https://youtu.be/01e-DI3RZKM

Tyson sets up a strawman by claiming that god must be all powerful, all knowing and all good, then knocks it down.

Kaku on the other hand, defines god the way Einstein did, as the laws governing nature.

as did Hawking, Sagan, Spinozza, Aurelius and Epicurus.

Why would scientists know more about God than Joe Sixpack? What do you think?

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why would scientists know more about God than Joe
> Sixpack? What do you think?

Because they, together, know more about the Cosmos than any one individual. If you want to know about the cosmos, ask a cosmologist, like these two.

So why don't you enlighten us and mansplain to us the correct characteristics of god.

Cosmology is concerned with the spatio-temporal.

To make non spatio-temporal proclamations is a form of false appeal to authority.

It's the same meaningless blather of all other appeals to the non spatio-temporal. Ya gotta have faith.

Dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cosmology is concerned with the spatio-temporal.
>
The Standard Model is the bedrock of Physics, but there’s increasing suspicion that the space-time Universe isn’t all there is.

> To make non spatio-temporal proclamations is a
> form of false appeal to authority.
>
What authority? Quantum Mechanics? String theory? Many worlds? Kaku’s Tao is the higher dimensions that project to form our “reality”.

> It's the same meaningless blather of all other
> appeals to the non spatio-temporal. Ya gotta have
> faith.
But then the poets “get it”.
“Love is old, love is new
Love is all, love is you” - Lennon/McCartney

>> "Because they, together, know more about the Cosmos than any one individual. If you want to know about the cosmos, ask a cosmologist, like these two."

What does knowing more about the cosmos have to do with knowing anything about god?

Like you said, "if you want to know about THE COSMOS, ask a cosmologist, like these two."

In saying that, are you also saying if you want to know about god, ask a cosmologist? I fail to see how they equate.

Exactly. The only way his point makes sense is if you assume the equivalence of God and the cosmos, which is neither logically necessary nor in accordance with the conventional definition of the words.

Equating god with the cosmos or even just connecting the two, makes god nothing more than an alien. I never understood how space could have anything to do with god.....unless of course he's an alien by our standard of an alien, and by mormon definition, he is.

Now my head is spinning like the cosmos!....and still no god!

And, its a pleasure to cross posts with you again LW :)

You too, Johnny Roy!

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Equating god with the cosmos or even just
> connecting the two, makes god nothing more than an
> alien. I never understood how space could have
> anything to do with god.....unless of course he's
> an alien by our standard of an alien, and by
> mormon definition, he is.
>
> Now my head is spinning like the cosmos!....and
> still no god!
>

Because you assume god is a he. What if 'god' is defined the same way Einstein defined it?

"I use the word “God” in an impersonal sense, like Einstein did, for the laws of nature, so knowing the mind of God is knowing the laws of nature. My prediction is that we will know the mind of God by the end of this century.”
Stephen Hawking
Brief Answers to the Big Questions,
Ch 1 IS THERE A GOD?

I don't assume god is a he or anything else. Human tradition assumes god is a he or she, etc.

If you and some other folks define god as the laws of nature or the laws that govern the universe, why not just call it that? Why the need to re-label as "god" what is already labelled appropriately as the laws of nature?

If I want to learn about the cosmos, I would ask a cosmologist and they would describe how the universe has been observed to work and what its made of, etc. If they started talking about "god" in that context, it would just confuse the issue and require defining the meaning of "god."

I just don't get your obsession with using the term god to describe the laws of nature, just because a few scientists chose to do so. What exactly is the argument? If everyone started calling the universe god, would that make everything OK for you?

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't assume god is a he or anything else.
> Human tradition assumes god is a he or she, etc.

Then why do you refer to god as a he?

> I never understood how space could have
> anything to do with god.....unless of course he's
> an alien

> If you and some other folks define god as the laws
> of nature or the laws that govern the universe,
> why not just call it that? Why the need to
> re-label as "god" what is already labelled
> appropriately as the laws of nature?

the word, 'god' is just shorthand for the laws that govern nature.

> If I want to learn about the cosmos, I would ask a
> cosmologist and they would describe how the
> universe has been observed to work and what its
> made of, etc. If they started talking about "god"
> in that context, it would just confuse the issue
> and require defining the meaning of "god."

So take it up with Einstein, Sagan, Hawking, Kaku....


> I just don't get your obsession with using the
> term god to describe the laws of nature, just
> because a few scientists chose to do so. What
> exactly is the argument? If everyone started
> calling the universe god, would that make
> everything OK for you?

I didn't say the universe was god and neither did Einstein, Sagan, Hawking or Kaku. They said they use the word, 'god' in the same way Einstein did, as shorthand for, "the laws that govern nature".

"Yes I believe in god, if by the word, god, you mean the embodiment of the immutable laws that govern nature." Sagan

I prefer that definition of the word, god, to the Judeo Christian definition, because it more closely aligns with the ancient Greek, Eastern and Native American concepts of the divine.

The problem is that dictionaries don't define God in that way. So you can't really throw the word out there and think others will understand your point. Your usage--or Sagan's or Einstein's or whoever's--is in fact a neologism and hence best avoided in the interests of clear communication.

That fact is implicit in what Sagan said: "Yes I believe in god, if by the word, god, you mean the embodiment of the immutable laws that govern nature."

The main clause--"I believe in God"--is four words in length and is then followed by 16 words explaining that he means something different than God. As a general rule, if it takes sixteen times as much space to explain your use of a single word than that word itself, you would probably be better off choosing a different term.




https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/god

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/god

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/god

I'm just saying that they avoided falling into the trap laid by theists, by not allowing others to determine what they thought about the largely mysterious universe. They rejected the atheist label because it is a false dichotomy. They rejected the notion that they had to choose between between a naieve Santa Claus for adults or identify themselves in opposition to that naieve fairy tale.

And a forgiving one at that.

Belichik is God?

Most correct statement ever?

Belief in god requires belief.

No matter what you say, god must be defined and every definition ever requires belief.

Some of us just don't have those beliefs.

What Tyson and Kaku do usually isn't science. But they milk the label "scientist" for all it's worth.

I'm not saying that their conclusions about the existence/non-existence of "God" are wrong. But what they're doing here is just sloppy.

Kaku is basically just presenting a long-standing tautology as though it's some brilliant insight that he just came up with.

Tyson's just defining God by listing a fair summary of attributes claimed by leading religions and then parroting the same arguments that atheists have used for probably a thousand years or more to explain why they don't believe in such God. He's not wrong. But he's not adding anything new. He's not doing science. And he's not proving or disproving anything through actual science to religionists who may believe in deities that have different attributes or a deity whose frame of reference and motivations for action/inaction are incomprehensible to finite beings. Kaku asserts a definition of god that makes Tyson's conclusion meaningless.

Tyson explained very well, I think, the God of the Gaps and why it’s bad thinking. Making God a mystery hiding in the gaps that Science hasn’t gotten to yet is a bogus way of working because the gaps keep shrinking. The God of the Gaps is always on the run. Kind of like Mormon God. Mormonism illustrates the worst pathologies of bad thinking. Who doesn’t love a good freak show? Putting on a show is the point. The GAs are showmen. Making claims to know the mind of God or have some special insight is pure showmanship. They exploit the God of the Gaps to make that work, which Tyson points out is bad science and actually not science at all.

This is a separate issue from that of the Mormon system of authority. That is based on the cult of personality and is dependent on the doctrine of infallibility. Maybe it goes back to Joseph’s attempt to bring back the “divine right of kings” with himself as king. Those of us who don’t like authority figures will naturally exaggerate the faults of church leaders.

Does this mean that there is no God in the Gaps? Maybe that’s exactly where we’ll find God. But then since anything goes you have a free for all and end up with nonsense like Mormonism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2019 01:00AM by babyloncansuckit.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tyson explained very well, I think, the God of the
> Gaps and why it’s bad thinking. Making God a
> mystery hiding in the gaps that Science hasn’t
> gotten to yet is a bogus way of working because
> the gaps keep shrinking.

Seems like the gap got a lot bigger when scientists had to throw a 96% fudge factor they call "dark matter' at the standard model so their math would work.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2019 03:04PM by schrodingerscat.

"As “atheists” we give others, and even ourselves, the sense that we are well on our way toward purging the universe of mystery. As advocates of reason, we know that mystery is going to be with us for a very long time. Indeed, there are good reasons to believe that mystery is ineradicable from our circumstance, because however much we know, it seems like there will always be brute facts that we cannot account for but which we must rely upon to explain everything else. This may be a problem for epistemology but it is not a problem for human life and for human solidarity. It does not rob our lives of meaning. And it is not a barrier to human happiness." Sam Harris, the Problem with Atheism

Mysteries like "Dark Matter/Energy", The Great Attractor, Singularity are not about to be eradicated from our circumstance, since we have limited ability to sense or measure any of those things any time soon.

Tyson just did another JRE podcast. He explained the diffusion of gasses in an interesting way. Statistically speaking, the air in your lungs contains at least one air molecule that passed through the lungs of any given historical figure. You eventually share an air molecule with every person who’s ever lived. Which would include, I hate to say it, Joseph Smith.

I define God to be the empty soda can sitting on the nightstand next to my bed.

No doubt about it: I know there’s a God.

Tyson sets up a strawman by claiming that god must be all powerful, all knowing and all good, then knocks it down.

COMMENT: It is NOT setting up a straw man when your definition of God matches the definition of mainstream Western religion; particularly when your arguments result in a philosophical and theological necessity of redefining God away from that tradition if one wants to avoid such arguments. Once you are forced to redefine God in such a manner, whether you are left with any notion of a personal "God" worthy of worship is very questionable.
_______________________________________

Kaku on the other hand, defines god the way Einstein did, as the laws governing nature. as did Hawking, Sagan, Spinozza, Aurelius and Epicurus.

COMMENT: The "laws of nature" of themselves, whatever they are, do not and cannot represent "God" in any sense of that word. "God" is a personal Being who presumably has conscious interests and motivations. There is none of that in the laws of nature per se. If you want to get "God" out of nature you will need at minimum a "transcendent" reality coupled with such laws. In other words, you will need to argue that the laws of nature are such as to suggest a higher level of reality as an explanation for such laws. That is what Einstein believed, but probably no one else on your list; certainly not Hawking. And even if you are willing to add this transcendent aspect to the laws of nature, there is nothing suggested as to any "God" that has personal qualities, as required by mainstream religion.

In short, your continually invoking scientists as some sort of indirect "evidence" or justification for "God" is a non-starter.

I don't care what your degree is. I don't care how famous you are. I don't care if you are a cosmologist or a cosmetologist, if you are defining god as some concept, some nebulous thing in the universe that maybe is there maybe isn't, I am calling crap on it. Babyloncansuckit was right. Joe Sixpack is just as big of an expert as any of those fancy guys when it comes to this God stuff. Nobody knows.

When the majority of the world is discussing god they are talking about a BEING. Believing in a being. Who controls us. White haired old man hurling thunder. Woman with snakes for hair.
Zeus. Hades. Osiris. Baal. Soda Cans. Jesus. Mohammed. OR, my favorite, Brad Pitt.

A sunset only proves a sunset exists. A baby, a bird, and a rainbow even combined only prove their own existence and not the existence of some Super Power. And the concept of cosmology only proves that people are exploring and studying the concept. And nothing more than that.


Throwing out the "cosmos card" to prove God is just admitting you don't have a single bit of evidence. The second you use it you lost.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Throwing out the "cosmos card" to prove God is
> just admitting you don't have a single bit of
> evidence. The second you use it you lost.

yeah, Einstein, Sagan, Hawking, Spinozza, Aurelius, buncha fuckin losers!!! lol

If I'm a loser, according to you, then I'm in good company.
I like my odds.

I don't care if cousin Al himself is helping you move the goal posts. That is still all it is.

I think the cat-in-the-box does this in an effort to say "see, I believe in god but I won't let theists, that believe in god, define god for me."

As if that means anything.

So instead he lets his pet scientists define the god he believes in.

As if that means anything.

Yup!

Roy G Biv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the cat-in-the-box does this in an effort
> to say "see, I believe in god but I won't let
> theists, that believe in god, define god for me."
>
> As if that means anything.
>
> So instead he lets his pet scientists define the
> god he believes in.
>
> As if that means anything.

It meant a lot to the greatest geniuses who ever lived, IMHO, so yeah, it means a lot to me.

As for the opinions of Roy G Biv, not so much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2019 04:05PM by schrodingerscat.

I will make a bold prediction:

schrodingerscat will find another quote from some atheist who has said something schrodingerscat agrees with about use of the word god.
He will post it here and be informed that 1) the quote does not prove anything about a god 2) words have their own definitions which are sufficient to use by themselves without renaming them god (e.g. laws, nature, etc.) 3) arguments by authority or cult of personality (but, Einstein!) do not substitute as evidence.
He will then somehow not grok any of the above points and will continue to look for the perfect atheist guru to buoy his need to utilize the term god.

These posts are like groundhog day.

If the greatest scientific geniuses who ever lived use the word god, to mean a very specific thing, laws of nature, why not use their definition instead of the Judeo Christian definition?
Atheists are stuck in a Judeo Christian world view.

The made up definitions from both (atheists and Judeo Christian) are useless and meaningless because there is NO evidence demonstrating the defination.

The specific words you mention ACTUALLY have definitions. Why is this such a hard concept? It's like saying your name actually means Sue. It adds nothing.

Honestly, it's groundhog day every time.

True story from my childhood days. In 6th grade, me and a few friends were walking home, playing alone the way. One of us fell on the ground and when they stood up, they had a nice blob of dog poop stuck to the front of their coat. Of course we all laughed at that.

Somehow, we decided at that point to refer to dog poop as "law." And we did for months. We were the funniest, most creative kids in class. And that is the end of that story.

So, lets say I'm walking down the street and I decide to cross in the middle of the block. A cop see's me and pull's me aside and say's "hey, jay walking is against the law. You do believe in law don't you?"

And I reply, ""Yes I believe in the law, if by the word, law, you mean the embodiment of the immutable excrement that comes from a dog's butt."

You can see where that would lead......it leads to the same place these post lead.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The made up definitions from both (atheists and
> Judeo Christian) are useless and meaningless
> because there is NO evidence demonstrating the
> defination.
>
> The specific words you mention ACTUALLY have
> definitions. Why is this such a hard concept? It's
> like saying your name actually means Sue. It adds
> nothing.
>
> Honestly, it's groundhog day every time.

I know the word god has a definition, Einstein defined what he meant by the use of the word quite well. So did Sagan, Hawking and Kaku. I prefer their definition to the childish definition of an invisible Santa for adults in the sky. Atheists only insist on a Patriarchal definition because its an easy strawman to knock down. But the age old theist/atheist divide is a false dichotomy, since its based upon a false narrative. Which is why guys like NdGT and Bill Nye reject the atheist label, even though they don't believe in Santa Clause for adults. They don't want asshole atheists telling them they can't use the word god.

Ever hear of the word metaphor?

"A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable."

Ever occur to you that these "geniuses" were using the word God as a metaphor, a figure of speech and weren't using it literally like you are on their behalf?

You don't get to change the meaning of a word from something that has a certain definition to the majority of the world to suit your own agenda and then call atheists or anyone else assholes for not agreeing with you.

First you throw out the cosmos card, then you throw in the big names card, and now you play the asshole card. Perhaps you need a new deck cause this one is dog-eared.

It was NdGT who made the point on the JRE, that he does not associate himself with atheists, who like to tell him he can't use the word, god, which he does whenever he wants, as do other scientists, like Einstein, Sagan, Hawking, Kaku and the Nobel Prize winning Physicist who nick named the Higgs Boson the God Particle when he wrote a book about it by that name.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2itlUlD10M

The Laws of Nature are exactly that. Awesome and mysterious all on their own with no need of adding religious over-tones. Fun and challenging to explore. Laws of Nature--- Those are a perfectly good couple of words that describe the, well, laws of nature. Very simple concept.

Changing the Laws of Nature to mean God is nothing more or less than a desperate attempt to hang onto the concept of a God by any means available. Makes no sense. Like saying "Hey Joe. I've decided to call you Bill. Cuz, you seem like a Bill to me and I've always wanted to have a friend called Bill."

Changing the definition of god in this manner is a side-step. Obviously your supposed greatest geniuses that ever lived knew the value of a good side-step, Bill. I'm sure they had their reasons.

I suspect their reasons for the sidestep was to avoid clashing with theist sensitivities. Like us, many have theists in our lives who we may not want to offend. Throw in a few sentences that include the word god (wink, wink) and they won't feel as threatened.

I agree. Sagan was probably softening the blow to theists....sidestepping.

Sure, I believe in "god" (so I'm really no different than you) but I define god very differently than you do (so I am different from you,, but still the same).

I doubt it was meant as some kind of authoritative statement meant to address the atheist position and the rejection of labels.

These scientists would probably laugh at all the fuss cat-in-the box is making over this.

Do you believe in love?

Yes I believe in love, if by the word, love, you mean red hot monkey sex with strangers and no feelings involved.

Such a ridiculous position. Do you believe in "A"....yes, if by "A" you mean "B".

Do you think dogs are the most intelligent domesticated animal?

Yes, if by saying dog, you mean cat.

You're killing me! (If by killing you mean pee my pants.)

You got it! You must be a famous cosmologist!!!

Excellent point, Bill!

Thanks, Bill.

You guys are making the immutable laws of nature and the cosmos mad at you!

Thanks, Bill!

I always liked Mike Tyson. Those grills he sells are really cool. I had no idea he was a scientist too! Damn.

Do the immutable laws of the universe think there is a god? Do they think there are scientists? How do we know the immutable laws of the universe are actually immutable?

The only proof I need for the absence of god is his failure to answer my repeated and sincere prayer that kori finally climb down off his hobbyhorse.

GregS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only proof I need for the absence of god is
> his failure to answer my repeated and sincere
> prayer that kori finally climb down off his
> hobbyhorse.

Why assume god has a penis?
Your identification as an atheist, likely keeps you trapped in a patriarchal Western mindset.
Most of the world has a very different definition of the word, god, than the Judeo Christian version we tend to use in the West.
There are lots of definitions of the word, god, there's no official definition and the definition of words changes over time with usage, as in, when it's applied by Nobel Prize winning scientists to a particular particle.

Oh, Laws of Nature* (and the Cosmos, too), why have you forsaken me and turned a deaf ear to my fervent prayers for this madness to end?

* Read: "Bill" or "Billy Jean"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2019 03:42PM by GregS.