Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can't use a word that's meant to indicate a relative difference to describe a universal and absolute condition, therefore...
scientists are dogmatic poopyheads?

Philosophy is very interesting, but some posters in this thread are giving it a bad name.
 
David Mo said:
This philosophical claim is Karl Raimund Popper's. As every philosophical proposition it cannot be scientifically proved.

Welcome to the philosophical debate.
Click to expand...

What absolute nonsense.

Yet again you seem across the board incapable of actually having thoughts of your own and think "This philosopher said this" is the mic-drop answer to everything.

This us of "But it's philosophy" to act as if no viewpoint can ever be wrong is the highest level of anti-intellectual nonsense.

You seem to think if "a philosopher" says something it can never be rejected and becomes a valid viewpoint in perpetuity.
 
I'm waiting a definition of the demarcation point between science and "philosophy" that isn't just "Sure I listen to science until it tells me something I don't want to hear, then I use making stuff up at ran---errr I mean philosophy!"
 
Porpoise of Life said:
You can't use a word that's meant to indicate a relative difference to describe a universal and absolute condition, therefore...
scientists are dogmatic poopyheads?

Philosophy is very interesting, but some posters in this thread are giving it a bad name.
Click to expand...

Because no less than 75% of "good" philosophy and for all practical purpose all of the internet's philosophy fan club is nothing but playing with the language. Combine this with the current state of internet where pedantics is the official State religion and it turns into an forced affect of giving almost God-like powers to how the third species of Chimpanzee flaps their lips and tongues together.

English has an excess of "ultimate" words, words that denote the final or end state of something or represent the most, least, farthest, nearest, biggest, smallest or whatever.

But, and here's the rub, actual intelligent and thinking people understand those terms are used on a practical, day to day level. They don't represent universal literal extremes.

In other words a Fill-Oss-Oh-Fie-Zer is someone who thinks they are being clever by walking into an Olive Garden and pretending they don't understand how they can truly have "Unlimited" soup, salad, and breadsticks.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Because no less than 75% of "good" philosophy and for all practical purpose all of the internet's philosophy fan club is nothing but playing with the language. Combine this with the current state of internet where pedantics is the official State religion and it turns into an forced affect of giving almost God-look powers to how the third species of Chimpanzee flaps their lips and tongues together.

English has an excess of "ultimate" words, words that denote the final or end state of something or represent the most, least, farthest, nearest, biggest, smallest or whatever.

But, and here's the rub, actual intelligent and thinking people understand those terms are used on a practical, day to day level. They don't represent universal literal extremes.

In other words a Fill-Oss-Oh-Fie-Zer is someone who thinks they are clever by walking into an Olive Garden and pretending they don't understand how they can truly have "Unlimited" soup, salad, and breadsticks.
Click to expand...

Well I think it is time I brought this whole mess to a conclusion.

This is the last ever sentence written in the English language.
 
In the Kevin Smith film Dogma two Angels that God exiled from Heaven eons ago seek to reenter heaven by exploiting a minor loophole in Catholic dogma that allows forgiveness for any sin (in the film a fictionalized version of Plenary Indulgence)

However the forces of Heaven have to stop them because what the angels don't understand is that if God is proven wrong everything he's created, as in everything, that is being kept "real" simply by edict from God will disappear. By proving God wrong, these Angels will inadvertently be ending existence itself.

Fa-Loss-Oh-Pfizers seem to think that's how reality actually works and everyone is God.
 
Well, at least let's all agree that even though Darat appears to be wrong, if we redefine the meaning of 'English', and 'sentence', and 'last', he could be correct from a certain point of view.
 
JoeMorgue said:
In the Kevin Smith film Dogma two Angels that God exiled from Heaven eons ago seek to reenter heaven by exploiting a minor loophole in Catholic dogma that allows forgiveness for any sin (in the film a fictionalized version of Plenary Indulgence)

However the forces of Heaven have to stop them because what the angels don't understand is that if God is proven wrong everything he's created, as in everything, that is being kept "real" simply by edict from God will disappear. By proving God wrong, these Angels will inadvertently be ending existence itself.

Fa-Loss-Oh-Pfizers seem to think that's how reality actually works and everyone is God.
Click to expand...

It kind of reminds me of the alt.destroy.the.earth Usenet newsgroup, where one poster suggested that the best way to destroy the earth (and, collaterally, the whole of existence) was to find out who the master solipsist was, and kill him.

Dave
 
ynot said:
Liar! You know very well you can't provide the example I requested because you know there isn't one. Your "no conflict" claim is merely a ludicrous and dishonest attempt at obfuscation.


What an absolutely stupid thing to say. I can easily say a steel hammer is a better thing to use to bang a nail into wood than a soft marshmallow. I can easily say a soft marshmallow is a better thing to eat than a steel hammer.


Yes, I can say that mathematics is better to use to do mathematical tasks than medicine. I can say that medicine is better to use to do medical tasks than mathematics.

How the hell do you manage to get out of bed every morning? Is there a conflict between being in bed and being out of bed?
Click to expand...
"Liar", "stupid"... Relax and keep your composure, please. As Captain Hook said "What a bad forms!"

Of course, I can say that science is better in what science does and philosophy is better in what philosophy does. But this is your empty way of thinking. Sheer tautology, you know. I wanted to say that there is not a global comparison. It would be a little stupid to say that philosophy is better in the problem of God because science is not in charge of this problem. And science is better in the problem of comet orbits, because philosophy is not in charge of this. In the same way that mathematics is not good in curing malaria but is better in solving Fermat's teorem. Do you like so?
 
David Mo said:
"Liar", "stupid"... Relax and keep your composure, please. As Captain Hook said "What a bad forms!"

Of course, I can say that science is better in what science does and philosophy is better in what philosophy does. But this is your empty way of thinking. Sheer tautology, you know. I wanted to say that there is not a global comparison. It would be a little stupid to say that philosophy is better in the problem of God because science is not in charge of this problem. And science is better in the problem of comet orbits, because philosophy is not in charge of this. In the same way that mathematics is not good in curing malaria but is better in solving Fermat's teorem. Do you like so?
Click to expand...

Religion would have a bone to pick with your assertion that it's philosophy that gets to decide on the matter of gods...

And the one saying there should be some global definition of 'better', divorced from context, was you.
 
JoeMorgue said:
What absolute nonsense.

Yet again you seem across the board incapable of actually having thoughts of your own and think "This philosopher said this" is the mic-drop answer to everything.

This us of "But it's philosophy" to act as if no viewpoint can ever be wrong is the highest level of anti-intellectual nonsense.

You seem to think if "a philosopher" says something it can never be rejected and becomes a valid viewpoint in perpetuity.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to know it was Popper ( a philosopher!) who invented the theory of falsifiability. It is a serious ignorance if you want to discuss topics of philosophy of science.

Of course I don't think that since Popper invented this theory it is infallible. In philosophy there are few, if any, infallible theories. You have the fatal habit of making me say what I don't say. Apparently you believe your own falsehoods. It's a serious problem.

For the origin of the theory of falsification and some criticism https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ Simpler, Wikipedia, of course.
 
Step 1. Define all possible methods of thought, epistemology, methodology, etc as "Philosophy."

Step 2. Defend everything via "But that's a type of philosophy!"
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Religion would have a bone to pick with your assertion that it's philosophy that gets to decide on the matter of gods...

And the one saying there should be some global definition of 'better', divorced from context, was you.
Click to expand...


Religion doesn't seem to be very happy with atheistic philosophers. Apart from forbidding them to teach, like Feuerbach and Russell, some have ended up at the stake because they are not very Catholic.

Anyway, if you know of any other method of defending atheism, tell me. Some article in a scientific journal, while we are at.

I know it would be more comfortable if we had an algorithm to prove that God doesn't exist. But we don't. And you have to make do with what's there. That is, philosophy.
 
So everything is "Philosophy" but "Philosophy" is also some distinct and separate ultimate form of knowledge that gets to tell other methodologies what they are and are not allowed to make statements on but any statement that goes "Wait that doesn't make sense" is also a type of Philosophy and proves that Philosophy is the ultimate form of knowledge that gets to tell other forms of knowledge what they are allowed to do.

Good, glad we've got that cleared up.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Step 1. Define all possible methods of thought, epistemology, methodology, etc as "Philosophy."

Step 2. Defend everything via "But that's a type of philosophy!"
Click to expand...

First step: If you want such a silly definition why don't you go to a dictionary? https://www.iep.utm.edu/epistemo/
Step two: I don't understand the question. I don't know what it means that everything is philosophy. It's not true.
Step three: Why don't you learn to ask nicely?
 
David Mo said:
Why don't you learn to ask nicely?
Click to expand...

Save the pearl clutching. When your entire shtick is "I get to talk down to the plebeians because I am an ENLIGHTENED PHILOSOPHER" it comes across as trying too hard.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
So everything is "Philosophy" but "Philosophy" is also some distinct and separate ultimate form of knowledge that gets to tell other methodologies what they are and are not allowed to make statements on but any statement that goes "Wait that doesn't make sense" is also a type of Philosophy and proves that Philosophy is the ultimate form of knowledge that gets to tell other forms of knowledge what they are allowed to do.

Good, glad we've got that cleared up.
Click to expand...

Philosophy has long since given up on supplanting science. It seems that you stayed in Thomas Aquinas. Keep up to date.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom