S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

Post by TimeSeeker »

Age wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:27 am Also, besides the fact that we have to decide which dictionary is the best one, we also have to decide which definition is the best one. As has just been shown, in that dictionary, A word can have two very different definitions.
This is as per the challenge I have presented to Veritas Aequitas on deciding which system is better. Which presents the general form of the question: HOW DO WE DECIDE? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

Philosophers don't know how to solve decision problems. They conveniently skip over them.
Age
Posts: 20207
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

Post by Age »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:24 am
Age wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:10 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:54 am

This is perfectly adequate:

''God
/ɡɒd/Submit
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.''
You are right, it is perfectly adequate and what I have been patiently waiting for. Now, would you like to pick one?

Besides the input of just one word both are absolutely correct. But that is NOT because they are correct from your perspective and from your usage of words but because of another perspective and another way of looking at and seeing things.

If you would like we can delve into this much deeper and in much greater detail than you could even yet imagine, but if you are going to carry on sarcastically and with full skepticism like you have been, then there is NO use.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:54 amNow if you want to rewrite the dictionary then feel free. I think you might need to get it peer-reviewed though.
A process which is unfolding right this very minute.
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:54 amYou can call your big toe 'god' for all I care, but you might get laughed at.
I am sure that would get laughed at more than just might.

But what you just said was a funny thing to say, considering that there was NO connection between that and what we are talking about.
I wasn't talking to you.

I wrote something.
You directly responded to it.
I directly responded back to you, then
You wrote the above.

Why did you write this?
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

Post by surreptitious57 »

Age wrote:
Also besides the fact that we have to decide which dictionary is the best one we also have to decide which definition is the best one
As has just been shown in that dictionary A word can have two very different definitions
In that case use the one which is most relevant whichever one it is

It is important to note that dictionaries are DESCRIPTIVE not PRESCRIPTIVE and this is because language is a flexible medium
Words are therefore not set in stone and what gives them their legitimacy is how they are used not what they actually mean
Age
Posts: 20207
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:29 am
Age wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:27 am Also, besides the fact that we have to decide which dictionary is the best one, we also have to decide which definition is the best one. As has just been shown, in that dictionary, A word can have two very different definitions.
This is as per the challenge I have presented to Veritas Aequitas on deciding which system is better. Which presents the general form of the question: HOW DO WE DECIDE? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

Philosophers don't know how to solve decision problems. They conveniently skip over them.
Exactly. Or, they just pick the one that favors their already held point of view.
Age
Posts: 20207
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:12 pm
Age wrote:
Also besides the fact that we have to decide which dictionary is the best one we also have to decide which definition is the best one
As has just been shown in that dictionary A word can have two very different definitions
In that case use the one which is most relevant whichever one it is

It is important to note that dictionaries are DESCRIPTIVE not PRESCRIPTIVE and this is because language is a flexible medium
Words are therefore not set in stone and what gives them their legitimacy is how they are used not what they actually mean
Confusion can and does so easily set in though. For example;

"I don't want to argue with you".

How I used those words is correct, so they are legitimate, according to your above sentence. However, what did I actually mean? Any human being could look up any amount of dictionaries but they still would NOT KNOW what I actually meant.

The only way any person could ever KNOW what I actually meant was by asking for clarification through clarifying questioning.

Without clarity people so easily end up confused, and then they start head down the wrong paths, which has been proven hitherto countless times already throughout human history.

Language evolves, just like every other thing in the Universe, however the meaning given to and within words HAS TO BE KNOWN in order to be able to use them correctly and properly. Before human beings can start heading in the right direction.
Age
Posts: 20207
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:22 am
Age wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:33 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:12 am You are going into the wrong direction.
Note this is a philosophy forum and thus we need to conform to the general understanding of what is philosophy.
I would suggest that the general understanding of what philosophy is would come from what the word 'philosophy' derived from.
I agree with this but I would prefer to dig deeper than its etymological root to its effective empirical-rational essence.
By any chance does the "empirical-rational essence" of the word 'philosophy' just happen to coincidentally coincide with how you want to use the word 'philosophy'?

If so, then is that not just an amazing chance of a happening?

If not, then how do you overcome the contradiction?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:12 amWhat I had presented to you as generally understood as 'epistemology' is based on the consensus of the majority of those within the philosophy community.
If the general understanding of what is philosophy, is the love-of-wisdom, then,
The majority of those within the philosophy community would obviously be that community with a love-of-wisdom, which is by all accounts the only community with that love is the community of human beings. That is, humanity or ALL human beings.
So, the consensus of the majority within the philosophy, or human, community would be the majority of human beings, and NOT as you are trying to suggest just a certain group of human beings that exist within the WHOLE group of human beings.

As can be noticed here select groups of people try and hijack words and phrases for their own underlying reasons.
I agree the ideal should be ALL human beings.
But at present we have to be pragmatic and rely on what is active at present, i.e. the conventional group of people and work from that basis towards the ideal.[/quote]

Are you really that blinded by your own elitist views? Can you not see how using words like 'present', 'pragmatic', 'active at present', 'conventional group of people', are ALL words that just conveniently coincide with YOU, who is living in this particular present time and WHO is wanting to hang around with a particular group, and do things in a particular. Those words ALL fit in perfectly with YOU and the way that you want to live now. There is absolutely NO objectivity at all on your part. Every thing is absolutely subjective and specifically relative to YOU.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:12 amUntil you have published your version of what is 'epistemology' and accepted by the majority of peers, then you have to start from the general understanding of what is epistemology within the common community of philosophy.
The common community of philosophy IS ALL human beings. Therefore, the peers are also ALL human beings. The ironic part here is that the younger a human being is the more truer philosopher they are.
As above.
We have to understand the current status and work towards the ideal.
We do NOT have to do that at all. That is just the way that YOU want to do things. You write in such a particular way that absolutely every thing fits in with the way you look at and see the world. Your own perceived world views are blocking you from looking at, seeing, and thus viewing at the real and actual world.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:22 amNote the concept of 'epistemology' is not confined to the Greeks but exist as a subject within all philosophies around world under different names representing the generic empirical-rational essence of what is epistemology.
You seriously can not detour even the slightest of margins away from YOUR OWN already gained PERSPECTIVE of things. You have a BELIEF and no matter where it takes you are going down that path, no matter what.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:22 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:12 amIn any case, your concept of epistemology is not likely to be accepted by the average people engaged in philosophy.
The people engaged in what you call "philosophy" are so entwined in trying to outwit each other with words, in support of their own distorted BELIEFS, that they have forgotten the actual art of forming sound, valid arguments.

A group of adults engaged in actually trying their hardest to support, and to find support for, their own distorted views is NOT philosophy. Philosophy is much different than that. Philosophy is just desiring to stay OPEN so that you can continue to learn more, and anew. Very, very few of the people engaged in what you call "philosophy" have this desire. Most of these people prefer to find and use words so that they will appear elite, individually and as a group, from the rest of that group known as humanity.

I have not yet inquired, but I think it might be hard to find just one sound, valid argument that has been formulated in the past century or two by one of these adults who like to be referred to and known as a "philosopher". Remember, a 'sound, valid argument' is one that is an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed.

If you do happen to find one, or many, then share them all here. I especially would like to see it/them. Also, it has to be a sound, valid argument that has has some real affect on the well-being of humanity or on anything else in the rest of the world. Otherwise, it is just an unambiguous fact that can not be disputed about some truly unimportant thing.
I understand there are groups battling to put their favored ideology in the forefront to dominate the narratives.
Do you, would you, even consider that you are in one of those groups, or, that you yourself is a group of one, within one of those groups, which is within the WHOLE group of All, doing the EXACT SAME THING?

Is continually insisting God is an impossibility a favored ideology?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:22 amBut I believe the default is to keep it open
How exactly is insisting God is an impossibility keeping it open?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:22 amand eventually upon continual never ending questioning the truth will gravitate towards and get closer and closer to [without the expectation to achieve] the ideal [impossible] truth.
That has already been reached. Just some are way off track to be ever able to see it.

By the way, are you saying that the ideal truth is impossible?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:22 amI quoted Russell's
Bertrand Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;

because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;

but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.
Russell presented his full argument in his 'Problem of Philosophy.'
Note, I believe the above was related to his pre-analytical days.

Whilst I would not accept the above on a wholesale basis, I believe there are very relevant elements within the quoted above that is very useful for the purpose.
Once again you quote some one or some thing else as though what is in those words will provide some overarching answer. By the way, did you notice once again that what you quoted here very coincidentally agreed wholeheartedly with your already held views?

Remember that that person is one in that group of people who you adore and which you yourself aspire to belonging to. That is, that group of people who adore being known as "philosophers". They think that that word gives them some sort of superiority over others. The fact is the word was stolen from the most innocent and truest of philosophers. Anyway, you want to quote a person from that group of people who as of yet have NOT actually achieved anything at all worthwhile for humanity. You picked words from a person from a group of people that you admire and worship. You are behaving no better than a person of religious faith who believes the people who are in the same group of people that they themselves admire, want to belong to, and worship.

Do NOT forget the 'general understanding' is NOT the one you want to choose and pick from. To obtain the ideal 'general understanding' of any thing comes from ALL people. NOT just from a pre-selected group of people nor persons. You continually try to argue your point from the actual point of view you are looking from, which is the very opposite of being open entails. To be able to argue a point correctly you have to be able to look from a truly objective point of view, and NOT from the truly subjective viewpoint that you see from.
Atla
Posts: 6703
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

Post by Atla »

Age wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:27 am
TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:14 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:06 am It's not my dictionary; it's the dictionary.
THE dictionary? Well that is an appeal to authority ;)

Are you talking about the Miriam-Webster, or the Oxford, or the Digital Google dictionary, or dictionary.com?

Which one is THE dictionary?

I suspect what you meant to say was 'the dictionary I PREFER" ;)
Great response. I have not yet notice anyone else pick up on this point previously.

I like to say, A dictionary I looked in said ...

There is no such thing as THE dictionary.

Also, besides the fact that we have to decide which dictionary is the best one, we also have to decide which definition is the best one. As has just been shown, in that dictionary, A word can have two very different definitions.
Most people learn to process context when they are children. You and TimeSeeker keep working hard, and one day you might get there too. Reinventing the wheel and all.
Age
Posts: 20207
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

Post by Age »

Atla wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:27 am
TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:14 am
THE dictionary? Well that is an appeal to authority ;)

Are you talking about the Miriam-Webster, or the Oxford, or the Digital Google dictionary, or dictionary.com?

Which one is THE dictionary?

I suspect what you meant to say was 'the dictionary I PREFER" ;)
Great response. I have not yet notice anyone else pick up on this point previously.

I like to say, A dictionary I looked in said ...

There is no such thing as THE dictionary.

Also, besides the fact that we have to decide which dictionary is the best one, we also have to decide which definition is the best one. As has just been shown, in that dictionary, A word can have two very different definitions.
Most people learn to process context when they are children. You and TimeSeeker keep working hard, and one day you might get there too. Reinventing the wheel and all.
"Most" people?

ALL people learn to process context when they are children.

Unfortunately though when adults are questioned to clarify what they actually mean and what they are actually talking about when they say things, they on most occasions have absolutely no idea, which i will prove shortly.

You have used the word 'easterners'. Now, what do you mean by that, and, what are you actually talking about when you use that word?

Take as long as you like to respond.
Atla
Posts: 6703
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

Post by Atla »

Age wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:43 pm
Atla wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:20 pm
Age wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:27 am

Great response. I have not yet notice anyone else pick up on this point previously.

I like to say, A dictionary I looked in said ...

There is no such thing as THE dictionary.

Also, besides the fact that we have to decide which dictionary is the best one, we also have to decide which definition is the best one. As has just been shown, in that dictionary, A word can have two very different definitions.
Most people learn to process context when they are children. You and TimeSeeker keep working hard, and one day you might get there too. Reinventing the wheel and all.
"Most" people?

ALL people learn to process context when they are children.

Unfortunately though when adults are questioned to clarify what they actually mean and what they are actually talking about when they say things, they on most occasions have absolutely no idea, which i will prove shortly.

You have used the word 'easterners'. Now, what do you mean by that, and, what are you actually talking about when you use that word?

Take as long as you like to respond.
Case in point (twice)
Age
Posts: 20207
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

Post by Age »

TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:03 am
Age wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:59 am Are you trying to suggest to me that you use words like 'love' and 'wisdom' but you have no general understanding of what 'love' or 'wisdom' mean?
Of course I do. But...
Age wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:59 am That is a fairly hard thing you are expecting me to accept.
Why is THAT hard for you to accept, but accepting that we have different meaning of 'God' isn't as hard?
I 100% accept that you and me can and even will have different meanings for just about every word there is. But what I was getting at was that surely you, yourself, would have some 'general understanding' of what a word means, otherwise you would not use it at all. For example, would you go around using the word 'lsfujle'?

Without having some sort of general understanding of what a word means i would find it very rare that a person would purposely go around saying and using that word. Within us all there is a 'general understanding' of what a word means, even if we can not actually explain that meaning.

As just pointed out, this 'general understanding' of what words mean is usually formed within us when we are children. Although the author incorrectly pointed out that most people learn to process context when they are children, children can and do process context subconsciously. Adults also subconsciously express and pass on context. But what the actual context IS is sometimes absolutely unknown, which again I will prove if and when they respond.
TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:03 am
Age wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:59 am You now want me to accept that there is no general understanding of love and wisdom, which also infers that you have NO general understanding.
Is the general understanding of 'love' and 'wisdom' the same as the general understanding of 'God'?
No, the 'general understanding' of each word is different.

But from the context of what the 'general meaning' of what those three words mean then that is obviously NOT 'generally understood'.

TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:03 am
TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:38 amYou are going the wrong way... ;)
By the way, the vision you have and I have is the exact same vision. The difference is you believe you KNOW the way, which involves you BELIEVING you are better than others and that YOUR WAY is the right way.
Well yes. Because I know how to measure knowledge. Objectively. And so my way is better than your way IF I can demonstrate that your way is wrong in some way that mine isn't.
I am extremely interested in your description or explanation of How to measure knowledge, objectively.

If you would like to take this somewhere else or even in private message I am keen.
Age
Posts: 20207
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

Post by Age »

Atla wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:52 pm
Age wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:43 pm
Atla wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:20 pm
Most people learn to process context when they are children. You and TimeSeeker keep working hard, and one day you might get there too. Reinventing the wheel and all.
"Most" people?

ALL people learn to process context when they are children.

Unfortunately though when adults are questioned to clarify what they actually mean and what they are actually talking about when they say things, they on most occasions have absolutely no idea, which i will prove shortly.

You have used the word 'easterners'. Now, what do you mean by that, and, what are you actually talking about when you use that word?

Take as long as you like to respond.
Case in point (twice)
EXACTLY as I predicted. And, i could prove it over and over again with you thousands of more times.
Atla
Posts: 6703
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

Post by Atla »

Age wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:09 pm
Atla wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:52 pm
Age wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:43 pm

"Most" people?

ALL people learn to process context when they are children.

Unfortunately though when adults are questioned to clarify what they actually mean and what they are actually talking about when they say things, they on most occasions have absolutely no idea, which i will prove shortly.

You have used the word 'easterners'. Now, what do you mean by that, and, what are you actually talking about when you use that word?

Take as long as you like to respond.
Case in point (twice)
EXACTLY as I predicted. And, i could prove it over and over again with you thousands of more times.
:roll: now three times
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

Post by TimeSeeker »

Atla wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:17 pm
Age wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:09 pm
Atla wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 1:52 pm
Case in point (twice)
EXACTLY as I predicted. And, i could prove it over and over again with you thousands of more times.
:roll: now three times
5. But you are outnumbered so you are wrong. Fit in or fuck off applies ;)

Or tell me if M is the same as М?

But I predict that you won't answer because you are too scared to be wrong in public.
Atla
Posts: 6703
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

Post by Atla »

TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:20 pm
Atla wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:17 pm
Age wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:09 pm

EXACTLY as I predicted. And, i could prove it over and over again with you thousands of more times.
:roll: now three times
5. But you are outnumbered so you are wrong. Fit in or fuck off applies ;)

Or tell me if M is the same as М?

But I predict that you won't answer because you are too scared to be wrong in public.
No sane person wants to be in your club. :) And your M strawman is the fourth case in point.
TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

Post by TimeSeeker »

Atla wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:33 pm No sane person wants to be in your club. :)
Lacking evidence or criteria for sanity/insanity this is a "No true scotsman fallacy" ;)
Atla wrote: Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:33 pm And your M strawman is the fourth case in point.
How can a question which you vehemently REFUSE to answer be a strawman?

I would be more willing to ASSERT that it is a challenge that you are UNABLE to tackle ;)

Q.E.D.
Post Reply