Stephen Hawking on Discovery's curiosity

[Chalnoth]

No, I'm not asking for anything. I'm disagreeing with your argument that science "excludes" God through the exclusion principle. What you originally said was:


My point was, working with the Judeo-Christian definition of God, this is not true, because God does have something to do. You seem to like to call it "magic", and that works for our purposes. Science cannot exclude the possibility of "magic", it simply has to assume no interference from "magic" in order to make useful predictions. Anyway, God could also have relevant things to do that are undetectable in this universe. If anything happens to people after they die, and God has some role to play in that, that's ultimately relevant to our existence even if science has nothing to say about it one way or the other. All this to say: while science can exclude God from playing a relevant role in science, it cannot exclude the existence of a god, be it the Judeo-Christian one or otherwise, in the manner that Hawking seems to be claiming.

And what I am saying is that the Judeo-Christian god is nonsensical. And in oh so many ways. The fact that he's supposed to do magic, when magic is a contradiction in terms, is but one of them.

 

[Chalnoth]

Science deliberately avoids invoking 'god' - viewing it as an excuse to fill in the gaps between whatever cannot currently be explained by the scientific method. I agree with that position. It is, however, logically inconsistent to consider this as 'proof' a 'god' does not exist. Scientists still squirm uncomfortably when confronted with the prospect of a spontaneous and unique creation event to account for the existence of our universe.

Here's a good explanation as to why it does very much prove this:
http://machineslikeus.com/news/scientific-proof-gods-non-existence

You can hem and haw about the semantics of "proof" all you like, but the fact remains that the moment a god is purported to exist (as opposed to just being colorful language), that being falls under the purview of science. And when you apply the tools of science to the idea of a god, you come to an inescapable conclusion: it's wrong.

 

[cephron]

And what I am saying is that the Judeo-Christian god is nonsensical. And in oh so many ways. The fact that he's supposed to do magic, when magic is a contradiction in terms, is but one of them.

Lol yes, that the Judeo-Christian God is nonsensical is a very widely held viewpoint, even by many who believe in him. If he exists, he clearly doesn't always think like us! :)
I'm mildly interested in how "magic" is supposed to be a contradiction of terms, but I think that it's tangential to the discussion of whether science rules out God's existence.

Chalnoth, the link you posted seems to actually support Chronos's (and my) point of view. Quoting from the conclusion:

So if someone should ask me 'In your scientific opinion, does God exist?', I would answer 'No' with the same degree of confidence that I would say 'No' to the question as to whether a third type of electric charge exists.

Earlier in the article, he explains that, while it's impossible to rule out the existence of a third charge, the two-charge model has worked perfectly so far and is accepted as "proven" by scientists. So if someone believes in a third charge, or in "God"...

As a result, someone can come along and say that scientists are wrong, that there does exist a third kind of charge but that either it has not been found yet or that it does not interfere with the experiments that scientists do. There is no way that scientists can prove this person wrong. How could they? But what they will do is ignore this argument as not worth responding to because that kind of argument has the same standing as magical unicorns in my office or a god who is determined to avoid leaving evidence of his/her existence.

So according to this author, people who believe in God are, at worst, "not worth responding to". I believe he means that specifically in a scientific context, but that's perhaps an argument for another time. This author clearly says that science cannot and does not rule against the possibility of God's existence. That is what Chronos was asserting.

 

[Chalnoth]

Lol yes, that the Judeo-Christian God is nonsensical is a very widely held viewpoint, even by many who believe in him. If he exists, he clearly doesn't always think like us! :)
I'm mildly interested in how "magic" is supposed to be a contradiction of terms, but I think that it's tangential to the discussion of whether science rules out God's existence.

Because there exist laws fundamental laws of physics. That puts the nail in the coffin right there.

Heck, even disregarding the most fundamental laws of physics which we don't yet know, the laws of physics which we know today exclude a god: in quantum mechanics, all possible outcomes happen anyway, and since nothing can do the impossible, there simply isn't anything for a god to do.

Earlier in the article, he explains that, while it's impossible to rule out the existence of a third charge, the two-charge model has worked perfectly so far and is accepted as "proven" by scientists. So if someone believes in a third charge, or in "God"...
So according to this author, people who believe in God are, at worst, "not worth responding to". I believe he means that specifically in a scientific context, but that's perhaps an argument for another time. This author clearly says that science cannot and does not rule against the possibility of God's existence. That is what Chronos was asserting.

The main point of this line of reasoning is that you'd have to be nuts to assert with confidence that there is a god. Heck, it'd be pretty irrational to even accept it as a remotely likely possibility.

 

[phinds]

... even disregarding the most fundamental laws of physics which we don't yet know, the laws of physics which we know today exclude a god: in quantum mechanics, all possible outcomes happen anyway, and since nothing can do the impossible ...

Uh, wait. I thought the rule was that anything NOT EXCLUDED BY THE LAWS OF PHYICS will happen according to QM. I'm not arguing here, I'm questioning whether perphaps my understanding is incorrect. Are you saying that QM predicts that things will happen that are against the laws of physics? That seems contradictory.

 

[phinds]

And what I am saying is that the Judeo-Christian god is nonsensical. And in oh so many ways. The fact that he's supposed to do magic, when magic is a contradiction in terms, is but one of them.

I absolutely agree w/ you that it's nonsense but I see my belief as just that ... a BELIEF. I have never yet seen any evidence yet that positivily excludes the possible existence of a god, and that includes the long and well stated argument in the link listed in post #37.

I'd LOVE to hear a solid proof but I don't see how you ever prove a negative like that. I like the analogy of the 3rd type of charge, but that's NEVER going to the slightest impact on even the most logical of firm believers.

 

[cephron]

The main point of this line of reasoning is that you'd have to be nuts to assert with confidence that there is a god. Heck, it'd be pretty irrational to even accept it as a remotely likely possibility.

I'd LOVE to hear a solid proof but I don't see how you ever prove a negative like that. I like the analogy of the 3rd type of charge, but that's NEVER going to the slightest impact on even the most logical of firm believers.

I don't know anyone who believes in God simply because they can't logically disprove his existence. Believers who have examined their faith (and honestly still believe) usually have some sort of evidence for why they think God exists/who he is, but rarely does this evidence include much in the way of empirical, observable measurements of something. It's subjective evidence, perhaps a bit more like the reasons why someone might think their parents love them. But even more difficult to communicate objectively, because your parents and what they do for/with you is at least physically tangible. By all accounts, that doesn't happen frequently with God.

 

[phinds]

I don't know anyone who believes in God simply because they can't logically disprove his existence ...

That's not at all what I'm talking about. Believing something because it can't be disproved (what you're talking about) is WAY different that beliveing it in the face of evidence that complels a logical mind to disbelieve it (what I'm talking about).

 

[only1universe]

I think exclusion at the very worst gives a "god" little to do. (per examples stated above- twiddle his thumbs inside black holes or grand design a universe he will never interact with.)

Most faiths are destroyed by this logic. Could a "god" exist? Most certainly, but I can think of exactly 0 belief system that characterize the behavior of a deity in this way.

 

[Chalnoth]

Uh, wait. I thought the rule was that anything NOT EXCLUDED BY THE LAWS OF PHYICS will happen according to QM. I'm not arguing here, I'm questioning whether perphaps my understanding is incorrect. Are you saying that QM predicts that things will happen that are against the laws of physics? That seems contradictory.

Um, no. I said anything possible.

 

[cephron]

That's not at all what I'm talking about. Believing something because it can't be disproved (what you're talking about) is WAY different that beliveing it in the face of evidence that complels a logical mind to disbelieve it (what I'm talking about).

Sorry phinds, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I didn't realize that you consider there to be evidence that actually compels a logical mind to disbelieve in God, as opposed to a simple lack of objective evidence for God's existence (which is what my mind was working with when composing that post, yes).

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't know anyone who believes in God simply because they can't logically disprove his existence. Believers who have examined their faith (and honestly still believe) usually have some sort of evidence for why they think God exists/who he is, but rarely does this evidence include much in the way of empirical, observable measurements of something. It's subjective evidence, perhaps a bit more like the reasons why someone might think their parents love them. But even more difficult to communicate objectively, because your parents and what they do for/with you is at least physically tangible. By all accounts, that doesn't happen frequently with God.

Except for the example of parents' love, there is objective evidence available, and we have organizations such as Child Protective Services in the US whose purpose is to step in when parents clearly don't love their children (though granted, they don't always do a good job).

With gods, there simply isn't any objective evidence. Nor can there be. And when all you have is subjective evidence, you are basically guaranteed to be wrong.

 

[cephron]

Except for the example of parents' love, there is objective evidence available, and we have organizations such as Child Protective Services in the US whose purpose is to step in when parents clearly don't love their children (though granted, they don't always do a good job).

Yes, I did concede that even the example of parents loving children can and usually does have some sort of tangible evidence. My point is that it's a different sort of problem than the usual scientific inquiries; it requires us to define a fuzzy concept like "love" and try to deduce the internal motives of the parents based on the objective evidence of their actions. Depending on how you define love, it may be possible or impossible to actually prove it.

With gods, there simply isn't any objective evidence. Nor can there be.

I'm almost agreed to that. I think, in theory, there could be objective evidence, but we certainly haven't observed any.

And when all you have is subjective evidence, you are basically guaranteed to be wrong.

Now there's a topic for the philosophy forum! Are you using statistics to back up that claim? If so, I'd be curious about your data set. If not, how does one justify such a claim without using subjective evidence?

Edit: if you're interested in responding, maybe we actually should start a thread in the philosophy forum??

 

[phinds]

Um, no. I said anything possible.

I see I DID misinterpret your statement; thanks for the clarification.

 

[phinds]

Sorry phinds, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I didn't realize that you consider there to be evidence that actually compels a logical mind to disbelieve in God, as opposed to a simple lack of objective evidence for God's existence (which is what my mind was working with when composing that post, yes).

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here of if perhaps I worded my post badly. I am NOT aware of any evidence that anything compels a logical mind to disbelieve in a god. BUT, I also DID state that I see no objective evidence against the existence of a god (which IS, I realize not exactly what you said above; you were talking about LACK of evidence for something and I'm talking about clear evidence against something.

What I DO believe is that a strongly logical mind will at the very least be seriously conflicted if it sees what it considers inescapable evidence that there is no god. I realize that belief in a god is not in any way based on objective evidence FOR (except in the tortured logic of the believer, many of whom will argue strongly about the existence of evidence which they firmly believe is object but which most of us would categorize as either nonsense or magic) and so objective evidence AGAINST will not necessarily change belief, but it WILL shake belief.

My fundamental point is that I have never seen any evidence that will shake in the slightest a belief if a god, by even the most logical mind and that I would love to see such evidence. I further stated, and reiterate here, that I'm not sure there ever CAN be such evidence, not because I think there is a god but because I don't see how you ever totally prove a negative.

I know plenty of people who will never, I'm pretty confident, be swayed by ANY argument based on objective evidence and logic because to them evidence and logic are simply irrelevant to faith. But I also know people who are very attuned to science and logic who at the very least would have to very strongly reexamine their belief system if they encountered what their logic/objective side considered to be undeniable evidence against a god. The conflict might make their head explode, which would not be my goal, but it might get them off of making arguments that to my mind have no basis in reality, and that would be my preference. I have relatives who are rabidly religious and I have to grit my teeth a lot at family reunions, but a couple of my favorites would, I think, be in my second category of people which is how I got off on this whole rant in the first place. I love them but half the time I can't stand to listen to them talk.

 

[Chalnoth]

I'm almost agreed to that. I think, in theory, there could be objective evidence, but we certainly haven't observed any.

No, there can't be. The problem is that the definition of a god isn't nailed down. Without a nailed-down definition, it is impossible for us to ever find any evidence against a god: any observation, no matter what it is, can be made to fit. Without any possibility of ever finding any evidence against a god, it is impossible to find evidence for one.

Now there's a topic for the philosophy forum! Are you using statistics to back up that claim? If so, I'd be curious about your data set. If not, how does one justify such a claim without using subjective evidence?

It's relatively straightforward. It basically boils down Occam's Razor: when comparing two theories which describe the observational evidence equally well, then the one with fewer parameters is more likely to be true.

So we can disprove a god by comparing a god hypothesis to a straw man theory: whatever it is that this god is purported to explain, we can say it simply happened on its own for no reason instead. In most cases, we don't think this straw man theory is remotely likely, so if the god hypothesis comes out worse than the straw man theory, then it is obscenely unlikely. A very simple example would be to answer the question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"

The straw man theory would be adding an assumption into the laws of physics that states that the universe starts with a specific set of parameters.

The god hypothesis would be to say that some god started the universe with a specific set of parameters.

Because this god is inherently inscrutable, such that its actions can never be understood, we can never infer from the properties of this god what the parameters should be. Therefore, the two hypotheses are absolutely identical, except that the second one adds another entity, a god, doing the defining of these parameters, instead of simply saying that the parameters are what they are. The one including a god has no testable differences compared to the one without, but it does have an additional entity: a god, one that is capable of creating a universe and deciding how it should be created. Such an entity is incredibly complex, and so this hypothesis is vastly less likely than the straw man of saying it simply happened.

 

[keepit]

the assertion that there was no time before the big bang seems inaccurate. If this universe is a quantum fluctuation out of a "much larger scenario" then it is clear that there was much time before the big bang.

 

[Chalnoth]

the assertion that there was no time before the big bang seems inaccurate. If this universe is a quantum fluctuation out of a "much larger scenario" then it is clear that there was much time before the big bang.

Well, it really depends upon the model. While I do prefer that particular model, it isn't necessarily the correct one.

Though I should mention that even in the case of a universe born as a quantum fluctuation within a parent universe, it isn't clear that the time coordinate of the child universe connects directly to the time coordinate of the parent universe.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

Actually, it does, through the exclusion principle. Basically, this says that if the laws of physics describe everything in our universe (which they do), then there is no god that has any relevance to anything we might ever do because there is nothing for a god to do. This argument applies to anything supernatural.

It should be no wonder, given this argument, that people try to stuff their own idea of a god into our gaps in knowledge, such as the birth of our universe, but this is fundamentally illogical.

Well, you always can ask the question what caused these laws of physics to occur in the first place, and you get to an infinite loop of questions-answers, you can never disregard God's existence cause you can never stop questioning our knowledge, I mean you can never really answer the existence of God, for one simple reason, it's not even well defined.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, you always can ask the question what caused these laws of physics to occur in the first place, and you get to an infinite loop of questions-answers, you can never disregard God's existence cause you can never stop questioning our knowledge, I mean you can never really answer the existence of God, for one simple reason, it's not even well defined.

The idea that you need a god to produce a mathematical structure is patently absurd. It's like saying you need a god for algebra to work! And it falls for the other argument that I laid out just a couple of posts above.

 

[jackmell]

Well, you always can ask the question what caused these laws of physics to occur in the first place, and you get to an infinite loop of questions-answers, .

You're just asking for another turtle. Just call me the paradox-killer: I believe it's possible we cannot use our laws of cause-and-effect that we observe on this side of the Big Bang critical point to explain phenomena on the other side. The rules may change so that questions such as "well, what "caused" that to happen?" and "then what's that turtle standing on?" just do not apply. It is not correct in my opinion to assume we can extrapolate all the behavior we see in our world, to the pre-existence. Things there may be very, very different and there just may be no cause-and-effect there.

 

[cephron]

It's relatively straightforward. It basically boils down Occam's Razor: when comparing two theories which describe the observational evidence equally well, then the one with fewer parameters is more likely to be true.

Occam's Razor is another cool topic, yes. But you're still talking about observational evidence here, and I don't see how this answers my question.

You claimed:

And when all you have is subjective evidence, you are basically guaranteed to be wrong.

and I was asking how you were backing up that claim (specifically, how one would back it up without using subjective evidence, which would lead to contradiction).

On the other hand, it's very possible that I missed something in your assessment that actually does apply. If so, could you please point it out?

 

[Chalnoth]

Occam's Razor is another cool topic, yes. But you're still talking about observational evidence here, and I don't see how this answers my question.

You claimed:

and I was asking how you were backing up that claim (specifically, how one would back it up without using subjective evidence, which would lead to contradiction).

On the other hand, it's very possible that I missed something in your assessment that actually does apply. If so, could you please point it out?

Subjective evidence, being unverifiable, is the equivalent of having no evidence. Hence my argument regarding what you do when there is no evidence to guide the way: throw out the more complex theory, which a theory which includes a god always is.

 

[Eric Peterson]

Actually time does exist before the big bang. The big bang created two not one universe. One is going forward in time (us) and the other is going backward in time. The two universes occupy the same space just in different times. While our universe is composed of mass and energy, this other universe is made of antimass and antienergy.

 

[Chalnoth]

Actually time does exist before the big bang. The big bang created two not one universe. One is going forward in time (us) and the other is going backward in time. The two universes occupy the same space just in different times. While our universe is composed of mass and energy, this other universe is made of antimass and antienergy.

You cannot assert that with confidence. This model is extremely speculative at best. It's not obviously impossible, but it's only one of many possibilities.

 

[cephron]

Subjective evidence, being unverifiable, is the equivalent of having no evidence.

Yes, subjective evidence is empirically unverifiable by definition, and is therefore equivalent to no evidence for scientific pursuits. However, it does have value in the realm of personal choices. If someone has subjective evidence that suggests to them the existence of God or something about his nature, this can have implications for various life decisions.

Of course, it's still unverifiable, which is one of the reasons it's usually called "having faith" in God. Believers can't prove their beliefs to be true, especially not to others (to whom their own subjective evidence is essentially inaccessible). But, from their own perspective, it can be a rational belief, with more evidence backing it than the Occam's Razor null-hypothesis alternative.

 

[Chalnoth]

Yes, subjective evidence is empirically unverifiable by definition, and is therefore equivalent to no evidence for scientific pursuits.

Which is fine when you're making a personal decision, so it's no wonder that religions try to cast the idea of choosing a religion as a personal choice. The problem with this idea, however, is that religions make truth claims about the nature of reality. And the nature of reality is absolutely, positively not a personal choice: reality simply is, and we only stand to fool ourselves when we try to pretend the nature of reality is up to personal choice.

But, from their own perspective, it can be a rational belief, with more evidence backing it than the Occam's Razor null-hypothesis alternative.

No, it really can't. That is completely and utterly impossible, because our human minds are subject to a tremendous variety of flaws which lead to the wrong conclusions all the time. Because of the errors we make so routinely, it is fundamentally illogical to make a decision about the nature of reality as if it were merely a personal decision.

 

[mehulahir]

if we know all the things about t=0 second that why this explosen begibns every thing about t=0 seconds then can we know about tomorrow or what should we aware with to know for tomorrow

 

[cephron]

@Chalnoth:
Sorry, I didn't present that bit about choice very well. First of all, let me say that I agree with you strongly that "the nature of reality is absolutely, positively not a personal choice: reality simply is, and we only stand to fool ourselves when we try to pretend the nature of reality is up to personal choice." I was not trying to imply that the nature of reality is changed by or dependent upon personal choice. Personal choice comes into the picture in certain situations, summarized below:

-Some parts or "aspects" of the nature of reality (eg. is there a God, or is there no God?) are not made certain when working with empirical evidence alone. That is, all empirical evidence concerning this aspect, when taken into account, leads to a tie between two or more possible truths (one of which could be the OR's null-hypothesis).
-For some people, subjective evidence informs them further about this aspect. It does this with different degrees of certainty, but let's assume that it doesn't actually prove the truth of the aspect, only gives evidence (we can't be certain that it doesn't ever prove something, because, being subjective, such proof - if it existed - could never be conveyed to us).
-Sometimes, the aspect of reality in question is significant enough that what a person believes its truth to be is important to decide. Because they are only dealing with subjective evidence at this point (empirical evidence leading to a tie between possibilities, so all that's left to judge with is subjective evidence), any potential truth is unverifiable. We know that one answer is correct, but we do not know which. So, belief here is a personal choice, recognizing that it could be wrong. Obviously, people should try to choose the correct possibility...

...but, like you said, our minds our flawed and can lead us to wrong conclusions. So the "personal choice" of what one chooses to believe consists of assessing all the empirical and subjective evidence one has, trying to construct an accurate worldview, and continuously checking model against new input from experiences. To ignore all your subjective evidence is one way of making that choice, but nothing guarantees that will leave you with a correct understanding of reality. Nor does choosing to actively consider subjective evidence mean you can no longer do science; the subjective evidence simply applies to areas of concern outside of science.

But to assert that everyone's subjective evidence does nothing but mislead them seems odd, since 1) one does not know the actual truth of the aspect, and therefore 2) one does not know whether someone's subjective evidence is working in favor of or against the actual truth of the aspect.

 

[Chalnoth]

But to assert that everyone's subjective evidence does nothing but mislead them seems odd, since 1) one does not know the actual truth of the aspect, and therefore 2) one does not know whether someone's subjective evidence is working in favor of or against the actual truth of the aspect.

This is why it's best to just go for verifiable evidence instead. And if there exists only subjective evidence for some hypothesis regarding the nature of reality, the only rational thing to do is disbelieve it in proportion to the complexity of the proposal.

But what's more, in this case, it isn't even possible for there to be any evidence in favor of the proposal, because the thing being proposed, a god, can potentially explain any evidence whatsoever. So it's not just that the evidence is only subjective, but that evidence itself is a fundamental impossibility.