Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
psionl0 said:
QFT

"Not proven to exist" =/= "proven to not exist".

Just say "I don't see a chair" and stop pretending that science is on your side when you say the chair doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
Yet extinct species are "proven to not exist" by being "not proven to exist/proven to not exist" according to the sciences of biology and ecology.

How do you know if you hold a jellybean in your hand? How do you know if you don't?
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
Just say "I don't see a chair" and stop pretending that science is on your side when you say the chair doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Let me just get this straight. If I walk into a room with no chair in it you think "science says" I have to phrase/conceptualize it "I don't see a chair" instead of "There's no chair."

So I can't say there's no dragon in my garage, I can only say "I don't see a dragon in here" when I walk in my garage?

You think that's what "science" says? Really?

I figured you had a poor grasp on science but this is full on insane.
 
ynot said:
Only very recently. I believe the original word used in the "Garage Dragon" analogy was "observable".
Click to expand...
That may well be but in response to my suggestion that a god could choose to be "unobservable", Darat gave the following response:
Darat said:
Then your AFAIK is wanting, according to the RCC and all major Christian denominations their god is visible in the world for everyone as is the god of all the major Islamic denominations. Those two religions alone account for the god that over 2 billion people claim to believe in.
Click to expand...
 
psionl0 said:
"Not proven to exist" =/= "proven to not exist".

Just say "I don't see a chair" and stop pretending that science is on your side when you say the chair doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Really now? This is your argument?

I've been largely quiet on this side of the discussion because I haven't read enough of your posts to be following along too precisely, but really? You think science doesn't allow us to say "there's no chair in the room" when there's no evidence of a chair in the room?

Really?
 
psionl0 said:
That may well be but in response to my suggestion that a god could choose to be "unobservable", Darat gave the following response:

​
Click to expand...
"Visible" is a synonym of "observable".

Nit-picking over such words merely indicates you are trying to obfuscate from your own weak arguments.
 
ynot said:
How do you know if you hold a jellybean in your hand? How do you know if you don't?
Click to expand...
I say "to the best of my knowledge there is no jelly bean in my hand" although the words "to the best of my knowledge" are implied.

If asked to prove it I would say "I can't see it or feel it and that's good enough for me". Others may not consider that standard good enough and that's fine because technically it is not an exhaustive test.
 
ynot said:
"Visible" is a synonym of "observable".

Nit-picking over such words merely indicates you are trying to obfuscate from your own weak arguments.
Click to expand...
So "observation" is all about "visible" in an optical sense after all? (Not that it would have changed Darat's argument if he had stuck with "observable").
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
I say "to the best of my knowledge there is no jelly bean in my hand" although the words "to the best of my knowledge" are implied.

If asked to prove it I would say "I can't see it or feel it and that's good enough for me". Others may not consider that standard good enough and that's fine because technically it is not an exhaustive test.
Click to expand...

No you don't. You're so deep in your apologetics and so stubbornly refusing to let it go that you have to pretend you're this wishy-washy about everything to maintain the narrative.

Every body somebody takes the "You can't say there's no God because you aren't sure" position they always do this, go through a phase in their character arc where they try to convince themselves they really are that apologetic about everything but I am 100% certain nobody is actually capable of being this unsure about everything.
 
psionl0 said:
So "observation" is all about "visible" in an optical sense after all? (Not that it would have changed Darat's argument if he had stuck with "observable").
Click to expand...

Everybody understands what was meant but you.

Stop hair splitting.
 
psionl0 said:
I say "to the best of my knowledge there is no jelly bean in my hand" although the words "to the best of my knowledge" are implied.

If asked to prove it I would say "I can't see it or feel it and that's good enough for me". Others may not consider that standard good enough and that's fine because technically it is not an exhaustive test.
Click to expand...
If a jellybean isn't detectable in your hand by any known method (any of your senses and asking other people), then by what method could a jellybean possibly be detected in your hand? A paranormal/supernatural method perhaps (aka- a magic jellybean).

Hey pssst! I'll give you a magical jellybean for your cow. :p
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
So "observation" is all about "visible" in an optical sense after all? (Not that it would have changed Darat's argument if he had stuck with "observable").
Click to expand...
No one is presenting a white paper here. Ever heard of colloquial use of language?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Okay you're officially off the deep end. You go into the corner with Tommy.
Click to expand...
Sorry but in Maths and Science there is no room for wishy washy language. You don't get to say something is true just because it seems obvious to you and you certainly don't get to say that you applied a rigorous scientific test if you didn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom