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.
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.
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.
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.
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????
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?
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trackie.com%2Ftrack-and-field%2Fimg%2Flayout%2Ficon_quote.jpg&hash=c5a9d5ac5c9c0366d813e18a50510fe9aa16bfc2)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.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trackie.com%2Ftrack-and-field%2Fimg%2Flayout%2Ficon_quote.jpg&hash=c5a9d5ac5c9c0366d813e18a50510fe9aa16bfc2)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!
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trackie.com%2Ftrack-and-field%2Fimg%2Flayout%2Ficon_quote.jpg&hash=c5a9d5ac5c9c0366d813e18a50510fe9aa16bfc2)No one:
Yes. This is what defines the gods. They are the brutal tyrant directors to this play called life.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trackie.com%2Ftrack-and-field%2Fimg%2Flayout%2Ficon_quote.jpg&hash=c5a9d5ac5c9c0366d813e18a50510fe9aa16bfc2)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.
QuoteThere is no God
OK, nothing new so far - must read the rest . . .
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".
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?
I wouldn't use proof and evidence interchangeably in any scientific discussion. I see evidence as necessary, but not sufficient to prove anything.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 18, 2018, 04:12:00 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: joeactor on October 18, 2018, 08:42:47 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 18, 2018, 04:12:00 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 18, 2018, 04:05:03 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on October 18, 2018, 04:12:00 PM
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)