I think Hawking was probably wrong about God, but its an important question and I do care what intelligent people thing about it and scientists are as a rule intelligent people.

Plus they specialise in the way the world works; so their opinion carries weight. But intelligent people from other walks of life are perfectly capable of making up their own minds if God exists and have as valid opinions too .

Hawking makes a scientific case for there not being a god, which he is perfectly qualified to do so. Now, either you go with that or you posit god as magic that science cannot measure. If you do the latter then Hawking or anyone else is equally qualified to answer the question and whatever their answer happens to be, one (who posits god as something notknowable/measurable) has no valid way of rejecting the answer given.
There are no credentials or “background” knowledge that helps determine if there is a god at all in the latter case, so it shouldnt bother anyone for Hawking to say yay or nay.

scientists [...] specialise in the way the world works; — Devans99

...the phyisical world.

Hawking makes a scientific case for there not being a god — DingoJones

A nonsensical statement on the face of it.

There's no such thing as a "scientific case" in physics for a position on a matter not within physics' legitimate range of applicability.

Attempt to apply science outside of is legitimate range of applicability is pseudoscience.

There's nothing wrong with saying that you don't share someone else's worldview. But to say that everyone must share your Science-Worship world view, or else they're wrong, that's presumptuous.

Michael Ossipoff

Professor Hawking is no more qualified than anyone else to express his opinion about god, and no less. I have thought god did exist and I have thought god did not exist. But who am I to know either way?

What is important about Stephen Hawking, or Donald Trump, or the Pope and the Dalai Lama is that they are famous people who are readily recognizable by many people. That's why their opinions are reported -- not because they know more about it than anyone else. (well... I suppose the Pope and the Dalai Lama are thought to know more about it, at least.)

There's nothing wrong with saying that you don't share someone else's worldview. But to say that everyone must share your Science-Worship world view, or else they're wrong, that's presumptuous. — Michael Ossipoff

If you have in mind a materialist God, then science has a lot to say potentially about such a God. If you have in mind a non-materialist God, then by his works (the universe) shall we know him and science still has a role to play.

A scientist's opinion on the existence of God seems to me to carry no special weight, as science does not address the issue of whether a God exists and merely concerns itself with the knowledge claims we can make regarding the material world. — LD Saunders

Agree. The idea that the existence of God is a question for science is indicative of a misunderstanding about the nature of the question.

But the idea that cosmologists ought to be able to provide such an answer has a pedigree. Newton had been convinced that at least some of the motions of the heavens could only be explained by invoking Divine command. Pierre Simon LaPlace - 'France's Newton' - famously replied, when asked by Napoleon whether God figured in his account of the movements of the heavens, that 'I have no need of that hypothesis'. Nowadays, of course, the 'motions of the heavens' still poses conundrums which are supposedly addressed by the postulations of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'. But appealing to the science in respect of metaphysical questions still seems mistaken to me.

Interestingly, Vera Rubin, who was one of the originators of the concept of dark matter, was herself an observant Jew:

In my own life, my science and my religion are separate. I'm Jewish, and so religion to me is a kind of moral code and a kind of history. I try to do my science in a moral way, and, I believe that, ideally, science should be looked upon as something that helps us understand our role in the universe.

Quoted in Wikipedia.

...the phyisical world. — Michael Ossipoff

Yes, science deals with physical world. Do I really need to specify that?

Professor Hawking is no more qualified than anyone else to express his opinion about god, and no less. — Bitter Crank

Don't you think that a theologian is more qualified to make statements about the nature of God than a physicist?

A nonsensical statement on the face of it. — Michael Ossipoff

No its not, as someone pointed out if god is said to exist physically then science would have a role to play.

There's nothing wrong with saying that you don't share someone else's worldview. But to say that everyone must share your Science-Worship world view, or else they're wrong, that's presumptuous. — Michael Ossipoff

I do not worship science, this is a purely ignorant statement on your part. I also said nothing about everyone having to share my world view. Presumptious of me?! You sir, are the one being presumptious here. If you would like to know what I think, you are free to ask although now I might be hesitant to do so. Its not hard to tell which of us is the crusader here, you have shown yourself only too eager to operate from your own presumptions in service of your views on “science worship”.

A scientist's opinion on the existence of God seems to me to carry no special weight, as science does not address the issue of whether a God exists — LD Saunders

Physics addresses the existence of everything. Do you think that the Pope has any better proof that god exists?
Most believers state that everything that exists is proof of god, so why would a scientist's evidence (after investigating the universe) that there is no god be viewed as less worthy than the Pope's evidence that there is one?

There's no such thing as a "scientific case" in physics for a position on a matter not within physics' legitimate range of applicability.

Attempt to apply science outside of is legitimate range of applicability is pseudoscience. — Michael Ossipoff

Tell that to Galileo.

Science has no fixed range of applicability. Everything anything can be investigated scientifically.

Don't you think that a theologian is more qualified to make statements about the nature of God than a physicist? — Metaphysician Undercover

Most likely, but the question upon which Prof. Hawking expressed himself was "does god exist?", never mind what the nature of the existing god is. Everyone has to decide whether or not gods exist. Of course, theologians are likely to say that god exists -- that's kind of their bread and butter. Theologians are experts on the nature of the god idea, the history of the god idea, the consequences of the god idea, and so on -- but they, like everyone else, have to decide for themselves whether or not god exists. One can be a theologian and believe that god does not exist.

I don't find Prof. Hawking's pronouncements on the existence of god even remotely compelling.

Who cares what anyone, ever, writes about God?

Isn't the question of whether a specified thing exists or not a question concerning the nature of that thing?

EDIT: bad example Whether something exists (or not) is the first question we ask about items for which this is not known with certainty. Anyone can think their house happens to be situated on top of a seam of gold or a pool of fine petroleum. Finding the gold seam or the pool of oil is far more complicated; specialists will be needed.

Who cares what he wrote? I dare say his mum does. I expect that, like most mums, she is proud of what her son has achieved. Getting on telly and having a book published without having to pay somebody to do it for you is something of an achievement, be the content what it may.

Who cares what anyone, ever, writes about God? — StreetlightX

You do, as evidenced by your response here.

:wink:

Whether something exists (or not) is the first question we ask about items for which this is not known with certainty. Anyone can think their house happens to be situated on top of a seam of gold or a pool of fine petroleum. Finding the gold seam or the pool of oil is far more complicated; specialists will be needed. — Bitter Crank

So, wouldn't it be the specialists who are best qualified at determining whether the seam of gold exists or not? And if the specialists claim that it does exist, when they really believe that it does not, can't we say that they are for some reason acting to deceive the home owner?

The matter is not as simple as every person ought to decide for oneself whether or not to belief that God exists, it appears more like a question of whether these theologians, who are the specialists, are trying to deceive us.

Who cares what anyone, ever, writes about God? — StreetlightX

It may be quite unsympathetic to say "who cares" in response to someone discussing something which is of great importance to them. Don't you think that being unsympathetic is being selfish?

So, wouldn't it be the specialists who are best qualified at determining whether the seam of gold exists or not? And if the specialists claim that it does exist, when they really believe that it does not, can't we say that they are for some reason acting to deceive the home owner?

The matter is not as simple as every person ought to decide for oneself whether or not to belief that God exists, it appears more like a question of whether these theologians, who are the specialists, are trying to deceive us. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're right: the seams of gold or oil wells analogy doesn't work, so I'll edit that out. One would need specialists for that sort of thing from the get-go.

Do theologians try to deceive? Well... I would think not. Not because theologians are always pure of heart, always honest, never deceptive, etc., but because they would have little to gain. As I see it, it isn't the job of theologians to convert anyone; that's the job of evangelists, missionaries, preachers. Theologians are academics, experts. Dishonesty would be no more welcome among theologians than it would be among physicists or medieval history scholars.

I will accept that theologians know more about god-concepts than laymen. That is their field of expertise. A theologian (faculty or field practitioner) can explain, bring understanding, make sense of god-concepts for believers.

Theologians are not of one mind on this point: Some think we are led, like horses, to water and are made to drink (by God); others take the view that we are more like horses and can be led to water, but can not be made to drink. On whatever basis, we have to decide to drink.

My god-concept is that god can pretty much do what he pleases. The horses will drink if that is on god's agenda, but the horses are also free to drink when they thirst, literally and figuratively. So it is that we are free to believe, or not -- until such time as time that god decides otherwise.

I didn't choose to acquire the set of god-concepts that I possess. It was handed to me as part of my childhood education and what followed from early instruction and the community intention that we would believe. I have found theologians very helpful in sorting out ideas about god and religion--because I was a believer in the first place.

I don't know anything about Stephen Hawking's early education. Perhaps he received no instruction then or later. He may have been a horse who never came close to the water trough, so never had to decide whether to drink or not. A theologian would be of little use to him. A theologian might say that "god didn't see fit to lead him to the trough, or god was fine with Hawking's disbelief, or Hawking is now rotting in hell, or Hawking was right and god doesn't exist." But that wouldn't help Hawking because he had no belief for a theologian to explain.

A specialist in French is of no use to someone who has never heard or read a word of French.

If you have in mind a materialist God, then science has a lot to say potentially about such a God — Devans99

I've never heard of a materialist God.

. If you have in mind a non-materialist God, then by his works (the universe) shall we know him and science still has a role to play.

...in the study of the physical world and the interactions of its parts.

Michael Ossipoff

Yes, science deals with physical world. Do I really need to specify that? — DingoJones

No, it's common knowledge.

Michael Ossipoff

I've never heard of a materialist God. — Michael Ossipoff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

God and Reason in harmony...

A nonsensical statement on the face of it. — Michael Ossipoff


No its not, as someone pointed out if god is said to exist physically then science would have a role to play. — DingoJones

...and there is a door-to-door-promotion denomination that has asserted that God exists physically. But, if your objections only apply to religions that assert that God exists physically, then maybe you should clarify that when expressing your objection. When you do, specify the denomination.

Michael Ossipoff

I do not worship science, — DingoJones

When someone tries to apply science to religious questions, or even metaphysical questions, that person is trying to apply science outside its legitimate range of applicability. That person is practicing pseudoscience, making science into a religion, and engaging in Science-Worship.

I also said nothing about everyone having to share my world view. — DingoJones

Good. Some aggressive Atheists, but not you, like to loudly and continually assert that that they know others' beliefs, and that those other beliefs are less justified than their own.

Note to anyone who isn't an aggressive Atheist:

There's no reason to debate their issue with them.

Michael Ossipoff

There's no such thing as a "scientific case" in physics for a position on a matter not within physics' legitimate range of applicability.

Attempt to apply science outside of is legitimate range of applicability is pseudoscience. — Michael Ossipoff


Tell that to Galileo.
— Sir2u

Galileo didn't try to apply science outside its legitimate range of applicability. He studied and advanced physics.

In fact, Galileo famously clarified and emphasized the inapplicability of science and religion to eachother.

Science has no fixed range of applicability. Everything anything can be investigated scientifically.

Physical science's range of applicability is limited to the physical world.

But yes, the requirements and desiderata of metaphysics are similar to those of science, and so you could fairly say that metaphysics should be discussed scientifically. Avoid unnecessary assumptions and brute-facts, for example. Definitions should be clearly specified and consistently used.

But no, physical science doesn't apply to metaphysics or religion.

Michael Ossipoff

I don't find Prof. Hawking's pronouncements on the existence of god even remotely compelling. — Bitter Crank

Well, they are interesting to the degree they illustrate a social phenomena. People like Hawkings are obviously very good at science. Some scientists, emphasis on some, make a leap from that fact to the theory that therefore they are experts at thinking, at reason. And from there it's just more leap to the idea that therefore scientists are experts at everything.

We're part of the problem. Scientists deliver goodies that we want, so we tend to treat them like gods. Some scientists, emphasis on some, fall victim to the very human tendency to believe what we want to believe. So if you tell me I'm a god, that sounds good, so about ten minutes later I decide it must be true.

No, it's common knowledge — Michael Ossipoff

Lol, so you felt the need to specify it because...?

...and there is a door-to-door-promotion denomination that has asserted that God exists physically. But, if your objections only apply to religions that assert that God exists physically, then maybe you should clarify that when expressing your objection. When you do, specify the denomination. — Michael Ossipoff

Irrelevant sidestepping. I did not make a nonsensical statement, thats what I was addressing. Your suggestion that I should have clarified isnt even valid, you presumed I was using your own definition and took issue based on that. This is your mistake, not mine sir.