News:

There is also the shroud of turin, which verifies Jesus in a new way than other evidences.

Main Menu

Stephen Hawking says "there is no God" in his last book.

Started by Ecurb Noselrub, October 16, 2018, 11:11:58 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ecurb Noselrub

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/16/health/stephen-hawking-final-book-intl/index.html

"There is no God. No one directs the universe," he writes in "Brief Answers to the Big Questions."

He also wrote: "There are forms of intelligent life out there," he writes. "We need to be wary of answering back until we have developed a bit further."

It's no surprise that Hawking did not believe in God. But now he takes the affirmative position that there is no God. That's his business, to be sure. But I suppose my questions would be

1) Are you equally sure that there is no God and that there is "intelligent life out there"?

2) Upon what proof are you relying in each case?

3) Is directing the universe the only possible description of what God does?

Just food for thought.

No one

While I am no Steven Hawking, I will attempt to answer these to the best of my ability.

1) Yes. god, in human terms is just not possible. The universe is far too immense for intelligent life not to have developed elsewhere.

2) See above.

3) Yes. This is what defines the gods. They are the brutal tyrant directors to this play called life.

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2018, 11:11:58 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/16/health/stephen-hawking-final-book-intl/index.html

"There is no God. No one directs the universe," he writes in "Brief Answers to the Big Questions."

He also wrote: "There are forms of intelligent life out there," he writes. "We need to be wary of answering back until we have developed a bit further."

It's no surprise that Hawking did not believe in God. But now he takes the affirmative position that there is no God. That's his business, to be sure. But I suppose my questions would be

1) Are you equally sure that there is no God and that there is "intelligent life out there"?

2) Upon what proof are you relying in each case?

3) Is directing the universe the only possible description of what God does?

Just food for thought.

Though the absence of proof is not proof of absence, a theistic conception of god is just too...human to be taken seriously. I don't see why a deistic god couldn't exist, though. One that got the universe going and then stepped out to enjoy something else, but Occam's Razor is just too tempting in this case. In the case of intelligent extraterrestrials, I think it's a question of pure probability. A universe as vast as ours, with so many exoplanets and more being discovered each week, it's crazy to think that we're the only life forms. Based on what we know of biology and chemistry, it's insane to think that life only happened once, on one planet. So far, no proof of aliens, but a strong belief with foundations in reality. 
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: No one on October 17, 2018, 12:36:20 AM
While I am no Steven Hawking, 

Agreed.

Quote from: No one on October 17, 2018, 12:36:20 AM


1) Yes. god, in human terms is just not possible. The universe is far too immense for intelligent life not to have developed elsewhere.

Sorry, but FAIL!!!  No proof that God is not possible. All that is necessary is an intelligence that created the universe. Since science cannot go past a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, it has no evidence of what is possible.  Furthermore, you have no evidence at all that there is intelligent life elsewhere. We might be unique, just as every star and snowflake is unique.

Quote from: No one on October 17, 2018, 12:36:20 AM


3) Yes. This is what defines the gods. They are the brutal tyrant directors to this play called life.

Not necessarily true. A Deist God could simply create the universe and leave.  Or a Theist God could create the world, and visit occasionally, not directing every atom.  Your bias is showing through.

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 17, 2018, 02:54:43 AM

Though the absence of proof is not proof of absence, a theistic conception of god is just too...human to be taken seriously. I don't see why a deistic god couldn't exist, though. One that got the universe going and then stepped out to enjoy something else, but Occam's Razor is just too tempting in this case. In the case of intelligent extraterrestrials, I think it's a question of pure probability. A universe as vast as ours, with so many exoplanets and more being discovered each week, it's crazy to think that we're the only life forms. Based on what we know of biology and chemistry, it's insane to think that life only happened once, on one planet. So far, no proof of aliens, but a strong belief with foundations in reality.

OK, if a Deist God could exist, what about a Deist God that only occasionally visited and tweaked things?  Occam's Razor is just a human theory - sometimes something more complex is at play. Occam was no more infallible than the Pope.  Regarding probability, how can you set any probability on something for which there is no objective evidence? How do you set a baseline?  We might be unique, like a snowflake or a star.  No proof of aliens, yet you believe in intelligent life out there.  No proof of God, yet you reject belief in God.  Do you not see your own bias????

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 17, 2018, 03:27:26 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 17, 2018, 02:54:43 AM

Though the absence of proof is not proof of absence, a theistic conception of god is just too...human to be taken seriously. I don't see why a deistic god couldn't exist, though. One that got the universe going and then stepped out to enjoy something else, but Occam's Razor is just too tempting in this case. In the case of intelligent extraterrestrials, I think it's a question of pure probability. A universe as vast as ours, with so many exoplanets and more being discovered each week, it's crazy to think that we're the only life forms. Based on what we know of biology and chemistry, it's insane to think that life only happened once, on one planet. So far, no proof of aliens, but a strong belief with foundations in reality.

OK, if a Deist God could exist, what about a Deist God that only occasionally visited and tweaked things?  Occam's Razor is just a human theory - sometimes something more complex is at play. Occam was no more infallible than the Pope.  Regarding probability, how can you set any probability on something for which there is no objective evidence? How do you set a baseline?  We might be unique, like a snowflake or a star.  No proof of aliens, yet you believe in intelligent life out there.  No proof of God, yet you reject belief in God.  Do you not see your own bias????

We all have our biases, Bruce, it's the way we function. I don't have an emotional investment in a simulacrum I call 'God' so of course my perception is not influenced in that aspect.

But I would like to understand you better, Bruce. Can you tell me why you think a deist god would do that?

Also, we as a species are unique, if the universe isn't infinite. But do you believe life is unique to Earth? If so, why?
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


No one

No one:
1) Yes. god, in human terms is just not possible. The universe is far too immense for intelligent life not to have developed elsewhere.

EcurbNoselrub
Sorry, but FAIL!!!  No proof that God is not possible. All that is necessary is an intelligence that created the universe. Since science cannot go past a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, it has no evidence of what is possible.  Furthermore, you have no evidence at all that there is intelligent life elsewhere. We might be unique, just as every star and snowflake is unique.

Read what I wrote again, only slower. I wrote "in human terms" god, any god, is a human construct. If there is a creator of the universe, it is far beyond the comprehension of the tiny human brain! To call it god, says that you understand it, which is impossible! Therefore, there is no god! Secondly, people, stars, even little snowflakes, may be individually unique, but there not alone, there are others. Humans are NOT the only intelligent form of life on earth, so there is proof of other intelligent life. Humans may be the most intelligent form of life on the planet, but they are not the only one. If anyone actually believes that this pale blue dot is the only planet in the cosmos with intelligent life on it, they are an absolute moron, plain and simple!

No one:
Yes. This is what defines the gods. They are the brutal tyrant directors to this play called life.

Ecurb Noselrub
Not necessarily true. A Deist God could simply create the universe and leave.  Or a Theist God could create the world, and visit occasionally, not directing every atom.  Your bias is showing through.

Once again, read it over, only slower. Your inability to comprehend is showing through.

Dave

QuoteThere is no God

OK, nothing new so far - must read the rest . . .
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Bluenose

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2018, 11:11:58 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/16/health/stephen-hawking-final-book-intl/index.html

"There is no God. No one directs the universe," he writes in "Brief Answers to the Big Questions."

He also wrote: "There are forms of intelligent life out there," he writes. "We need to be wary of answering back until we have developed a bit further."

It's no surprise that Hawking did not believe in God. But now he takes the affirmative position that there is no God. That's his business, to be sure. But I suppose my questions would be

1) Are you equally sure that there is no God and that there is "intelligent life out there"?

I would say that both propositions are at opposite ends of the probability scale.  The probability that there is a god, based on available evidence, is vanishingly small, similar to the "approaches zero" concept in maths.  On the other hand, just the observable universe is so gigantically enormous that applying the mediocrity principle (that there is nothing special about our particular neck of the woods) the likelihood that earth is the only place to developed intelligent life is similarly vanishingly small, or to put it another way the probability of there being intelligent life somewhere else in the universe approaches unity.  So yes I think Steven Hawking would have been entitled to be equally sure of both propositions.

Quote2) Upon what proof are you relying in each case?

Proof is for alcoholic spirits and certain branches of mathematics.  It has no place in a scientific discourse.

Quote3) Is directing the universe the only possible description of what God does?

Before we can get to a discussion about what god does, there neds to be some evidence that such a thing exists.  To quote Christopher Hitchens "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
+++ Divide by cucumber error: please reinstall universe and reboot.  +++

GNU Terry Pratchett


Sandra Craft

Quote from: Bluenose on October 17, 2018, 12:23:27 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 16, 2018, 11:11:58 PM
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/16/health/stephen-hawking-final-book-intl/index.html

Quote2) Upon what proof are you relying in each case?

Proof is for alcoholic spirits and certain branches of mathematics.  It has no place in a scientific discourse.

In all fairness to Bruce, I've often seen scientists use "proof" and "evidence" interchangeably, as well as treat "theory" as if it meant "hypothesis" as well, when speaking to or writing for the laity.  (don't even get me started on calling other star systems "Solar Systems")

My guess is that they think it isn't worth the trouble of explaining the distinctions constantly to people who don't really need to know, and for whom it doesn't make that much difference anyway.   Bit of a pet peeve of mine tho.  If they're not clear in using scientific terms how do they expect us to understand them clearly?
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

hermes2015

I wouldn't use proof and evidence interchangeably in any scientific discussion. I see evidence as necessary, but not sufficient to prove anything.
"Eventually everything connects - people, ideas, objects. The quality of the connections is the key to quality per se."
― Charles Eames

Tank

It would be quite useful if any theist or deist could provide any evidence whatsoever to support their speculations. But that's theists for you, ask for evidence to disprove gods all the time, can't provide a scrap of their own to support their own assertions.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on October 17, 2018, 03:48:23 AM

We all have our biases, Bruce, it's the way we function. I don't have an emotional investment in a simulacrum I call 'God' so of course my perception is not influenced in that aspect.

But I would like to understand you better, Bruce. Can you tell me why you think a deist god would do that?

Also, we as a species are unique, if the universe isn't infinite. But do you believe life is unique to Earth? If so, why?

Even a deist god would provide some level of meaning that the absence of gods cannot. There would at least be a purpose.  I suppose that would be a subliminal bias of mine.

I think it's probable that there is other life forms out there, even intelligent.  But in the absence of evidence, I cannot make an absolute statement.  Nor can I make an absolute statement regarding the existence of God. I can only point to my subjective experience, which may be biased, as the basis for faith.

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: Tank on October 18, 2018, 06:28:20 AM
It would be quite useful if any theist or deist could provide any evidence whatsoever to support their speculations. But that's theists for you, ask for evidence to disprove gods all the time, can't provide a scrap of their own to support their own assertions.

I am not able to provide you objective evidence that you would accept.  My objection to Hawking is his absolute statements. He can't provide objective evidence of intelligent life, yet he asserts confidently that it exists. To me, that seems inconsistent.

Ecurb Noselrub

Quote from: No one on October 17, 2018, 04:39:34 AM
Read what I wrote again, only slower. I wrote "in human terms" god, any god, is a human construct. If there is a creator of the universe, it is far beyond the comprehension of the tiny human brain! To call it god, says that you understand it, which is impossible! Therefore, there is no god!

I truly don't follow your logic. God is a term we use for the idea of an intelligent creator. To call it "god" does not mean that I understand it. It is simply a word to describe an idea.  So, in other words, I do not think that Hawking was justified in saying that "an intelligent creator" (god) does not exist.  He cannot have a valid certainty of that proposition.