Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thor 2 said:
Regarding Tommys question. If you start looking for non fictional gods you must have the fictional belief in their existence already.;)
Click to expand...

Not to worry, a fictional belief is nothing like an actual belief. ;)
 
psionl0 said:
As long as the argument is that there is absolutely no difference between an author who knows they are creating a work of fiction and somebody who believes they are telling the truth about a being this is exactly the argument as it was made.
Click to expand...

You don't know what the authors of the bible thought of their writing. They could just as easily have known it was complete fiction used to make philosophical points.
 
qayak said:
Not to worry, a fictional belief is nothing like an actual belief. ;)
Click to expand...
True . . .
Fictional belief is belief in a fictional claim (I have a dragon in my garage).
Actual belief is belief in an actual claim (I have a dog in my garage).
:p
 
ynot said:
What evidence do you have that the authors of The Bible believed they were telling the truth about a being?
Click to expand...

theprestige said:
What evidence do you have that they didn't?

In the meantime, the "intentional fiction" argument is a non-starter.
Click to expand...


The old onus of proof argument rears it's head again.

Perhaps the "non intentional fiction argument" is a non starter?
 
ynot said:
What evidence do you have that the authors of The Bible believed they were telling the truth about a being?
Click to expand...
What a silly question. Do you expect me to prove that every contributor to the bible was genuine and not a fraud? I might as well expect you to read J.K. Rowling's mind and prove that she doesn't believe that Hogwarts is real.
 
psionl0 said:
What a silly question. Do you expect me to prove that every contributor to the bible was genuine and not a fraud? I might as well expect you to read J.K. Rowling's mind and prove that she doesn't believe that Hogwarts is real.
Click to expand...
What is silly was your assumption that the authors of The Bible believed they were telling the truth. Obviously a mere reflection of your biased belief that The Bible is the truth (now that's really silly).
 
ynot said:
Why is it okay to know extinct species don't exist because there's no evidence they do, but it's not okay to do so with gods?
Click to expand...


Because we acknowledge that we might be wrong about the species being extinct. We have been wrong about that.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Because we acknowledge that we might be wrong about the species being extinct. We have been wrong about that.
Click to expand...
Sure, and I'd also be happy to admit I'm wrong about gods not existing if any were found to actually exist. Neither "Extinct species don't exist" nor "Gods don't exist" are claiming absolute knowledge. My point is, we're allowed to say "We know extinct species don't exist" but not "We know gods don't exist". Special pleading. At least we know extinct species can and did exist. We can't say that about gods (or Bigfoot).
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
Sure, and I'd also be happy to admit I'm wrong about gods not existing if any were found to actually exist. Neither "Extinct species don't exist" nor "Gods don't exist" are claiming absolute knowledge. My point is, we're allowed to say "We know extinct species don't exist" but not "We know gods don't exist". Special pleading. At least we know extinct species can and did exist. We can't say that about gods (or Bigfoot).
Click to expand...


Well, I for one, would never say that we know extinct species don't exist as a blanket statement. It's obviously a statement that is likely to be proven wrong very shortly after I state it. What's the appeal to saying something stupid?
 
ynot said:
What is silly was your assumption that the authors of The Bible believed they were telling the truth.
Click to expand...
As opposed to the assumption that ALL the authors were knowingly telling falsehoods?

I don't reject the possibility that self-aggrandizement and fraud characterized some of the biblical stories but if you are going to claim that ALL of them did it then the burden of proof is on you.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Well, I for one, would never say that we know extinct species don't exist as a blanket statement. It's obviously a statement that is likely to be proven wrong very shortly after I state it. What's the appeal to saying something stupid?
Click to expand...
Would you ever say that you know full size T-Rex dinosaurs are extinct? If you did would you expect that statement to be likely to be proven wrong very shortly after you state it (if ever)?
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
As opposed to the assumption that ALL the authors were knowingly telling falsehoods?
Click to expand...
Boy, some theists shore do twist atheists words to avoid answering their real context and meaning . . .
psionl0 said:
As long as the argument is that there is absolutely no difference between an author who knows they are creating a work of fiction and somebody who believes they are telling the truth about a being this is exactly the argument as it was made.
Click to expand...
ynot said:
What evidence do you have that the authors of The Bible believed they were telling the truth about a being?
Click to expand...
I didn't assume ANY Biblical authors were knowingly telling falsehoods. I simply asked you on what evidence you assumed that ALL biblical authors were telling the truth about a being (god) . . .


psionl0 said:
I don't reject the possibility that self-aggrandizement and fraud characterized some of the biblical stories but if you are going to claim that ALL of them did it then the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...
I made no such claim. I'm saying you did by implication (at the very least). Therefore the burden of proof is on you.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
Would you ever say that full size T-Rex dinosaurs are extinct? If you did would you expect that statement to be likely to be proven wrong very shortly after you state it (if ever)?
Click to expand...


No, of course not (to your final question). I simply don't understand the appeal of saying stupid things. Care to explain it to me?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
No, of course not (to your final question).
Click to expand...
Well to answer the "final question" . . .
ynot said:
If you did would you expect that statement to be likely to be proven wrong very shortly after you state it (if ever)?
Click to expand...
requires you have first answered the first question . . .
ynot said:
Would you ever say that you know full size T-Rex dinosaurs are extinct?
Click to expand...
Was that answer "yes" or "no"?

RecoveringYuppy said:
I simply don't understand the appeal of saying stupid things. Care to explain it to me?
Click to expand...
Is the "stupid thing" saying "I know all extinct species don't exist" rather than "I know T-Rex dinosaurs don't exist"?

ETA - If any previously assumed to be extinct species is found to still exist then it never was an extinct species. An extinct species is one that actually doesn't exist. By definition therefore, it's correct to say "I know extinct species don't exist", regardless that I don't know what all those extinct species are.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
As opposed to the assumption that ALL the authors were knowingly telling falsehoods?
Click to expand...

Cambridge Dictionary defines falsehood as "a lie or a statement that is not correct," but you add "knowingly," which is a trick.

Mikael Rothstein has said about UFOs that "the fantasies, hopes, dreams, fear or wishes are at the real centre of studies of UFOs and the UFO phenomenon."

You could say the same thing about the god phenomenon ...

(By the way, I find it weird that the English version of Wikipedia calls Mikael Rothstein "a Jewish (!) associate professor of religious history". In Denmark, we consider that to be as irrelevant as his height or the color of his hair, skin or eyes.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom