Hawking says there are no gods

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Ask whom?

You ask if there is a limit to knowledge and then you try to figure out how to test that.
What does knowledge require?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

You can't proudly reject knowledge as a concept and play the "there's a limit to our knowledge" card in the same hand.

Sure if you redefine stuff that doesn't exist as stuff that does sort of exist maybe but that's just more nonsense.

I don't reject knowledge. I just believe differently than you as to what knowledge is.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Try understanding that there is a limit to knowledge.

Did you change your post or answer your own question?

It is my understanding:

Currently it is believed we can't know what happened before or outside of space-time.

At the same time it is currently believed anything that happened before or outside of space-time does not affect anything inside.

However, I'm not well versed on multiverses and the evidence for them existing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't reject knowledge. I just believe differently than you as to what knowledge is.

Yes you do. You've literally admitted you do in those words.

Of course it's all random gibberish with you, but occasionally one part of your random gibberish will directly contradict another part of your random gibberish.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You ask if there is a limit to knowledge and then you try to figure out how to test that.
What does knowledge require?

I didn't ask that.

Why don't you elaborate instead of playing "what am I thinking" games.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Philozophizers would be a lot less insufferable if they could at least occasionally resist the temptation to do the whole "Master tricks the students into the right answer" routine.

 

[Garrison]

I am an atheist. I believe that the natural universe is fair; no gods and no Boltzmann Brains.
Try again.

So you're just engaged in philosophical trolling then?

 

[JoeMorgue]

And again I'd like an answer, an answer not random gibberish, to how exactly a limit on knowledge makes God more likely, other than at this point all apologetics for God being nothing but a "Anti-intellectualism's Greatest Hits" Album.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So you're just engaged in philosophical trolling then?

No he just can't keep his act straight and forgets what traits his character has.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I didn't ask that.

Why don't you elaborate instead of playing "what am I thinking" games.

I know that you don't like there being a limit to knowledge, where theists can "hide".
Now what you like or don't like has no baring on whether there is a limit to knowledge or not.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Yes you do. You've literally admitted you do in those words.

Of course it's all random gibberish with you, but occasionally one part of your random gibberish will directly contradict another part of your random gibberish.

All knowledge is contingent. Yes or no?

 

[Garrison]

I know that you don't like there being a limit to knowledge, where theists can "hide".
Now what you like or don't like has no baring on whether there is a limit to knowledge or not.

You claim there's a limit, define it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

All knowledge is contingent. Yes or no?

Speaking in gibberish riddles is not nearly as clever as you think it is.

I'm not going to get drug into answering one of your questions just to watch you turnaround, rewrite the language, and pretend I said something I didn't.

I will debate you when you start showing a single shred of honesty.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Speaking in gibberish riddles is not nearly as clever as you think it is.

I'm not going to get drug into answering one of your questions just to watch you turnaround, rewrite the language, and pretend I said something I didn't.

I will debate you when you start showing a single shred of honesty.

The standard meaning of contingent: occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.

What is knowledge dependent on?

 

[Garrison]

The standard meaning of contingent: occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case; dependent on.

What is knowledge dependent on?

You're the one making the claim, you provide the explanation.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

You're the one making the claim, you provide the explanation.

Maybe later, If RL permits. Late where I am.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You ask if there is a limit to knowledge and then you try to figure out how to test that.
What does knowledge require?

If you are back to arguing we can't "prove" there are no gods, I answered that.

Beyond that I don't find your posts have any relevance to this discussion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Philozophizers would be a lot less insufferable if they could at least occasionally resist the temptation to do the whole "Master tricks the students into the right answer" routine.

Now a post that makes sense.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know that you don't like there being a limit to knowledge, where theists can "hide".
Now what you like or don't like has no baring on whether there is a limit to knowledge or not.

"I don't like"??? You don't know what I like or don't like.

I'm sorry, Dude, your word games have no meaning here.

 

[qayak]

SOkay so there is a "Limit to knowledge."
[Snip]
And? How does that make God more likely to exist?

Exactly! Show us the evidence that god is outside the knowledge of science. No one has found any evidence of a god . . . ever. Are gods outside our ability to detect them or are they just non-existent.

It wasn't gods that put themselves outside the ability of humans, and human made devices, to detect. It was humans who believed in gods who were trying to explain why there was no evidence that any god has ever existed who did that. In fact, all thoughts, and words, attributed to gods claim that gods are the ultimate power "inside" our ability to observe and that they are readily detectable by humans and yet . . .