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, 03:56 PM   #241
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
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.
If the article is misquoting Hawking I suspect we will hear about it.

As for proving the negative, please catch up on the thread. I'm not going to repeat it for every newcomer to the thread.
__________________
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, 03:58 PM   #242
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,883
I've read the thread. What you said is incorrect.
__________________
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, 03:59 PM   #243
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,184
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Really? Awesome.

I eagerly await ANY evidence to support this "hypothesis".
As David Hume said,"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish."

So we just appeared out of thin air aware enough to be having this conversation by accident? Isn't that a ridiculous conclusion?
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie 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, 03:59 PM   #244
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
"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?
I addressed that ^.

Philosophy is not going to determine good, bad, beautiful, ugly or any other esoteric value judgements.
__________________
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, 04:02 PM   #245
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
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.
You're concluding you don't need to test the hypothesis. That's different from testing it and reaching a conclusion based on the resulting data.


Quote:
Dodge.
No, it's not. Why can you not grasp this? I don't attempt to apply the scientific method of inquiry to nonscientific questions.

Quote:
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.
Again, it's not a double standard. You're applying the wrong standard. And it's not just "god beliefs", it would be anything that isn't appropriate for science. The existence of an afterlife would be another such item.

Existence of ghosts, however, could well be appropriate for scientific examination because they are supposed to manifest in this world. Such claimed apparitions could be studied. But the best conclusion science could reach on them would be "there is no evidence this incident was caused by ghosts, nor are there any other examined instances where ghosts were observed". It couldn't say, conclusively, that ghosts do not exist. For the millionth time, "we have no evidence of A" does NOT mean "we have evidence of Not-A".
__________________
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, 04:03 PM   #246
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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.
It was an analogy, why waste time with this ring-around-the-Rosie post?

I think I've addressed everything else in your post. We are at the repeating-ourselves phase.

I wasn't putting you in the Christian God believer category. If you notice I mostly talked about gods, lower case g.
__________________
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, 04:04 PM   #247
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I addressed that ^.

Philosophy is not going to determine good, bad, beautiful, ugly or any other esoteric value judgements.
I missed it. Where did you define what good is, and why it's preferable?
__________________
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, 04:04 PM   #248
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,662
"No possibility of creator" is just unfounded. You can't disprove all-mighty being. There might be no need or evidence for gods to exist, but that's far from "no possibility".
Dr.Sid 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, 04:04 PM   #249
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
I've read the thread. What you said is incorrect.
Good, we're done here then.
__________________
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, 04:04 PM   #250
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,932
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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.
Science (and good scientists) don't claim knowledge is absolute.

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
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.
Why is "do gods exist?" a "non-science question"? If a god exists but doesn't interact with reality then it's essentially no different than it not existing. If a god did exist and did interact with reality then science could be applied to the "do gods exist" question.
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 04:07 PM   #251
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,378
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
"No possibility of creator" is just unfounded. You can't disprove all-mighty being. There might be no need or evidence for gods to exist, but that's far from "no possibility".
Until one makes the paradigm shift from proving gods don't exist, to explaining god beliefs for which we have evidence, we will continue to stall out at this point here.
__________________
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, 04:09 PM   #252
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Science (and good scientists) don't claim knowledge is absolute.
I never said they did. That's precisely why I'm arguing that "no gods exist" is NOT a scientific conclusion.

Quote:
Why is "do gods exist?" a "non-science question"? If a god exists but doesn't interact with reality then it's essentially no different than it not existing. If a god did exist and did interact with reality then science could be applied to the "do gods exist" question.
Either gods exist or they don't. Agreed? A or Not-A. And whether A or Not-A is the true state of being is independent of whether we think the correct answer is A or Not-A. Is that agreed? Having no evidence for A is not the same thing as having evidence for Not-A. Is that agreed?

And yes, if gods interacted with reality then science --if you could devise the right experiment or observation method -- could investigate. But I have yet to see anybody's proposed experiment on how to determine if gods exist or not. So far all we've got is "we came up with alternate explanations for certain phenomena once claimed to be caused by gods", which is not in any way to my mind an experiment at all, much less a conclusive 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, 04:12 PM   #253
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,932
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
As David Hume said,"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish."

So we just appeared out of thin air aware enough to be having this conversation by accident? Isn't that a ridiculous conclusion?
I agree! That humans appeared out of "thin air" (dust and a rib) and were aware enough to be having this conversation is absolutely a ridiculous conclusion.
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 04:16 PM   #254
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,615
The origin of the universe IS a scientific question. Positing a god as the cause brings the action of god into the realm of science.
I don't see how you are drawing some sort of boundary between god and the natural world when by most western definitions of god, he did create the natural world, and according to many myths, occasionally intervenes in its affairs.

It's almost like you art tracing causes further and further back and at some point you suddenly say that the question of 'what caused that turtle' suddenly becomes a 'philosophical' question, but the immediate turtle above it was a 'scientific' question.
What changed between turtle 8,000,000,002 and 8,000,000,001?
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, 04:20 PM   #255
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,615
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
As David Hume said,"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish."

So we just appeared out of thin air aware enough to be having this conversation by accident? Isn't that a ridiculous conclusion?
So much wrong with this statement:
"So we just appeared out of thin air aware enough to be having this conversation by accident?"

I don't even know where to begin.
Who exactly is claiming that is where humans came from? No scientist I have ever heard about.
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, 04:20 PM   #256
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
The origin of the universe IS a scientific question. Positing a god as the cause brings the action of god into the realm of science.
I don't see how you are drawing some sort of boundary between god and the natural world when by most western definitions of god, he did create the natural world, and according to many myths, occasionally intervenes in its affairs.

It's almost like you art tracing causes further and further back and at some point you suddenly say that the question of 'what caused that turtle' suddenly becomes a 'philosophical' question, but the immediate turtle above it was a 'scientific' question.
What changed between turtle 8,000,000,002 and 8,000,000,001?
Who are you talking to? If it's me, I'm not stuck on the universe being created by gods. It's not a necessary property of deities that they must be creator gods. I'm not responsible for "most western definitions of god". I'm only arguing that the question of divine existence is not a scientific one, and that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
__________________
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, 04:29 PM   #257
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,615
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
....I'm only arguing that the question of divine existence is not a scientific one....
Again then, I will repeat myself.
"How the universe came to be" is a scientific question.
If god is defined as THE creator of the universe (amongst other things) then that particular attribute of god is a scientific question.
If the universe 'coming to be' is shown to not have required a god (I am not saying it has or not) then either the definition of god has to change, or there is no god.
Remove that attribute from god, then that god's existence falls out of the realm of science.

That is why in this specific regard, the existence of god (with an attribute of 'creator of the universe') is a scientific question.
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, 04:34 PM   #258
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
Again then, I will repeat myself.
"How the universe came to be" is a scientific question.
If god is defined as THE creator of the universe (amongst other things) then that particular attribute of god is a scientific question.
I don't agree that all gods must necessarily be creator gods, or involved in the universe or its creation in any way.

Quote:
If the universe 'coming to be' is shown to not have required a god (I am not saying it has or not) then either the definition of god has to change, or there is no god.
Not necessarily. I can build a birdhouse. That I didn't build this particular birdhouse you're looking at doesn't prove I don't exist or that I can't build birdhouses. The best you can conclude is that you find no evidence I built this particular birdhouse you're studying.

Quote:
Remove that attribute from god, then that god's existence falls out of the realm of science.
I'm glad you admit that something is outside the realm of science.

Quote:
That is why in this specific regard, the existence of god (with an attribute of 'creator of the universe') is a scientific question.
See above. In reference to the OP, Hawking could say "there is no evidence of divine involvement in the universe's beginnings, nor is there any scientific reason to suppose there was such involvement or are such beings." That is not the same thing as a declaration that gods do not/cannot 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, 04:35 PM   #259
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
Ah, the soft atheism, hard atheism argument revisited, in SH's memory.

When applied to the god question in general (as opposed to certain specific god questions) :

Soft atheism good. Hard atheism bad. Hard atheism illogical. Hard atheism as untenable as outright theism.
Chanakya 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, 04:45 PM   #260
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,615
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I don't agree that all gods must necessarily be creator gods, or involved in the universe or its creation in any way.
ok no objections here. I think we agree though that the abrahamic God is a creator god?


Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Not necessarily. I can build a birdhouse. That I didn't build this particular birdhouse you're looking at doesn't prove I don't exist or that I can't build birdhouses. The best you can conclude is that you find no evidence I built this particular birdhouse you're studying.
Sure. It doesn't exclude a god that built other universes, but not this one.


Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I'm glad you admit that something is outside the realm of science.
um, sure. I don't think I ever claimed there was nothing outside the realm of science.
If you want to argue that something with no attributes or effects would be un-measurable by science, sure I could see that.


Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
See above. In reference to the OP, Hawking could say "there is no evidence of divine involvement in the universe's beginnings, nor is there any scientific reason to suppose there was such involvement or are such beings." That is not the same thing as a declaration that gods do not/cannot exist.
It is for the gods defined as 'creator of the universe'.
For the other gods that are not defined as 'creator of the universe' you are correct.
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, 04:49 PM   #261
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,932
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
If god is defined as THE creator of the universe (amongst other things) then that particular attribute of god is a scientific question.
Wrong! The unsubstantiated claim that a god exists and is the creator of The Universe is an unscientific claim, not a scientific question. Unsubstantiated claims and definitions are of no value to science.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 22nd October 2018 at 04:52 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 22nd October 2018, 04:53 PM   #262
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
ok no objections here. I think we agree though that the abrahamic God is a creator god?
Interestingly enough, while the modern religions say he is, there is good evidence the ancient Hebrews did not. The term is "monolatry": it means when many gods are believed to exist but you only worship one of them. Hence "you will have no other gods before me", et al.

Quote:
um, sure. I don't think I ever claimed there was nothing outside the realm of science.
You didn't, but others here are.
__________________
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, 04:54 PM   #263
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I'm only arguing that the question of divine existence is not a scientific one
Surely it is that?

Some specific god-claims that have been actually made over the years can be actually disproved, so that heavy-handed hard atheism might be appropriate.

Others may not yield to this method, and may need to be rejected indirectly, via soft atheism.

In either case, surely the question can be adequately answered by science?

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
Agreed. That's why hard atheism has limited validity, and is untenable as a general position.
Chanakya 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, 04:54 PM   #264
The Sparrow
Graduate Poster
 
The Sparrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Central Canada
Posts: 1,615
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Wrong! The unsubstantiated claim that a god exists and is the creator of The Universe is an unscientific claim. Unsubstantiated claims and definitions are of no value to science.
Sure I guess.
Perhaps there is a hypothesis of a "creator god". But scientific inquiry concludes there is no reason to further entertain that hypothesis
a) as no evidence can be found to support it
b) alternate explanations have evidence (I'm not saying this well but you get the idea)
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, 04:57 PM   #265
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Wrong! The unsubstantiated claim that a god exists and is the creator of The Universe is an unscientific claim, not a scientific question.
I don't completely agree. I think that examining the universe scientifically can't disprove the existence of gods, but if we came across "I, Mighty Osiris, done built this universe to reflect unto my glory and also, hello TragicMonkey, thanks for believing in me!" written in the arrangement of galaxies and also the gazillionth digits of pi it might indeed be scientific evidence in favor of a creator god. Science is much better equipped to prove a positive than disprove a negative, after all.
__________________
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, 05:06 PM   #266
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Science is much better equipped to prove a positive than disprove a negative, after all.
Not necessarily? After all, all scientific 'proofs', either way, are tentative.

Russel was right about his teapot, for his time and for ours as well, but not necessarily for the technology of year 2500. After all, he couldn't say what he did about his teapot, not without being pedantic, if he limited himself to my house and garden.
Chanakya 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, 05:09 PM   #267
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Not necessarily? After all, all scientific 'proofs', either way, are tentative.

Russel was right about his teapot, for his time and for ours as well, but not necessarily for the technology of year 2500. After all, he couldn't say what he did about his teapot, not without being pedantic, if he limited himself to my house and garden.
And not necessarily the technology of the year 2500, either: the teapot could have a cloaking device, or have self-destructed ten seconds before they found it, or exercised a hypnotic control over any who view it and made them forget seeing it. Finding the teapot is there would be far more certain a conclusion than you could ever have in finding it isn't.
__________________
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, 05:26 PM   #268
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 845
You agree Russel would be wrong, if he limited himself to my house and garden, except in some pedantic sense?

Same argument about 2500 AD. Sure, by then we might be using stone tools again, and trying to discover fire. But that is just a detail.



Hence why I said hard atheism is sometimes valid. But not in generl, no.
Chanakya 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, 05:32 PM   #269
Jodie
Philosopher
 
Jodie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,184
Originally Posted by The Sparrow View Post
So much wrong with this statement:
"So we just appeared out of thin air aware enough to be having this conversation by accident?"

I don't even know where to begin.
Who exactly is claiming that is where humans came from? No scientist I have ever heard about.
I've never known of an organism to just spring into being, it evolved from something, but nothing has established what that something is be it religion, philosophy, or science. Therefore, we don't have enough information to explain how an organic organism evolved to develop consciousness, or to truly define consciousness as we know it.

The only evidence that we have that we might possibly be unique is that no other planet has been found with life. Yet here we sit having a conversation about why we exist on the internet. To deny that this is truly something special is asinine. It is the same thing that David Hume said, " that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish." We are here, there is your evidence.
__________________
"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd
Jodie 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, 06:14 PM   #270
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,932
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
Sure, because - Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.

Evidence that a cup contains no liquid (evidence of absence of liquid in the cup) is not absence of evidence that the cup contains no liquid. Based on the evidence that the cup contains no liquid we can justifiably conclude that we know the cup contains no liquid.

Replace “cup” with “Universe (currently observable)” and “liquid” with “god(s)”.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 22nd October 2018 at 06:24 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 22nd October 2018, 06:23 PM   #271
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Sure, because - Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.

Evidence that a cup contains no liquid (evidence of absence of liquid in the cup) is not absence of evidence. Based on the evidence that the cup contains no liquid we conclude we know that the cup contains no liquid.

Replace “cup” with “Universe” and “liquid” with “god(s)”.
Argument by analogy. I don't agree that your analogy is apt. Unless you have surveyed the entirety of the universe and all liquids are immediately evident to your senses.
__________________
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, 06:29 PM   #272
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,932
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Argument by analogy. I don't agree that your analogy is apt. Unless you have surveyed the entirety of the universe and all liquids are immediately evident to your senses.
I added "(currently observable)" to Universe as you posted. All we can honestly say about what we can't currently observe is "We don't and can't know and have no rational justification for claiming therefore goddidit".

Obviously it's easier to observe and examine a cup than our currently observable part of The Universe. This doesn't mean we can't conclude that, within the limits of our current knowledge, god(s) don't exist.

I know you can't slam a revolving door and a human eye can't directly observe itself
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 22nd October 2018 at 06:47 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 22nd October 2018, 06:32 PM   #273
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
I added "(currently observable)" to Universe as you posted. All we can honestly say about what we can't currently observe is "We don't and can't know and can't claim goddidit".
Using the scientific method, yes. There are no limits to the speculations of philosophy or theology, however, as they do not use the scientific method. That doesn't mean they will reach correct conclusions, of 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 22nd October 2018, 06:44 PM   #274
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,932
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Using the scientific method, yes. There are no limits to the speculations of philosophy or theology, however, as they do not use the scientific method. That doesn't mean they will reach correct conclusions, of course.
Yep, fantasies know no bounds. That's why I don't place any value on them other than entertainment value.

Has philosophy or theology ever reached any correct or useful conclusions?
__________________
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 22nd October 2018, 06:49 PM   #275
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Yep, fantasies know no bounds. That's why I don't place any value on them other than entertainment value.

Has philosophy or theology ever reached any correct or useful conclusions?

What do you consider to be good? And how did you arrive at that conclusion?
__________________
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, 07:09 PM   #276
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,932
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
What do you consider to be good? And how did you arrive at that conclusion?
I didn't use the word "good". I parroted your use of the word "correct". What do you consider to be "correct"? And how did you arrive at that conclusion?

I also added "useful" that I would define as being something like - Of value and benefit for practical usage purposes.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 22nd October 2018 at 07:18 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 22nd October 2018, 07:18 PM   #277
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 46,607
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
I didn't use the word "good". I parroted your use of the word "correct". What do you consider to be "correct"?
No, I was asking you a new question. The same I asked another poster earlier. Concepts of the good and assigning values of good to things is philosophy, not science. Ethics are philosophical positions, even for people who don't think of them that way. Science can be used to teach you how to build a weapon but it won't teach you when and why to use it, or not.

Quote:

I also added "useful" that I would define as being something like - Of value and benefit for practical usage purposes.
Still philosophy. Utilitarianism. And again, 'of value' is a philosophical position: you're assigning qualities and states to actions, and these qualities and states to not arise from the physical forces and operations of the actions themselves.

You can't escape philosophy. Like history, you're involved in it whether you realize it 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, 07:29 PM   #278
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 12,857
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?
If the only evidence that Booboo exists is the claim that she makes thunder and it is shown she doesn't make thunder, she no longer exists. It's why we don't have thunder gods anymore . . . or fertility gods . . . of gods of war . . . or gods that created our universe, that created night and day, who control the seasons, or punish you for wearing wool and cotton. Your Booboo has a few more attributes that prove her existence, good on her.

The fact that there are more attributes given to the gods of Abraham means it takes more experiments and knowledge to show they don't exist but all the attributes are pretty much discredited at this point and we are left with the idea of some weird dude/entity setting the universe in motion and then booking on out. From my perspective that's infinitely unlikely.
__________________
"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, 07:36 PM   #279
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 13,581
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You took my post out of context. I clarified it.

Are you now dodging the issue instead of accepting the clarification? Pretty sure that makes it a straw man.
As long as you insist that you are being scientific and not philosophical I am not creating any strawmen.

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.
This is the only question that should be considered in this thread and it is not quite an accurate interpretation of the article you linked.

Hawking was saying that the universe CAN come into existence spontaneously. Of course this is no more conclusive than saying that a god that can not be observed scientifically CAN exist (though this is just a philosophical observation).

The scientific part is that Hawking claims that the "laws" of quantum mechanics not only prove his contention but prove that there is no room for a god. Quantum mechanics does neither. It can only predict a range of outcomes and their probabilities. It doesn't explain HOW an outcome comes about. It is designed to paper over any gaps in our scientific knowledge.
__________________
"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 22nd October 2018, 07:42 PM   #280
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,932
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
No, I was asking you a new question. The same I asked another poster earlier. Concepts of the good and assigning values of good to things is philosophy, not science. Ethics are philosophical positions, even for people who don't think of them that way. Science can be used to teach you how to build a weapon but it won't teach you when and why to use it, or not.

Still philosophy. Utilitarianism. And again, 'of value' is a philosophical position: you're assigning qualities and states to actions, and these qualities and states to not arise from the physical forces and operations of the actions themselves.

You can't escape philosophy. Like history, you're involved in it whether you realize it or not.
I would rather people designing and building planes listen to what science has to say about what methods and materials are good/best to use than listen to what philosophy has to say.

Many people say strategy of warfare is a science - https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=St...chrome&ie=UTF-8

That a hammer is more “of value” to drive in a nail than a marshmallow is a reality, not “a philosophical position”.

Sorry but you're talking philosobabble.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 22nd October 2018 at 07:53 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
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 02:29 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.