to prove they don't exist?
The existence of invisible pink unicorns is not a scientific question so I have no need to utilize scientific methods to determine if it's likely or not.

Quote:
Why the double standard?
It's only a double standard if you insist on using the scientific method in arenas it is not appropriate for. A philosophical approach would be "there's no particular reason to believe there are invisible pink unicorns, and whether there are or not doesn't affect me, so I have no need to pursue the question." Although it would probably get hung up on the fact that something can't be pink if it's also invisible.
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:35 PM   #232
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,883
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Which brings us back to the OP. Hawking is saying that we know enough about how the Universe was created to know there is no room for gods in that explanation.

That certainly isn't correct. There is potentially an infinite amount of time we don't know anything about. Also there are potentially infinite dimensions we know nothing about. It's actually anti-scientific to make that claim. It's essentially trying to prove a negative.



BTW I haven't read Hawking's own words so I'm taking your word that he actually said that. It doesn't really matter who said it.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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 22nd October 2018, 03:36 PM   #233
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I can't parse this. Whether a given ethical belief is correct or not is a separate question from how one arrived at the belief. Is killing wrong? Why or why not? You can come up with biological reasons why we might feel a need to kill, or reasons why we might feel we shouldn't kill, but that doesn't answer the question of whether it's wrong or not.
Sorry. Try parsing the edited post. I was in the middle of changing it when you hit reply.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 22nd October 2018 at 03:57 PM.
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 22nd October 2018, 03:37 PM   #234
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
...

We no longer have to guess which god is angry and why.
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:37 PM   #235
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Biologically I inherited a strong sense of altruism. And I know a fair bit about economics to know the best system is a mix of capitalism and socialism where socialism (because the term is being demonized and distorted) is the things best done with collective resources.

Health care, social safety nets, police, fire, infrastructure and defense are best managed collectively. Most everything else and some parts of health care are best when capitalism is applied.

Philosophy is not going to get me any closer to deciding what is the best outcome than that.

Some people have less biological altruism, they don't give a rat's ass about contributing to the commons.
"Best" system sounds like a value judgment. What is this quality you call "best"? The most efficient in function? The one that brings the most good to the most people? What is "good"? Why is contributing to the commons "good"? Why is "good" desirable?
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:45 PM   #236
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The coelecanth was extinct until we found one. In the gap between learning it ever existed and finding a live one was it extinct? Everything suggested it was. It would have been the most scientific conclusion that yes, it was extinct. Was that conclusion correct?
And that contradicts no gods needed, how?

How long are you going to keep insisting we don't know enough about evolution because we can't prove we won't find some aliens landed on the planet and there is some genetic lineage that will be found that throws whole theory into a tizzy?
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:45 PM   #237
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,932
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The coelecanth was extinct until we found one. In the gap between learning it ever existed and finding a live one was it extinct? Everything suggested it was. It would have been the most scientific conclusion that yes, it was extinct. Was that conclusion correct?
It was concluded to be extinct according to the then available evidence. New evidence subsequently proved this conclusion to be wrong and the conclusion was corrected (that's how science works).

Please let us all know when you or anyone finds credible evidence of a god actually existing, and the "gods don't actually exist" conclusion will also be corrected.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot 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 22nd October 2018, 03:49 PM   #238
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
And that contradicts no gods needed, how?

How long are you going to keep insisting we don't know enough about evolution because we can't prove we won't find some aliens landed on the planet and there is some genetic lineage that will be found that throws whole theory into a tizzy?
Strawman. I'm not arguing about evolution. I'm not even arguing for creationism. I'm arguing that science cannot answer nonscientific questions. Stop assuming I'm advocating a modern Christian fundamentalist's notion of a creator god's existence. There are a lot more theologies and philosophies than that one.
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:52 PM   #239
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
It was concluded to be extinct according to the then available evidence. New evidence subsequently proved this conclusion to be wrong and the conclusion was corrected (that's how science works).
I agree. But the coelecanth living on whether we knew it or not demonstrates that things are how they are regardless of what we know about them, and how we arrived at that knowledge.

Quote:
Please let us all know when you or anyone finds credible evidence of a god actually existing, and the "gods don't actually exist" conclusion will also be corrected.
Again, you're asking for a science answer to a non-science question. You can't scientifically prove or disprove the Gnostic Pleroma any more than you can philosophically debate the mass of Jupiter.
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 03:54 PM   #240
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
That sounds like you begin with the premise that gods don't exist, then work to explain why anyone would think they did.
Wrong! I began with the observable evidence: people have god beliefs. There is no evidence even hinting that gods exist. And many many gods have been clearly shown to be myths.

The question, 'do gods exist', is not how we come up with testable hypotheses.


Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
The existence of invisible pink unicorns is not a scientific question so I have no need to utilize scientific methods to determine if it's likely or not.
Dodge.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
It's only a double standard if you insist on using the scientific method in arenas it is not appropriate for. A philosophical approach would be "there's no particular reason to believe there are invisible pink unicorns, and whether there are or not doesn't affect me, so I have no need to pursue the question." Although it would probably get hung up on the fact that something can't be pink if it's also invisible.
Why, of all the possible things in this Universe, do I need to apply this double standard to god beliefs? I don't apply it to claims of psychic abilities or the existence of ghosts.

There's nothing special about god myths except that they are very widespread. But even widespread they are inconsistent and contradictory.
__________________
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 02:44 PM.
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.