Hawking says there are no gods

[Nonpareil]

The appeal to popularity fallacy relates to imagining that the truth value of a proposition is somehow affected by how many people believe in it.

That isn't what I was saying. I wasn't saying that ~6B people believing in something means that what they're believing is true, or even that that increases the likelihood of its being true. What I was saying is that the 6B numbers of belivers makes it more likely that we'll engage with them as far as this issue. That's all.

Then I admit the fault. I misinterpreted what you were saying. But I am now at a loss as to what it is that you are actually arguing.

The discussion, until this point, has been about whether or not we can rationally dismiss the existence of gods, and the argument in favor of doing so has been that we can due to them being either garage dragons (which fail to exist by definition) or not (in which case their existence is bare assertion at best).

What issue do you take with this argument?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No, I'm pretty sure you don't understand it.

Okay.
Here is a standard ethical problem. The problem of happiness versus being in reality! If I truly live in my own world and don't understand reality, but is happy, but you could get me to understand reality, but that would make me unhappy, then what would you do?

It is a standard problem in care-taking and my wife as a nursing assistant and social worker has several books on the subject.

If I truly don't understand, it doesn't follow that I have it worse than someone else, even if I am not intellectually better and thus wrong.

That is the end game for Joe Morgue's morality.

 

[Nonpareil]

That is the end game for Joe Morgue's morality.

Now you're talking about morality in a thread about the existence or nonexistence of gods. What is it that you are actually trying to say, Tommy?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Now you're talking about morality in a thread about the existence or nonexistence of gods. What is it that you are actually trying to say, Tommy?

Gibbersh. Nothing but gibberish. That's all he ever says.

He's throwing everything against the wall hoping somebody will buy into his "Wise Old Man on the Mountain" persona. That's why every thread in the philosophy subforum is just him and a couple others flooding it with multi-paragraph word salad.

 

[Belz...]

If I truly live in my own world and don't understand reality, but is happy, but you could get me to understand reality, but that would make me unhappy, then what would you do?

Who cares? What does that have to do with the discussion.

That is the end game for Joe Morgue's morality.

Is happiness the most important thing? It really just depends on your values, not on objective reality.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We're just going to have watch as Tommy and others go through the entire anti-intellectual nonsense checklist. Next it will be "Can your cold, precious science *scarecord* tell you why a painting is beautiful?"

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Now you're talking about morality in a thread about the existence or nonexistence of gods. What is it that you are actually trying to say, Tommy?

That there is no God, how do we treat people how believe in God?

 

[Belz...]

That there is no God, how do we treat people how believe in God?

As being factually wrong.






Shocker, I know.

 

[Nonpareil]

That there is no God, how do we treat people how believe in God?

Again, this is gibberish. You're missing at least one word.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Great now we are going to get a word salad talking down to about how telling people who believe in God that they are wrong is "mean."

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Great now we are going to get a word salad talking down to about how telling people who believe in God that they are wrong is "mean."

No, it is not true that they are wrong. As for "mean" that is subjective.
Even if they are intellectually wrong, it doesn't follow how you should care for them or even if you should care for them.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

As being factually wrong. ...

How can a fact be wrong?

 

[JoeMorgue]

No, it is not true that they are wrong. As for "mean" that is subjective.
Even if they are intellectually wrong, it doesn't follow how you should care for them or even if you should care for them.

Gibberish. Nobody is saying otherwise Tommy, you're arguing with voices in your head.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Again, this is gibberish. You're missing at least one word.

Yes.
Hope this one is better.
If there is no God, then how do we treat people how believe in God?

 

[JoeMorgue]

How can a fact be wrong?

Grow up. Stop being intentionally obtuse.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Gibberish. Nobody is saying otherwise Tommy, you're arguing with voices in your head.

So there is no intellectually better?

 

[JoeMorgue]

So there is no intellectually better?

Gibberish.

 

[Nonpareil]

If there is no God, then how do we treat people how believe in God?

This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion in hand.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion in hand.

But this is the way of the apologist, which I'm sure "some philosopher" somewhere once defended so that makes it okay.

Hair split everything, keep the argument going down level by level, constantly police the language, and never, ever, ever give straight answers to anything.

 

[Belz...]

How can a fact be wrong?

Are you confusing belief in god with existence of god, again?

Yes.
Hope this one is better.
If there is no God, then how do we treat people how believe in God?

Like people. Gee, you're either severely overthinking or severely underthinking this.