Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
Yep. We're about 1 step away from people literally trying to argue that God can exist for them and not for other people.

Even before Tommy adopted it has his favorite magic word too many people were using "subjective" to mean "I get my own personal, private reality."
Click to expand...

Please do explain more about these universal intellectual standards and being intellectually wrong and remember no magical subjectivity. So check that you don't rely on your individual thinking and your own personal, private reality of intellectual standards.
Remember they apply to all and are common to all like e.g. gravity.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
We are now doing philosophy...
Click to expand...

No, you're grasping at philosophy in an attempt to obfuscate your way out of a dilemma. You can't make your point, so you're gesticulating wildly in the general direction of philosophy to argue that your critics can't possibly be so sure of themselves.

Note how people keep trying to tell you that you're not even close to the points they're trying to make? That's how you know you're the one who's off topic.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
So check that you don't rely on ... your own personal, private reality of intellectual standards.
Click to expand...

Why do you get to demand that everyone use your own personal, private reality of intellectual standards? Don't you realize that this sort of frantic negotiation is exactly what Carl Sagan meant to expose by posing the Dragon in the Garage?
 
JayUtah said:
No, you're grasping at philosophy in an attempt to obfuscate your way out of a dilemma. You can't make your point, so you're gesticulating wildly in the general direction of philosophy to argue that your critics can't possibly be so sure of themselves.

Note how people keep trying to tell you that you're not even close to the points they're trying to make? That's how you know you're the one who's off topic.
Click to expand...

Okay, is everything gravity?
Is everything science?
Is everything logical?
Is everything philosophy?
Is everything religion?
The list can go on!

Everything is the meta-set of explanations of how parts of everything work and how they fit together.
You can't explain how everything works using only science, philosophy or religion individually.
That is what this is about.
So how many versions of wrong are there or is the only one kind of wrong?

In terms of magistrates there are no one, neither science, philosophy nor religion. Or none of them are magistrates for all of everything.

So there in no one methodology for a right answer for everything. All right answers are context dependent and there is no one context for all humans.

That is it.
You stay with your science and I stay with my philosophy. If we are to meet we meet in a combination of all 3 including religion.
 
JayUtah said:
No, you're grasping at philosophy in an attempt to obfuscate your way out of a dilemma. You can't make your point, so you're gesticulating wildly in the general direction of philosophy to argue that your critics can't possibly be so sure of themselves.

Note how people keep trying to tell you that you're not even close to the points they're trying to make? That's how you know you're the one who's off topic.
Click to expand...

The point of everything is that it includes everything and not just science nor philosophy nor religion.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Show everything is math, only using math.
Click to expand...

Meaningless gibberish.

You tried to endow quantum mechanics with the magical philosophical properties you needed to argue that there can be no actual reality. Yet quantum mechanics is nothing except a mathematical abstraction. You want to rely upon it when you think it provides a foundation for your philosophy. Yet you reject it the moment it becomes apparent it also has the power to refute it. That's what special pleading is.
 
JayUtah said:
Okay, you do that. Stop trying to tell everyone that your philosophy means their science has no answers. That's an old, vacuous position.
Click to expand...

Science has only limited answers.
There are 3 positions:
  1. Science has all answers in all aspects about everything.
  2. Science has no answers at all.
  3. Science has limited answers in all aspects about everything.

I am #3.
So let us continue. What is your position?
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Meaningless gibberish.

You tried to endow quantum mechanics with the magical philosophical properties you needed to argue that there can be no actual reality. Yet quantum mechanics is nothing except a mathematical abstraction. You want to rely upon it when you think it provides a foundation for your philosophy. Yet you reject it the moment it becomes apparent it also has the power to refute it. That's what special pleading is.
Click to expand...

Thank you! I learned something. I though QM was about a part of reality/the universe/reality.
Would you care to explain more? I bet I can learn something new! :)
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
The point of everything is that it includes everything and not just science nor philosophy nor religion.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean stirring them all up together into a useless grayish mush of pseudo-intellectualism. Nor does it mean ironically thumping your fist on the pulpit of relativism while at the same time trying to argue dogmatically that philosophy and religion have the power to declare that science cannot conclude anything.
 
JayUtah said:
That doesn't mean stirring them all up together into a useless grayish mush of pseudo-intellectualism. Nor does it mean ironically thumping your fist on the pulpit of relativism while at the same time trying to argue dogmatically that philosophy and religion have the power to declare that science cannot conclude anything.
Click to expand...

Science has only limited answers.
There are 3 positions:
  1. Science has all answers in all aspects about everything.
  2. Science has no answers at all.
  3. Science has limited answers in all aspects about everything.
I am #3.
So let us continue. What is your position?

And:
Okay, is everything gravity?
Is everything science?
Is everything logical?
Is everything philosophy?
Is everything religion?
The list can go on!

Everything is the meta-set of explanations of how parts of everything work and how they fit together.
You can't explain how everything works using only science, philosophy or religion individually.
That is what this is about.
So how many versions of wrong are there or is the only one kind of wrong?

In terms of magistrates there are no one, neither science, philosophy nor religion. Or none of them are magistrates for all of everything.

So there in no one methodology for a right answer for everything. All right answers are context dependent and there is no one context for all humans.
 
Last edited:
Tommy Jeppesen said:
I am #3.
Click to expand...

Good for you. I don't accept your straw men as an accurate depiction of science.

So let us continue. What is your position?
Click to expand...

I reject the premise of the question. My position overall is that you are misusing both science and philosophy in order to hold a position neither would consider especially tenable. You're trying to pick a coherent image out of the grayish mush of your own private intellectualism.
 
Last edited:
Tommy Jeppesen said:
The universe is in general how it appears to you, not withstanding QM and all that.
If you can only know through how it appears to you, you can't know if doesn't appear to you. Appearance is inside the universe.
Whether there is something outside, is unknown. I don't define it, I explain it.
It is not a definition, it is an explanation.
Click to expand...


Okay, if you permit me to paraphrase, you're characterizing your definition of "universe" as not, "everything that exists," but rather something more like "everything that's known." When you say "a god could exist outside the universe" you mean more or less, "a god could exist whose nature is entirely unknown."

The problem is, as others have pointed out, no actual religion describes a god whose nature is entirely unknown. Religious leaders base their authority and power on claiming to know!

Even you, when you describe a god who's the First Cause, are claiming to know. The god is unknown; it's outside of our understanding that you describe it as being outside the universe. But somehow you know that.

I submit that that claim ultimately lacks any meaning.

Suppose A says, "The First Cause is unknown."

Then B says, "The First Cause is a god, about whom absolutely nothing else is known."

Hasn't B just said exactly the same thing as A, in more words?
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Good for you. I don't accept your lemma as an accurate depiction of science.

I reject the premise of the question. My position overall is that you are misusing both science and philosophy in order to hold a position neither would consider especially tenable. You're trying to pick a coherent image out of the grayish mush of your own private intellectualism.
Click to expand...

"I" is "your own private intellectualism". You as a private in your understanding just as I do, because it ends in that "it matters". It just matters differently to us individually.
You shouldn't use "I" against another "I"- position, if you want to argue that "I"-positions are wrong. That means that yours are also wrong since you hold an "I"- position.
My position overall is that you are misusing both science and philosophy in order to hold a position neither would consider especially tenable.
Click to expand...
What is tenable, is not science alone, because that involves that you understand philosophy but you don't because you don't do philosophy. You don't care for philosophy, so how can you speak on behalf of philosophy.

BTW Start using arguments to support your position.

Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.
Click to expand...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy

When you do that, you learn that there is no one rational, abstract, and methodical approach.
And when you include both: Of reality as a whole and of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience, you know that there is no single common methodology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom