Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in God

[spurraider21]

the moment you assign ANY attribute to god, you can no longer say "he's undefinable" or "incomprehensible."

even by calling him divine, thats assigning a trait to him

[xmas1997]

I don't think anyone does. The point is that once you say that about him, you no longer can argue that he's completely incomprehensible.

We THINK he may be comprehensible, or incomprehensible, or both at the same time, because we have flawed capability to see the ALL of Everything at once and the same time.

I am doing my best NOT to define Him, because I think that would in some way limit Him by my imperfect definition because He is probably limitless.

Even by saying this least little bit, that takes a tiny step toward making Him comprehensible, I realize this, but that may do nothing toward the reality of the matter from the point of view of God.

[spurraider21]

We THINK he may be comprehensible, or incomprehensible, or both at the same time, because we have flawed capability to see the ALL of Everything at once and the same time.

I am doing my best NOT to define Him, because I think that would in some way limit Him by my imperfect definition because He is probably limitless.

Even by saying this least little bit, that takes a tiny step toward making Him comprehensible, I realize this, but that may do nothing toward the reality of the matter from the point of view of God.

if you are claiming he created the universe/life then that is a trait in it of itself

if he is the creator of life and space/time, then he can't be considered completely incomprehensible and this argument just folds

[Chinook]

We THINK he may be comprehensible, or incomprehensible, or both at the same time, because we have flawed capability to see the ALL of Everything at once and the same time.

I am doing my best NOT to define Him, because I think that would in some way limit Him by my imperfect definition because He is probably limitless.

Even by saying this least little bit, that takes a tiny step toward making Him comprehensible, I realize this, but that may do nothing toward the reality of the matter from the point of view of God.

Again, no one is talking about the actual qualities of god. No one knows what those are. The argument is completely based in human minds, so we have to/get to use our rules. And you know what? That's the case for ALMOST EVERYTHING people argue over. We don't actually KNOW the true qualities of objects in the world. We just have certain extensions we assign to them so that we can think about them and discuss them.

[Clipper Nation]

Wrong - as usual.

The OP is still an attention whoring got...


Some of you other gots give him a hug already.

[silverblk mystix]

so SBM you aren't christian?

not that

[silverblk mystix]

basically. sbm is trying to act smart by assigning all this ambiguity to defend his belief without realizing he is destroying his own argument by doing so

Self evident truth.


No one can accurately define "god"


What does a truth have to do with an argument?


Nothing.

You can recognize a truth or you can ignore it...deny it....


you choose.

[ChumpDumper]

Hey Clive. do you believe in God?

I believe in Christ

Hey sbm, do you believe in God?

[spurraider21]

not that

its a yes or no question. "not that" doesn't answer it.

[silverblk mystix]

CS Lewis believed...


then someone he loved very much died a painful death right before his eyes...


so he began to question....


Most reasonable people would do the same IMO.

[spurraider21]

reasonable people can answer basic questions

[xmas1997]

Again, no one is talking about the actual qualities of god. No one knows what those are. The argument is completely based in human minds, so we have to/get to use our rules. And you know what? That's the case for ALMOST EVERYTHING people argue over. We don't actually KNOW the true qualities of objects in the world. We just have certain extensions we assign to them so that we can think about them and discuss them.

Yes, I wholly agree with this and would argue it is the case with everything we humans argue over, we agree to define certain things the same in order to converse with each other, but I think no two people see "things" exactly the same way and thus our differences in opinion of the way things truly are.

Yet for each of us, what we believe, truly defines our particular realities, and not only what we believe, but also what we think and feel.

That is why the "reality" of a deranged person is quite different than that of our own.

[silverblk mystix]

reasonable people can answer basic questions

Agreed.


Asking if someone believes in something undefinable & unknowable -


is pure lunacy tbh.

[silverblk mystix]

Be back - gotta make a beer run before watching the cowboys get massacred!

[spurraider21]

Agreed.


Asking if someone believes in something undefinable & unknowable -


is pure lunacy tbh.

i asked if you were christian. you couldn't answer it.

[ChumpDumper]

CS Lewis believed...


then someone he loved very much died a painful death right before his eyes...


so he began to question....

For a couple hours.

Thereafter, no question.....

[Chinook]

Yes, I wholly agree with this and would argue it is the case with everything we humans argue over, we agree to define certain things the same in order to converse with each other, but I think no two people see "things" exactly the same way and thus our differences in opinion of the way things truly are.

Yet for each of us, what we believe, truly defines our particular realities, and not only what we believe, but also what we think and feel.

That is why the "reality" of a deranged person is quite different than that of our own.

This is why talking about "thinking" and not "knowing" is pointless. It's also why trying to appeal to god the noumenon is pointless. Since all conversations are about phenomena, then this one is as well. So only the phenomenon of god is relevant. People have to state what that means to them, and then people get to debate it.

[xmas1997]

This is why talking about "thinking" and not "knowing" is pointless. It's also why trying to appeal to god the noumenon is pointless. Since all conversations are about phenomena, then this one is as well. So only the phenomenon of god is relevant. People have to state what that means to them, and then people get to debate it.

It makes one wonder what the motivation to debate phenomenon is. Fun, enlightenment, to discredit?

I think you can debate the subject of "god", but that we are over our heads when we tackle "GOD".

[Chinook]

It makes one wonder what the motivation to debate phenomenon is. Fun, enlightenment, to discredit?

No, since all debate is over phenomena, the motivation to debate them is the motivation to debate anything. We need to hash things out, so we discuss them.

I think you can debate the subject of "god", but that we are over our heads when we tackle "GOD".

That may be true. But it cannot be a belief that is held logically.

[DMC]

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space...travel-n210076

What an idiot huh guys?

You just figuring this out and you have a degree from where exactly?

[DMC]

It makes one wonder what the motivation to debate phenomenon is. Fun, enlightenment, to discredit?

I think you can debate the subject of "god", but that we are over our heads when we tackle "GOD".

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That's one of my favorite quotes.

[xmas1997]

No, since all debate is over phenomena, the motivation to debate them is the motivation to debate anything. We need to hash things out, so we discuss them.



That may be true. But it cannot be a belief that is held logically.

Are any "beliefs" held logically?
Assumptions can be held logically IMHO, because they do not depend on "faith", but beliefs?

[xmas1997]

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. That's one of my favorite quotes.

Excellent quote, one I try to adhere to.

[Chinook]

Are any "beliefs" held logically?
Assumptions can be held logically IMHO, because they do not depend on "faith", but beliefs?

Not all beliefs are held logically, but none can be held illogically.

Remember, "logical" and "rational" are not the same thing. Something being illogical means it simply cannot be right.

[DMC]

Not all beliefs are held logically, but none can be held illogically.

Remember, "logical" and "rational" are not the same thing. Something being illogical means it simply cannot be right.

So "lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning" cannot influence beliefs?