Stephen Hawking doesn't believe in God

[DMC]

Ugh. You're hard-headed. No one except for you is talking about "define" to mean as an exhaustive list of qualities. It's just been you digging in this whole time, because you haven't had a point on the actual topic of conversation.

Attributes and extension provide the essence of the substance.

Ignoring the "define" thing for a moment, no. God is still the prime mover, because nothing else will ever be the prime mover again. But even if I were to agree that that was a past le, it doesn't stop it from being an extension. Like an extension for Columbus is that he landed on Hispanola. But plenty of people had done it before him, and plenty did it after him. Doesn't mean that that's not something someone thinks of when talking about Columbus.

But you know what landed means, and you know what Hispanola is, and we both can agree to that. You haven't the foggiest what prime mover even means, you only have a rough video game like perception of it and I don't even have that.

Again ignoring your attempts to equate extensions to definitions. Do I think belief in a god is a personal thing? Yes. But do I think that people who don't believe in god are being rational? No. And yes, I think it's borderline idiotic to pretend that things have to be testable to be true or believed to be true. Only people who don't understand epistemology think that.

Truth isn't determined by a being testable. It's true, there is no other answer. Claims have to be testable, they have to be falsifiable, and the god claim is just that, a claim and it's not testable and it's not falsifiable. You cannot make it true through shutting the door to examination. You can say it's true for you, but that doesn't make it true.

Oh good, the same argument written again. I would not say Aphrodite is a god, because she was not the prime mover. However, other people would disagree with that. That's why it's informative that I say "God = PM", because it separates my idea of god from those people's.

Then who was Aphrodite if not a goddess? Fiction or fact, it's unfalsifiable so we should assume it's true.

[quote]In any event, you would agree that Aprhodite would not classify as a god even if she is real, since you can't seem to separate god from the PM in your mind.

You cannot separate god from the PM since you said GOD=PM. I don't believe there was a 1st cause and I don't believe there was/is a god. I have to argue from the foundation you've laid.

Um...the did you get that idea from? Anyway, infinity is a concept that cannot be tested in the world. There's no way to verify it, yet you can understand it's extensions (what the word means) just fine. Yet, you shouldn't be able to, since in your mind, extensions have to be testable.

If "prime mover" is an extension, it's one extension and it's one attribute. If there are an infinite limit of prime movers, there is no way for there to be a single prime mover. The infinity of prime movement cannot be divided into individual prime movers, ergo your god cannot exist if there is an infinity of prime movement. During the prime movement, there had to have been an infinity of prime movement as there was nothing but prime movement and there was no beginning since time was not in existence, and there was no end since there was no beginning. Concepts with no beginning or end either do not exist or they are infinite.This means that your monotheistic approach is flawed. Your god either does not exist or your god is infinite, which means you cannot extend it.

[mouse]

that's not a matter of opinion.

Then why were forums created?

they are two different debates. if you have theists who believe in evolution, that alone is enough to demonstrate they are not mutually exclusive

You sound like you know what your talking about I think your just missed understood I haven't started debating yet just putting in my 2 cents and in my defense I did see the word "God" in the topic subject so its not like this topic wasn't going to go down the Evolution path why wouldn't it?

In any event I would love to debate any of the topics you want to address. Since you can reply w/o all the re fried outdated immature comments you see in almost every topic these days.

you mean like the astounding video

I am sensing sarcasm....... and I just posted how mature I thought you were...............
,

that talks about how numbers being very precise

Are you saying Science doesn't use numbers that are precise?

= there is a god?

When did you see me post there is a "God"?

the church has never accepted sex with boys.

Just the priest got it!

members of the church have taken that action, though

You call 1,000 years of abuse of young sweet tight alter boys working 24/7 late at night lighting candles with a horny no pussy getting 50 year old men and if he gets caught gets transferred to another church "Taking Action"? then I take back what I said about your ability to debate intelligently.




http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26044852

[AaronY]

one star thread, would not read again

[mouse]

one star thread, would not read again

You have proof you read it the first time?

[Jeff Leppard]

My balls slamming against your chin like a high speed sewing machine, preparing to fertilize your throat egg, that could be worse for you or it could be common place.

Well, at the very least you try really hard.

[maverick1948]

For all you folks who believe in the Big Bang happening, tell me one thing. Where did the speck that blew up come from?

[Chinook]

Attributes and extension provide the essence of the substance.

That's exactly wrong.

But you know what landed means, and you know what Hispanola is, and we both can agree to that. You haven't the foggiest what prime mover even means, you only have a rough video game like perception of it and I don't even have that.

Do you seriously not know what the words "prime" and "mover" mean? You've said quite a few times now that you understand the term, its intension (what I've been calling the extension). You just don't understand the extension (what you also called the reference). Those are two different things, though.

Truth isn't determined by a being testable. It's true, there is no other answer. Claims have to be testable, they have to be falsifiable, and the god claim is just that, a claim and it's not testable and it's not falsifiable. You cannot make it true through shutting the door to examination. You can say it's true for you, but that doesn't make it true.

A random split on your part. Claims don't have to be testable, since they are assertions of belief. Not all beliefs are testable, as we've already established quite some time ago.

Then who was Aphrodite if not a goddess? Fiction or fact, it's unfalsifiable so we should assume it's true.

A random critique. You agree (to a point that you're confusing yourself) that "being/was the prime mover" is a necessary characteristic of god. Since no account of Aprhodite gives her that quality, you have to assume she isn't/wasn't the PM, and therefore not god by your (and my) definition. You can't both assert that Aprhodite is a goddess while also asserting that she cannot be god (at least not without making a distinction between the extensions of "god" and "goddess"). So you should just drop this line of reasoning. It's illogical.

You cannot separate god from the PM since you said GOD=PM. I don't believe there was a 1st cause and I don't believe there was/is a god. I have to argue from the foundation you've laid.

Not true at all in this thread. I'm not talking about my own theistic beliefs. I'm talking about the word. "God" can mean different things to different people, which is why people need to clarify the extensions they hold. I simply said that one cannot say they hold no extensions for the word while also assigning the word meaning. It makes no sense.

If "prime mover" is an extension, it's one extension and it's one attribute. If there are an infinite limit of prime movers, there is no way for there to be a single prime mover. The infinity of prime movement cannot be divided into individual prime movers, ergo your god cannot exist if there is an infinity of prime movement. During the prime movement, there had to have been an infinity of prime movement as there was nothing but prime movement and there was no beginning since time was not in existence, and there was no end since there was no beginning. Concepts with no beginning or end either do not exist or they are infinite.This means that your monotheistic approach is flawed. Your god either does not exist or your god is infinite, which means you cannot extend it.

Still have no idea where you get this from. You just extended god by calling him "infinite". Of course, as I said a while back, infinity is merely a concept with no possible extension (referent) in what we know as existence. Due to your self-imposed constraints, you simply cannot use that term meaningfully.

[spurraider21]

For all you folks who believe in the Big Bang happening, tell me one thing. Where did the speck that blew up come from?

don't know. and we're ok with that.


the idea of the big bang is not some age old theory that scientists are going out actively trying to prove. hope that's not how you view the scientific community's contribution to the big bang theory

[Chinook]

The idea about the Big Bang is pretty much the result of looking at the radiation of matter and energy throughout the universe. It's much easier to support than the doctrine on evolution, in my opinion. It's not a creation myth/theory, and shouldn't be taken as one by people of either side. It's merely an event that is assumed to have happened to explain a lot of math.

[littlecoyotecoin]

For all you folks who believe in the Big Bang happening, tell me one thing. Where did the speck that blew up come from?

That brilliant "gotcha" moment brought to you by the makers of: "Where did god come from?"

[DMC]

That's exactly wrong.

In philosophy, essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an en y or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its iden y.

Do you seriously not know what the words "prime" and "mover" mean? You've said quite a few times now that you understand the term, its intension (what I've been calling the extension). You just don't understand the extension (what you also called the reference). Those are two different things, though.

I do. I taught you, remember? Problem is that it employs special pleading. Nothing can come from nothing, except to solve the problem of existence. You solve the problem you've created by violating the rules that caused the problem you created and expect me to see it as plausible. If the rules aren't that important, why use them?

A random split on your part. Claims don't have to be testable, since they are assertions of belief. Not all beliefs are testable, as we've already established quite some time ago.

Casual claims can be dismissed casually. They aren't required to be testable, and that's why there are scores of different god claims and the like. A claim isn't an epiphany, where you come to a realization of what you feel the world is about. It's a statement to others of what the world is about. Statements will be scrutinized if they are extraordinary, and if they aren't testable, they will be dismissed by all but the nutjobs.

A random critique. You agree (to a point that you're confusing yourself) that "being/was the prime mover" is a necessary characteristic of god. Since no account of Aprhodite gives her that quality, you have to assume she isn't/wasn't the PM, and therefore not god by your (and my) definition. You can't both assert that Aprhodite is a goddess while also asserting that she cannot be god (at least not without making a distinction between the extensions of "god" and "goddess"). So you should just drop this line of reasoning. It's illogical.

Only if you joust the universal contingency windmill does the word "prime mover" even hold meaning, and I don't even own a horse.

Not true at all in this thread. I'm not talking about my own theistic beliefs. I'm talking about the word. "God" can mean different things to different people, which is why people need to clarify the extensions they hold. I simply said that one cannot say they hold no extensions for the word while also assigning the word meaning. It makes no sense.

Face it, you have a nebulous concept of a god and the only way you can attempt to differentiate yourself from the mystics is by using a word like "prime mover" and call it a characteristic. It's wishy washy. You know that. Your education won't let you, in good faith, believe in an invisible god force but your upbringing won't leave you alone either.

Still have no idea where you get this from. You just extended god by calling him "infinite". Of course, as I said a while back, infinity is merely a concept with no possible extension (referent) in what we know as existence. Due to your self-imposed constraints, you simply cannot use that term meaningfully.

I offered you two options. Either you are a human or you are a post-bot. Did I just call you a post bot?

If your god exists, then it existed prior to first cause, and thus is infinite and infinite cannot become less than infinite and cannot be extended.

[Chinook]

In philosophy, essence is the attribute or set of attributes that make an en y or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its iden y.

Noted. Seems like that's more of a noumena/phenomena thing rather than an intension/extension thing, though.

I do.

That's the only part of your response that was necessary.

Casual claims can be dismissed casually. They aren't required to be testable, and that's why there are scores of different god claims and the like. A claim isn't an epiphany, where you come to a realization of what you feel the world is about. It's a statement to others of what the world is about. Statements will be scrutinized if they are extraordinary, and if they aren't testable, they will be dismissed by all but the nutjobs.

Not really.

Only if you joust the universal contingency windmill does the word "prime mover" even hold meaning, and I don't even own a horse.

You just said you know what it means. You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth on this. It doesn't matter that you don't believe in it. If "prime mover" had no meaning to you, you wouldn't even be able to reject the idea.

Face it, you have a nebulous concept of a god and the only way you can attempt to differentiate yourself from the mystics is by using a word like "prime mover" and call it a characteristic. It's wishy washy. You know that. Your education won't let you, in good faith, believe in an invisible god force but your upbringing won't leave you alone either.

That doesn't matter. Again, we're not debating my theism here. Without any extensions, you can't have a concept of god at all. Not a hazy one. Not one that doesn't stand up to testing. None.

I offered you two options. Either you are a human or you are a post-bot. Did I just call you a post bot?

What?

If your god exists, then it existed prior to first cause, and thus is infinite and infinite cannot become less than infinite and cannot be extended.

You can't use the term infinite. Literally, it has no referent, and it isn't testable in any way. Those of us who know that's not a problem can use it, but it shouldn't make any sense in your head.

Again, you seem obsessed with trying to have a conversation about theism. That's not the point of our discussion. We're talking semantics (the philosophical kind, not the grammar kind) here. I know you're all gung ho about empricism and all that, but what we're talking about has nothing to do with that.

[DMC]

I can use words how I see fit. I am arguing from the foundation you laid, remember? I don't even believe a god exists, so then I suppose I cannot debate the god claim at all. Your cardboard responses are duly noted as is your half-assed acknowledgement that you are wrong about things you've stood behind for how many posts now? If an attribute defines an essence, then how does 'prime mover" define the essence of god?

[Chinook]

I don't even believe a god exists, so then I suppose I cannot debate the god claim at all.

This statement is seriously why you can't seem to get on track in this conversation. You're confusing referent and extension. You don't have believe something can exist in order to think (and argue) about it, but you do have to have at least one connected idea to a concept for it to have meaning. That is the reason why we can argue about infinity while also knowing that we'll never be able to observe or measure it in the world.

I imagine you're trolling by now, because you're not an idiot an understand words when people use them. You know that I am not talking about the existence of god in this thread, yet you keep trying to bring it back there.

[DMC]

This statement is seriously why you can't seem to get on track in this conversation. You're confusing referent and extension. You don't have believe something can exist in order to think (and argue) about it, but you do have to have at least one connected idea to a concept for it to have meaning. That is the reason why we can argue about infinity while also knowing that we'll never be able to observe or measure it in the world.

I imagine you're trolling by now, because you're not an idiot an understand words when people use them. You know that I am not talking about the existence of god in this thread, yet you keep trying to bring it back there.

Sorry, been trolling the entire time.

This should have given it away "If "prime mover" is an extension, it's one extension and it's one attribute. If there are an infinite limit of prime movers, there is no way for there to be a single prime mover. The infinity of prime movement cannot be divided into individual prime movers, ergo your god cannot exist if there is an infinity of prime movement. During the prime movement, there had to have been an infinity of prime movement as there was nothing but prime movement and there was no beginning since time was not in existence, and there was no end since there was no beginning. Concepts with no beginning or end either do not exist or they are infinite.This means that your monotheistic approach is flawed. Your god either does not exist or your god is infinite, which means you cannot extend it."

That has absolutely zero meaning.

[Chinook]

Sorry, been trolling the entire time.

Relatively nice to hear that. You seemed off the entire thread.

This should have given it away "If "prime mover" is an extension, it's one extension and it's one attribute. If there are an infinite limit of prime movers, there is no way for there to be a single prime mover. The infinity of prime movement cannot be divided into individual prime movers, ergo your god cannot exist if there is an infinity of prime movement. During the prime movement, there had to have been an infinity of prime movement as there was nothing but prime movement and there was no beginning since time was not in existence, and there was no end since there was no beginning. Concepts with no beginning or end either do not exist or they are infinite.This means that your monotheistic approach is flawed. Your god either does not exist or your god is infinite, which means you cannot extend it."

You should understand as well as anyone that type of argument is what passes for a lot of ST posters. The early parts of this thread were full of posts just as meaningless.

[spurraider21]

Sorry, been trolling the entire time.

This should have given it away "If "prime mover" is an extension, it's one extension and it's one attribute. If there are an infinite limit of prime movers, there is no way for there to be a single prime mover. The infinity of prime movement cannot be divided into individual prime movers, ergo your god cannot exist if there is an infinity of prime movement. During the prime movement, there had to have been an infinity of prime movement as there was nothing but prime movement and there was no beginning since time was not in existence, and there was no end since there was no beginning. Concepts with no beginning or end either do not exist or they are infinite.This means that your monotheistic approach is flawed. Your god either does not exist or your god is infinite, which means you cannot extend it."

That has absolutely zero meaning.

yeah my head started hurting after that one and i stopped paying attention

i usually enjoy it when you and Chinook have discussions

[Chinook]

yeah my head started hurting after that one and i stopped paying attention

i usually enjoy it when you and Chinook have discussions

Yeah. I think that's at the point when I was actively questioning DMC's sanity in my replies. But it wasn't any worse than the things Mouse and SBM were saying.

[DMC]

yeah my head started hurting after that one and i stopped paying attention

i usually enjoy it when you and Chinook have discussions

I used to do the moderated formal debate thing but I grew tired of the logical fallacy traps and how my opponent would seem to never mind losing as long as he/she could proselytize in the process. It would start out formal enough, but by the 3rd or 4th rebuttal it was just me pointing out that the opponent had abandoned their original claim and is now relying on a faith based argument. It always came down to "you just have to believe it before you can know it's true".

I've never debated non-religious stuff though.

[spurraider21]

I used to do the moderated formal debate thing but I grew tired of the logical fallacy traps and how my opponent would seem to never mind losing as long as he/she could proselytize in the process. It would start out formal enough, but by the 3rd or 4th rebuttal it was just me pointing out that the opponent had abandoned their original claim and is now relying on a faith based argument. It always came down to "you just have to believe it before you can know it's true".

I've never debated non-religious stuff though.

religion debate gets boring after a while. if you've been on the internet long enough, you've argued it from every possible angle, and you've heard every response. at this point they're basically scripted and choreographed. its a different story when mental midgets like the ones on this site just have fundamental misunderstandings about science, which makes it impossible to even get to that point.

i would talk politics here more often, but that forum is just a spamfest

sports debate is fun too, like the curry one we had throughout most of last year

[DMC]

religion debate gets boring after a while. if you've been on the internet long enough, you've argued it from every possible angle, and you've heard every response. at this point they're basically scripted and choreographed. its a different story when mental midgets like the ones on this site just have fundamental misunderstandings about science, which makes it impossible to even get to that point.

i would talk politics here more often, but that forum is just a spamfest

sports debate is fun too, like the curry one we had throughout most of last year

Curry is a chucker, btw.

[spurraider21]

[Chinook]

religion debate gets boring after a while. if you've been on the internet long enough, you've argued it from every possible angle, and you've heard every response. at this point they're basically scripted and choreographed. its a different story when mental midgets like the ones on this site just have fundamental misunderstandings about science, which makes it impossible to even get to that point.

i would talk politics here more often, but that forum is just a spamfest

sports debate is fun too, like the curry one we had throughout most of last year

Or there can be debates like the strange one last night with that one dude about global warming.

[spurraider21]

Or there can be debates like the strange one last night with that one dude about global warming.

i'm going to destroy your credibility
you're going to be exposed in front of everybody
i'm going to crush you
you'll regretting challenging me

[Chinook]

i'm going to destroy your credibility
you're going to be exposed in front of everybody
i'm going to crush you
you'll regretting challenging me

I sincerely hope that dude was trolling. But the way he backed out at the end makes me think he wasn't.

I was also hoping he was just some snot-nosed teenager, but I looked at his profile and saw he's been on ST since 2005.