Back on topic, I think I might pick up Hawking's book this weekend and have a go; even though I'm not a fan of string theory, I did enjoy Brief History of Time and Universe in a Nutshell, and I'm curious to read exactly what statements he's actually making here, and the justification for them.
Got it in one, champ. I'm actually typing this from the corner of a classroom. I would have replied sooner but my pointy hat keeps slipping over my eyes.
You seriously don't get it? Do you understand how satire functions? I mean, I understand it's somewhat silly for me to be surprised by your inability to understand a satirical demonstration when it was explicitly designed to satirise your inability to understand a logical argument but, still - how can you not understand this? Your arguments are a loose collection of buzz words, good intentions and poorly articulated hypothetical scenarios. My post was a comedically exaggerated rendering of such an argument designed to illustrate the impracticality of such a form of discourse and the innately absurd nature of such discussion. As I EXPLICITLY stated, I was not arguing with you. I actually agree with the general purport of your sentiments. The nature in which you express those sentiments, however, is bafflingly retarded and every single post you make on the subject makes you look more like an idiot. Furthermore, it discredits the very position you're attempting to advocate. Now, I know right now you're going to attempt to insult my communication skills or my intelligence with a pithy remark and the emoticon but, before you do, I implore you to read what I've just written and think about matters for just a second. Really, out of the two of us, who do you really think is lacking in intelligence in this discussion?
Why didn't you express yourself like this in the first place? At least it shows that you were unable to follow my arguments, which I blame on your bad reading comprehension. I simply wanted to know where you're coming from, which was impossible to tell from your first post. So far it has to be you obviously, since the only indication here can be our respective posts. You pretend to agree with my "general sentiments", so you think you have an idea of what I was saying, yet you never even allude to it.
not that I'm going to even begin delving into your disarrayed mind, but this cannot be directed at my last post, right? Absolutely. There are numerous posts in this thread by now consisting of disconnected bullshit by people who aren't even able to articulate even one post that contributes anything to the topic. Luckily for them, these people are also void of self-awareness.
Surely you must be mistaken. My brain only spins webs of silk, if you cannot appreciate my enlightened perspective then I shall place the blame solely on your social standing, peasant!
For satire to work there must be some kind of connection to the original subject, and your post didn't have that, so it's really bad satire at best.
Grindstone, please give it a rest. Why do you even bother posting on every single religion thread. Nobody ever listens to the other posters with a different viewpoint on religious topics. And now, it's just a thread full of arrogant statements, full of bullshit and insults.
There aren't many popping up, and I don't reply to them out of principle, but for the same reason I post in other threads (interest or boredom). You can't blame that on me though. I had a (short) discussion with NikTH, and after that a lot of people felt they'd need to add one-liners consisting of bullshit. Telling me to give it a rest is pretty ridiculous considering this. Reply to the posts you think you should reply to, ignore the others, that's how it works. This thread could long have changed back into a discussion.
I don't have a problem with you posting on every single thread here. It was just a personal advice. I think you bother yourself to much with religion, and you're way too aggressive with people that don't agree with you.
I actually don't (bother too much about religion), I rarely debate my faith IRL (probably because the subject very rarely comes up, right?). I think it's interesting though you assume that I am too aggressive with people who don't agree. If you read through my posts and their replies ITT, you'll notice that others got hostile about it before I did.
I don't see a reason why I shouldn't reply to someone who states as a fact that I am unable to have an argument and tries to sell it off as the truth. And if you do, you'll have to cope with the fact that that person will take a close look at you/ your argumentation too. Btw I'm having the image in my mind of you sitting there with spit dripping off of you calmly because you don't want to appear childish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Btw, I share Tepes' view that this topic centers a little too much on me. Not that I'm not flattered, but I guess that wasn't the topic's intention.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpY6I-dm9lA"]YouTube - Stephen Hawking tells Larry King - Theology Is Unnecessary To Explain Creation of the Universe[/ame] lol @ media-hype
I like his balanced views, in this regard at least. Still, he misinterprets faith as an attempt to explain the universe, which it isn't foremost.
big post warning: ok, so you're saying that god is just a certain type of omnipotent; the kind that convinces humans that he is omnipotent when he isn't actually. the question regarding god creating an object too heavy for even him to lift is designed to point out that the concept of absolute, unlimited power is logically flawed. sure, you can say "your feeble human brain couldn't possibly comprehend matters at the level of omnipotence!", but that still doesn't address the fact that omnipotence doesn't make any sense within our reality. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -Epicurus are you aware that your brain is capable of experiencing hallucinations? not to mention a whole raft of other psychological 'misfirings' of which we are all guilty in our day-to-day lives. people hear voices all the time. given that we don't even fully understand how our brains work, how can you know for absolute certain that you personally had contact with the almighty creator of the universe? what makes your claim any more credible than those of a diagnosed schizophrenic? bringing up "faith" is exactly what religious people do whenever they realise they can't justify their points or beliefs. more often than not, they don't feel like they have to justify faith, either! there's nothing arbitrary about the things people have "picked for you to prove". the less likely and plausible something is, the more likely people are to require evidence before accepting it as true. no, the difference here is that one is both a trivial and plausible matter, and the other is far less so. comparing the existence of your uncle to the existence of god is ridiculous. it is not the disbelief of atheists that makes it futile to attempt to prove the existence of god, but rather the fact that it is impossible to do. disbelief itself does not render something false. protip: whenever an atheist asks you to provide evidence of god, all they really want you to do is admit that you can't. religious people are getting better at this, though. no, because our brains are easily fooled. it is only perfectly rational to believe that something exists when you have evidence to support your claim, or if the concept is grounded enough in reality to actually be plausible. god is neither a plausible concept (at least not as he is described in the bible), nor is there any evidence. i just have to point out how perfectly you have demonstrated a straw-man argument here. it's not realistic, nor is it analogous to the original question. you just invent a superficially similar version of your opponent's argument, and attack it as though it were something they actually said. in this case, you did. while you're right in that humanity in general is far more secular than it was in the middle ages (at least in "modern" society), this really demonstrates your naivete. no claim for political power? doesn't touch on matters of public concern? for a politician wishing to get elected to any position in the US, it is basically essential for them to proclaim their faith in god. there are so many religious people in the world that it's impossible for it to not touch on matters of public concern. and how about all the wealth that it's possible for leaders to attain in the name of their religion? the feeling of heat is common to all human beings; the first-hand experience of god is not. saying that atheism is incompatible with reality is a joke. that's like saying scepticism is incompatible with reality. then how would he be able to tell that the sun has made his skin temperature rise? this barely even makes sense, but it sounds familiar somehow. have you ever tried convincing someone religious that there's no way they can be certain that god exists? they never change their mind, no matter what the other side has brought forth! look at this. just look at this. someone is telling you, quite rightly, that your arguments are hard to follow. and what do you do? you dismiss it instantly. you don't even try to re-word your argument, despite someone plainly stating that it is difficult to understand you. you just label it as their problem. here's a cool little saying for you: "the meaning of your communication is the response that you get." so far you've received a lot of ridicule. again! you assume that it's somebody else's problem that they don't understand you. here's a little reality check for you: as far as i can see, nobody in this thread so far has said that they agree with you. not even the people who, in theory, should be on your side in this. you are the one who is void of self-awareness if you are unable to properly interpret the criticism of others on this forum. you are in a little self-righteous bubble of piety, and it's preventing you from actually thinking about your arguments and those of others. you just immediately assume that nobody understands your reasoning, and that your beliefs are correct by default. that is not how it works. it centers on you because you have the most provocative, self-righteous posting style. your posts are just BEGGING to be refuted. hence why i done a big post
No, that's not what I said. To clarify: If an omnipresent, immortal being existed that was involved in the coming about of the universe, I would probably call that being omnipotent for all practical reasons. The question that poses itself here is kind of interesting actually; has god ever 'convinced' anyone that he is omnipotent? Did he use the word for himself? For some reason, people who feel that god exists also have the impression of such a powerful being that human categories fail to describe it, and omnipotent is used for lack of a better term (and exact knowledge) I think the problem may lie in the unclear definition of the word 'omnipotent', which is similar to the problem of the term 'perfect'. Both describe things that are actually beyond our grasp to define, I will give you that. To me, omnipotent is a way to describe a being whose powers are beyond human imagination, but I don't pretend to know their full extent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy If you ask me personally, since I am convinced that God had a hand in the creation of the universe, he must have brought evil into its design willingly and intentionally. At the same time, I am sure that his will, or commandment, to humans actually is to try and help each other. And yet again, since my belief in an acting god forces me to believe in destiny/ God's guidance, he must also have an influence on people committing evil; in fact, every evil act everyone of us commits must have been sanctioned by him. That is, almost every evil act, because I also believe in something akin to a free human will. I am well aware how disjointed this sounds, and I don't pretend to know in what relation they stand exactly (free will vs. destiny). However, if we did not have a free will altogether, there would be absolutely no reason for God to contact us at all; he could simply play with us silently as on a chessboard. To me personally, one of the most interesting aspects of God and his creation is the two-faced nature of both; a God that created a universe fully knowing that it will have the most pleasant and the most disgusting things in it. If he were a human being, we might well call him schizophrenic; but he is no human, and therefore defies such a judgement. This is one usage of the term transcendance. Oh certainly. Not that I seriously think I'm completely mad, but let's look at it philosophically. The possibility that I imagine the existence of god does exist (or is imaginable). But so is the possibility that I simply dreamed up my entire life; that I am not who I think I am, not the person whose name I imagine to possess, that I never experienced any of the events I think I have lived through. In fact, the act of trying to convince an atheist of God's existence sometimes reminds me of trying to convince someone that I am the person I claim to be. Since most atheists will assume the position of a sceptic, they would keep on questioning all evidence I provide as to my identity; the validity of my birth certificate and my passport; my DNA samples (they may have been messed up at the laboratory, and DNA matches are not 100% certain anyways); eye witness reports from people who claim to have known me since childhood (may have been paid for false testimony). Still, I would never claim that the possibility doesn't exist that I may have imagined any or all of the things above. The question is simply this: do I have reason to mistrust myself enough to believe that things I am deeply convinced of never happened? Answer: no. I do not suffer from heavy delusions in my daily life AFAIK; I don't run into cars because I mistake them for candy bars. I don't run for my life imagining being chased by monsters. I don't eat sand because I think it's steak. Therefore, I have no reason to take anyone's opinion for granted that I am suffering from delusions; it would be absolutely irrational for me to do so. I think that's simply misconstrued, but see below As I've already said ITT, there is no burden of proof going with the fact that you simply believe; not even if you talk about it. Who would give anyone the authority to demand proof in this case? Noone possesses such authority. If you decide not to believe someone until he provides proof, that is your (completely arbitrary) decision. If I claim I saw the blond girl on the tram today you may believe me or not; I'm not even interested in providing proof. If I say that God exists you may believe me or not. The selection of things certainly is arbitrary. That people want more evidence the less likely something is is a simple psychological fact, and I don't deny anyone the right to ask for proof where they see fit. The fact remains though that I do not feel the need to provide proof for everything I claim, which would be ridiculous considering how many situations we go through every day where our simple word must suffice. In the case of god I cannot offer evidence in the scientific sense other than a witness report anyway. You are wrong here. You claim the very existence of god implausible, despite numerous (millions or billions) of people who would testify they have met him. The collective experience that atheists use to try and justify their scepticism actually points as much to the existence of God as to the opposite; it's simply that atheists like to discount all of these witness reports altogether (with flimsy justifications). I think I must agree there No, the question is simply how you understand proof. Can I provide a witness report? Yes. Can I provide scientific (chemical, astronomical) evidence? No. You are deluding yourself there; that is, the arbitrarity of your concept brings it down. To you, the existence of god is implausible. I'd like you to back up this claim, but I would say you're proven wrong already. Reports from people who claim to have experienced god are so numerous that they alone would suffice to make a strong case for his existence. Strong paranoia here. In Europe, proclaiming to be a devout Christian will bar you from any political success; I am not certain about the US. But there can be no doubt that the climate is shifting radically; Faith is accepted less and stigmatized more with virtually every passing decade. The Christian church is rapidly losing members, while the ones who gain members are the esoterically oriented ones. You're misconstruing things here though as if you were to talking to a member of the Vatican, which you're not, and it's becoming ridiculous. I only made a case from my own perspective. If you take the time to actually read my posts, you will find that I never urged anyone to visit church, much less become a paying member. Even if my claim that god exists would be universally acknowledged, this would not force anyone to become a member of any church. The days when Christian propaganda relied on weird claims like the one that anyone of a different faith, or without faith, would burn in hell while others frolic in paradise are long since over. Even if you "accepted" my argument that god exists (which is not the same as faith btw), I wouldn't automatically expect you to become a church goer. Simply the fact that the West is comprised entirely of secular states makes it ridiculous to say that faith is synonymous with power nowadays. I would like some kind of argument here rather than your blatant opinion. No, I think it was more along the lines of 'this doesn't make any sense'. Which left me at a loss since I thought I had expressed myself clearly. Uh, who are those people supposed to be (who believe in god)? Baha, the amount of stereotypes in your line of argumentation is awe-inspiring. If anything, piety is pretty far down the line of my priorities.
Wrong. There absolutely is a burden of proof required for anything you purport. Blond girl on tram = verifiable statement, also a realistic statement omnipotent creator = unverifiable, unrealistic. See how terrible that analogy was? Refrain in the future, please. Anecdotal evidence has absolutely no foothold in an argument. Sorry. That's the way it has always been.
pardon? Not that anyone would agree with this ridiculous opinion. At least try to back up your claims if you want to be taken seriously at all. Statistics have always played a part in public debate, sorry (and that's not even considering that a discussion of faith can never be more than a friendly excursion), and statistics quite often relies on subjective reports. Are you retarded or are you just acting like it?
"The philosophic burden of proof is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position." "When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim..." Who said anything about statistics? Anecdotal evidence isn't 'statistics'. Are you thick? Anecdotal evidence is highly suspect, because it can be distorted or just generally convoluted. "The term (anecdotal evidence) is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, such as evidence-based medicine, which are types of formal accounts" Anecdotal evidence is the foothold of most thick theists. It allows you to make outrageous claims that aren't falsifiable, solely because they lack merit in the first place. There is no evidence, nothing testable; and therefore it cannot be falsified. Luckily, that doesn't give it any value or worth in a discussion, because it's just hearsay.
Aren't you able to make sense of your own posts? I am again pointing out the futility and nonsense of your statement, in contrary to what you cited above. I said that statistics are often made up of subjective testimony, in case you aren't able to read at all. I will ignore your posts from now on since you're quite clearly trolling, unable to make any arguments, and quite possibly mentally challenged @ NikTH, it's not surprising that in this thread something would drown with all the noise in between I guess. Since it's not a normal topic, don't expect me to remember who happened to be a theist after pages full of bullshit.
Is anyone else confused by the above post? I feel like Grindstone's monitor is a magical reflective surface that bends and refracts his thoughts into something reasonable, and distorts the sensible into nonsensical.
Jesus christ Grindstone, are you really this big a fucking moron? This thread is a shitshow. The awfulness of the P/R section is one of the reasons I stopped posting here and this makes me want to fucking light myself on fire. How do you go through this endless retarded argument without killing yourself? Fuck. FUCK.
The only good thing in this thread was Cow's nonsensical post, which made about as much sense any other post in this masturbatory pseudo-intellectual freshman philosophy thread. Carry on.
Grindstone's posts seem to indicate that he belongs to the school of thought that says that faith overrides logic/reason when it comes to existential debates about the nature of the Universe and the purposes of life (apologies if I made a straw man comparison but that's the best way I could think of wording it). What I don't understand is why he still insists on posting about it when he openly admits that the two arguments are incompatible.
