Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in God

[xmas1997]

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.

I agree. And sensible is there as well.

[silverblk mystix]

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

Well I don't label myself anything - except maybe, human being.

[Strange Love]

Mystix, saving the world one cavity search at a time.

[silverblk mystix]

Mystix, saving the world one cavity search at a time.

If that is how it has to be...


bend over...

[xmas1997]

Well I don't label myself anything - except maybe, human being.

I label myself as a cafeteria Catholic Christian, but many do not see it the same as I do, which is fine with me.

I don't require anyone else to believe exactly the same as I do, nor do I find it threatening in any way.

[spurraider21]

I label myself as a cafeteria Catholic Christian, but many do not see it the same as I do, which is fine with me.

I don't require anyone else to believe exactly the same as I do, nor do I find it threatening in any way.

your inability to answer questions about your faith answers everything i need to know.

in the older thread i kept asking if you thought the story of abraham actually occurred and you kept rambling about allegory and literary style.

either you don't have a belief/opinion, or you are just trolling

[Chinook]

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

Sure, but that's relative. A person believes things because they make sense to them. Them being irrational may give them beliefs that we deem irrational, but those beliefs still are bound to the irrational person's logic.

[xmas1997]

Sure, but that's relative. A person believes things because they make sense to them. Them being irrational may give them beliefs that we deem irrational, but those beliefs still are bound to the irrational person's logic.

Plus it is only irrational to those with a different perception of it, thus why it is relative, and I would argue subjective.

[DMC]

Sure, but that's relative. A person believes things because they make sense to them. Them being irrational may give them beliefs that we deem irrational, but those beliefs still are bound to the irrational person's logic.

But illogical isn't something the irrational person self-prescribes. It's something that the viewer assigns to the acts of the irrational person. Based on your reasoning, insanity also cannot exist as the insane person is acting on reasons that make sense to them, so they are sane in their own worlds... but then we don't judge them based on their own worlds.

[DMC]

Plus it is only irrational to those with a different perception of it, thus why it is relative, and I would argue subjective.

A bit like telling people you went to an Ivy league school when in reality you saw some poison ivy at your school.

[xmas1997]

A bit like telling people you went to an Ivy league school when in reality you saw some poison ivy at your school.

perspective for you, don't you think?

[Chinook]

But illogical isn't something the irrational person self-prescribes. It's something that the viewer assigns to the acts of the irrational person. Based on your reasoning, insanity also cannot exist as the insane person is acting on reasons that make sense to them, so they are sane in their own worlds... but then we don't judge them based on their own worlds.

Logic is just machinery that takes inputs and ejects outputs. You can get the wrong output even if the machinery is working the way it's supposed to if you're getting the wrong input. Like a person who believes their dog is talking to them does so because their brain is stimulated in a way that suggest that to them. If we got the same inputs, we'd believe it as well.

[DMC]

Logic is just machinery that takes inputs and ejects outputs. You can get the wrong output even if the machinery is working the way it's supposed to if you're getting the wrong input. Like a person who believes their dog is talking to them does so because their brain is stimulated in a way that suggest that to them. If we got the same inputs, we'd believe it as well.

I know what logic is. The class didn't begin and end with yours. It's been around for a long, long time.

Your rigid adherence to specific definitions isn't conducive to intelligent conversation. When someone calls a belief illogical, it simply means there are conflicting claims. Your tendency to amplify these things re s the conversation and makes discussing anything with you an exercise in pedantic showmanship.

I realize you're young, but when you age some you'll hopefully come to realize that the purpose of advanced education is to enable communication at a higher level, not to re it by using pedantic tangents.

[Chinook]

I know what logic is. The class didn't begin and end with yours. It's been around for a long, long time.

Your rigid adherence to specific definitions isn't conducive to intelligent conversation. When someone calls a belief illogical, it simply means there are conflicting claims. Your tendency to amplify these things re s the conversation and makes discussing anything with you an exercise in pedantic showmanship.

I realize you're young, but when you age some you'll hopefully come to realize that the purpose of advanced education is to enable communication at a higher level, not to re it by using pedantic tangents.

Well, I wasn't talking to you. You jumped in when I was "rigidly adhering to specific definitions" (which is what Xmas and I were talking about) and threw your hat in. The proper course of action is to stay out of the conversation if you don't want to hear it. I imagine you're old enough to realize that.

You're welcome to start a completely different line of argument in this thread, and if it's addressed to me, I'll participate. But it seems silly of your to start a conversation with me about semantics only to complain that the conversation is, in fact, about semantics.

[xmas1997]

Well, I wasn't talking to you. You jumped in when I was "rigidly adhering to specific definitions" (which is what Xmas and I were talking about) and threw your hat in. The proper course of action is to stay out of the conversation if you don't want to hear it. I imagine you're old enough to realize that.

You're welcome to start a completely different line of argument in this thread, and if it's addressed to me, I'll participate. But it seems silly of your to start a conversation with me about semantics only to complain that the conversation is, in fact, about semantics.

[DMC]

Well, I wasn't talking to you. You jumped in when I was "rigidly adhering to specific definitions" (which is what Xmas and I were talking about) and threw your hat in. The proper course of action is to stay out of the conversation if you don't want to hear it. I imagine you're old enough to realize that.

You're welcome to start a completely different line of argument in this thread, and if it's addressed to me, I'll participate. But it seems silly of your to start a conversation with me about semantics only to complain that the conversation is, in fact, about semantics.

It wasn't an argument about semantics (mine). It was about reference. I thought I made that clear.

[DMC]

What's is claiming you went to Dartmouth when you only took some classes at Incarnate Word.

[DMC]

Excellent quote, one I try to adhere to.

That's because you believe in science AND medicine.

[Chinook]

It wasn't an argument about semantics (mine). It was about reference. I thought I made that clear.

You jumped in when it was speaking to Xmas about the difference between something being irrational and something being illogical. You then asserted something about rationality as a challenge to my statement on logic. I don't care if you wanted the use the colloquial definition of illogical. It wasn't your conversation.

The (rigid) distinction mattered in the context of mine and Xmas' conversation. I argued that asserting that ,"There can be an idea of god that has no extensions" is illogical, since "having no extensions" is an extension in and of itself. It's not possible to have maintain that belief in one's head. You can hold plenty of irrational beliefs in your head (some of which may end up becoming the rational view later on), so long as none of them are contradicted by logic.

So when you jumped in talking about rationality coloring beliefs, I pretty much said, "Yeah. Who cares, though?" Rationality is relative, while logic is not. So yes, insane people are logical. They act the same way we would if we got their stimuli. Their logic is not what makes them insane. Rather, the fact that they draw strange connections between things is what causes their brains to churn out poor results.

What did you want me to do, stop and have a conversation about things we weren't disagreeing over? That wasn't all that appealing. I couldn't care less about rationality in the context of this thread. The only reason why I addressed it when talking to Xmas was to dismiss it.

[DMC]

You jumped in when it was speaking to Xmas about the difference between something being irrational and something being illogical. You then asserted something about rationality as a challenge to my statement on logic. I don't care if you wanted the use the colloquial definition of illogical. It wasn't your conversation.

The (rigid) distinction mattered in the context of mine and Xmas' conversation. I argued that asserting that ,"There can be an idea of god that has no extensions" is illogical, since "having no extensions" is an extension in and of itself. It's not possible to have maintain that belief in one's head. You can hold plenty of irrational beliefs in your head (some of which may end up becoming the rational view later on), so long as none of them are contradicted by logic.

So when you jumped in talking about rationality coloring beliefs, I pretty much said, "Yeah. Who cares, though?" Rationality is relative, while logic is not. So yes, insane people are logical. They act the same way we would if we got their stimuli. Their logic is not what makes them insane. Rather, the fact that they draw strange connections between things is what causes their brains to churn out poor results.

What did you want me to do, stop and have a conversation about things we weren't disagreeing over? That wasn't all that appealing. I couldn't care less about rationality in the context of this thread. The only reason why I addressed it when talking to Xmas was to dismiss it.

If Xmas believes that there can be an idea of a god that has no extensions, then his belief is illogical according to you, yet you said belief cannot be illogical. If the person believed it to be reasonable, but I believe it to not be, it's illogical to me for him to believe that. So a belief can also be illogical based on reference.

It's too all encompassing to say a belief cannot be illogical especially when you're arguing that a statement is illogical. What if that statement defines a belief?

So if I have a belief that belief is illogical, is that logical? Do yous see the problem here?

[The Reckoning]

Well, I wasn't talking to you. You jumped in when I was "rigidly adhering to specific definitions" (which is what Xmas and I were talking about) and threw your hat in. The proper course of action is to stay out of the conversation if you don't want to hear it. I imagine you're old enough to realize that.

You're welcome to start a completely different line of argument in this thread, and if it's addressed to me, I'll participate. But it seems silly of your to start a conversation with me about semantics only to complain that the conversation is, in fact, about semantics.

[DMC]

Also, if you want to be pedantic about it, I could have taken you to task over your claim that you defined god by renaming it "prime mover". That's not a definition, just a job le. Either a god is a nebulous, abstract concept or god has attributes. One of those might not exist (abstract) however if god has real attributes, then by necessity it must exist.

So you're not in a different boat just because you define a god as a prime mover, any more than I would be by defining god as "something other than what you think it is".

[Chinook]

If Xmas believes that there can be an idea of a god that has no extensions, then his belief is illogical according to you, yet you said belief cannot be illogical. If the person believed it to be reasonable, but I believe it to not be, it's illogical to me for him to believe that. So a belief can also be illogical based on reference.

It's too all encompassing to say a belief cannot be illogical especially when you're arguing that a statement is illogical. What if that statement defines a belief?

My argument is that Xmas doesn't actually believe that. He's just saying it. Hence the quote from me which started the whole thing in your book:

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

Like if you told me you held the belief, "That bachelor is married" I would assume you're either mistaken in what you think the word "bachelor" means or that you are being purposefully obtuse/ironic/implicative. I simply would not accept that that would be a genuine belief, no matter how strongly you tried to convince me of it.

So if I have a belief that belief is illogical, is that logical? Do yous see the problem here?

No. It's neither logical or illogical. It's no different than most other beliefs.

[Chinook]

Also, if you want to be pedantic about it, I could have taken you to task over your claim that you defined god by renaming it "prime mover". That's not a definition, just a job le.

"Being the prime mover" is an attribute. Therefore, it's an extension. So I don't hold the illogical view that god is an idea without extension.

Either a god is a nebulous, abstract concept or god has attributes.

That's a false distinction. Even concepts have attributes. It makes no difference how nebulous the concept is. It needs at least one attribute to ground it for conversation.

So you're not in a different boat just because you define a god as a prime mover, any more than I would be by defining god as "something other than what you think it is".

You can do that if you want? However, assigning PM extensions to god is much more constructive, since that's pretty much what most people really care about. Also, you definition doesn't actually point to anything, so it's a really horrible extension.

[DMC]

My argument is that Xmas doesn't actually believe that. He's just saying it. Hence the quote from me which started the whole thing in your book:

Do you realize that you are dismissing the dictionary's definition of "illogical" as "colloquial" in favor of one you more readily accept?

Like if you told me you held the belief, "That bachelor is married" I would assume you're either mistaken in what you think the word "bachelor" means or that you are being purposefully obtuse/ironic/implicative. I simply would not accept that that would be a genuine belief, no matter how strongly you tried to convince me of it.

There's a difference between believing a married man is single and believing a man who calls himself a bachelor is married, if you don't know the definitions of the words. In that instance the belief would be illogical to you but logical to the person who believes it, or you can dismiss it by saying they don't actually believe it when they say they do. You can educate them and they will change their belief, but at that moment, they believe what they claim to believe.