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

[joeactor]

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.

I think we're on the same page on this one...

For any given god with an elaborate description, one can certainly prove or disprove the claims made. (or even show the inconsistencies in the description). This line of thinking works with defined god(s).

However, for the concept of "god", or a general term for a creator of everything, there can be no proof or disproof. A definition must first be established with testable bits and pieces.

So... as an Agnostic Theist, I find no inconsistency saying that I believe something, but cannot prove it to be. Isn't this the case for anything that one is agnostic about and lacks a full definition?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

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.

I think we're on the same page on this one...

For any given god with an elaborate description, one can certainly prove or disprove the claims made. (or even show the inconsistencies in the description). This line of thinking works with defined god(s).

However, for the concept of "god", or a general term for a creator of everything, there can be no proof or disproof. A definition must first be established with testable bits and pieces.

So... as an Agnostic Theist, I find no inconsistency saying that I believe something, but cannot prove it to be. Isn't this the case for anything that one is agnostic about and lacks a full definition?

Yes. If you can prove something conclusively, there is no need for "belief" to begin with.  That's knowledge. Ultimately, we are all agnostic on the issue, since none of us can know the full truth about this.  We go on our personal experience, and we arrive at positions based on that.

[xSilverPhinx]

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.

You're assuming there would be a purpose if there was a deist god or gods that created the universe. Could be that in that scenario, there is no objective purpose, just subjective ones. In that way, theists, deists, atheists and everything in between would be very similar.

A question: would a purpose have to a good one? Everyone goes on about "God's purpose for you" but if there is a theist god, why would a person's purpose necessarily have to be good?

(If religion weren't a crutch then religion would probably not exist at all).

The main problem I see with theists' assertions is, the more characteristics they pile upon the supposed Being they call god, the less probable that god becomes. On the other hand, based on what we know of human psychology and evolutionary psychology, it's very probable gods are just mental constructions.

Religious experiences and 'spirituality' are interesting phenomena but most likely they emerge from the kind of minds we have, and not from any external source.

[Sandra Craft]

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.

I wonder if some confusion is caused by the issue of what "true" means in religious and scientific terms?  From what I've seen, for the religious "true" means "forever", whereas for scientists "true" is understood to mean "for now". 

It goes without saying (literally) that if new evidence is found that's solid and contradicts the existing evidence, then what we consider the facts will change and so will our opinions on it.  But until then, the fact is X -- in this case that there is no god.

(edited to note that, if we replaced the word "god" with "pixies", there would be no problem at all with the absolute statement that pixies don't exist)