• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
Irrelevant. You're still demanding a specific thing that I suspect you already know won't be found in that exact form, and suggesting that that's the only argument you will accept. It's the same straw man, just dressed up in a slightly different hat.
.
Click to expand...

So if you say something manifestly false and I ask you to prove it in some way I am riding a straw man. Amazing reasoning.

Maybe it's not the only way to know if a subject is scientific or not. For now you have not explain why my method fails. If you know another one, it would be good if we could discuss it calmly and honestly.

Please, note that I am not discussing if something is true or false. Just if this is a scientific issue.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
This isn't just mental limitation. This comment is repugnant... See a psychiatrist or someone who teaches you to behave like a normal person.
Click to expand...

Psychiatry? That's a type of science. Forget that. It's not allowed to have opinions on that because I said so. Surely I should go read what some philosopher from 400 years ago said.
 
JayUtah said:
In a particular way. There, now the goalposts are back where they were.
Click to expand...

But some philosopher once said something about it being okay to move goal poast I'm sure. You're science isn't allowed to have an opinion on goal post moving.
 
Sure David, telling someone there are no leprechauns in his garden isn't technically 'doing' science, just like telling someone that building a skyscraper out of toothpicks and hot glue is a bad idea technically isn't engineering.
But would you ever ask someone for a technical report on skyscraper construction that mentions toothpicks and hot glue before you accept that knowledge of engineering can inform us whether or not something would work as a building material?

Or would you claim that toothpick-skyscrapers are outside the realm of engineering and fall under the auspices of philosophy, where a redefinition of what skyscrapers and toothpicks are makes them possible, contrary to what those arrogant engineers claim?
 
David Mo said:
Does your friend's comment seem normal to you?
Click to expand...

He is no more my friend than yours, and it's not up to me to defend his posts. The post might have been a bit bawdy, and you're free to report it.

I was just amused that suddenly, a reference to commonly accepted standards and personal preferences is enough, and all philosophical hair splitting goes out the window when it doesn't get you what you want.
 
JoeMorgue said:
But some philosopher once said something about it being okay to move goal poast I'm sure. You're science isn't allowed to have an opinion on goal post moving.
Click to expand...

Meh, it's just a patently absurd argument. If someone's summary of the literature doesn't itself appear in the literature, then somehow there's no science to be had on that point and it can be safely ignored. I grant that David Mo doesn't agree with Skeptic Ginger's summary of the science, but that hardly makes it "manifestly false." Nor is finding her exact (or even approximate) summation in the literature the sine qua non of proof. Except in the case of some kinds of meta-research, that's just not how journals work.

My favorite part was where he urged everyone toward calm, honest discussion.
 
Again is the exact same argument Tommy was making, science can't have an opinion on things that are wrong because... if science has an opinion on them they have to be right or something. Science is logical, so it can't "have an opinion on" things which are not.

It's the "X cannot comprehend not-X" argument.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
My favorite part was where he urged everyone toward calm, honest discussion.
Click to expand...

"Oh my God why can't all these plebeians who I'm such much more enlightened then just be polite when I tell them I'm the Lathe of Heaven and my very words create reality?"
 
David Mo said:
Does your friend's comment seem normal to you?
Click to expand...

I guess some philosopher one time said something about "Take one part of any critical statement out of context so you don't have deal with it."

Sure you said 2+2 Equal The Number of Angels that Can Dance on the Head of a Pin while I said 2+2=4 but... *shocked* made a baudy joke while doing it *faints dead away from the vapors.*

Again, save the pearl clutching there Socrates.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
Why is my "particular" way of proving wrong?
Click to expand...

Because it's a straw man, although now you're trying to change the subject. "Those statements do not appear in the scientific literature" presumes what kind of statements should and do appear in the scientific literature. I'm sure you're right that her statements as she wrote them aren't in the literature. The question is what that means. You assert that they don't appear because they are false, or perhaps more properly, that they are not the product of proper science. A better explanation is that they don't appear in that form because the form, regardless of topic, is not customary for journals. Conclusions drawn on a breadth of research are scientific conclusions in the same way that the conclusions in individual journal articles are scientific conclusions. It is the goal of science to accumulate such a breadth that generalizations such as Skeptic Ginger's become possible.

How do you prove that a malaria vaccine is effective?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the malaria vaccine. Skeptic Ginger summarized the relevant literature as showing that some beliefs in gods clearly evolved as myths. She noted the absence of any findings in the literature that beliefs in gods arose because there was evidence the gods were themselves real. She then defensibly drew a conclusion from the one-sided state of the evidence. That is science, whether you agree it is or not.

Can you answer these simple questions?
Click to expand...

Can you stop swerving all over the map in your haste to escape?
 
Belz... said:
You have a low bar for repugnant.
Click to expand...

No he has a keen eye for yet another thing to distract himself (and hopefully us) with.

Notice he didn't answer a single question, address a single point, or otherwise even acknowledge anything else he just decided to start pearl clutching about an off hand joke.
 
JoeMorgue said:
No he has a keen eye for yet another thing to distract himself (and hopefully us) with.

Notice he didn't answer a single question, address a single point, or otherwise even acknowledge anything else he just decided to start pearl clutching about an off hand joke.
Click to expand...

Of course he did. In my time here I've learned that most people, when engaged in an argument, especially a heated one, will look for a reason, any reason, to sidestep the argument and instead focus on something less relevant that the other poster said, in order to derail the discussion and avoid the discomfort. The lowest-hanging the better.

My favourite bit is when I throw something of the form "what in the name of Ivan Drago's training routine are you talking about?" followed by a point or argument. The other poster will invariably ignore everything else and pretend to be either confused or offended to the off-hand reference to Rocky IV. Any sort of flourish, or even typos, are an excuse for them to distract.

It's pretty much always a sign that they don't really have any confidence in their position.
 
Porpoise of Life said:
Sure David, telling someone there are no leprechauns in his garden isn't technically 'doing' science, just like telling someone that building a skyscraper out of toothpicks and hot glue is a bad idea technically isn't engineering.
But would you ever ask someone for a technical report on skyscraper construction that mentions toothpicks and hot glue before you accept that knowledge of engineering can inform us whether or not something would work as a building material?

Or would you claim that toothpick-skyscrapers are outside the realm of engineering and fall under the auspices of philosophy, where a redefinition of what skyscrapers and toothpicks are makes them possible, contrary to what those arrogant engineers claim?
Click to expand...

No. The statement "There is a skyscraper built with toothpicks" does not need science to be refuted. Common sense and our daily experience are enough.
But this is not our problem. Here it is stated that it is science that proves that "God does not exist".

So the same as "There is a skyscraper built with toothpicks", "God does not exist" is not a matter of science. But I don't think this is a question that can be resolved with common sense and our everyday experience. If it were so, there would be no believers in the world. The same as no one builds skyscrapers with chopsticks.

So who is dealing with the problem of God's existence? And I beg you to go to a library and ask what category are the books that deal with God's existence. Can you guess? I don't guess. I know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom