You know Dawkins and Hawking. Do you know Hawkins?

Post Reply New Topic

Not really. The verse only would apply to after-death events, but the theistic hypothesis and various details of it are still removed from any meaningful evaluation. That's just that, and that is a way to kill knowledge.


Except I *didn't* say that the knowledge in the universe is inadequate. I said Job said that. Frankly, I think common sense epistemology, the kind of knowledge claims we make *ALL THE TIME* are sufficient to say that there is no God.

This paper points out the tension: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=s ... JhNWE5OWE4 The issue is that we really can't get by without some epistemology, and common sense is likely the only one that it makes sense to accept.


I don't agree that God's treatment of man is that of a child. Children eventually grow up. Children are treated as being in some sense persons, and given some dignity based upon that. The idea of God is one that keeps mankind as infants, and that denies us a lot of dignity, a point I pointed out in the other thread.

In any case, I don't see much point in discussing this with you. There is no point in a discussion with the brainwashed, as unless you have some framework governing both acceptance, rejection, and conditional plausibility of God, there is no difference between philologos and a brick wall. Everything you say will be conditioned by a subjective emotional desire, and a real engagement with facts or ideas or analysis cannot be expected.

What all this has to do with Dawkins and Hawking?

A reasonable question.

The connection is thus:

Hawkins, Dawkins and Hawking are three people whom for divergent reasons I find disagreeable and whose ideas and behavior for various reasons I find objectionable.

For OBVIOUS reasons I constantly mix up their names. I am not great at names anyway, and when you add those similarities it is hard on me.

I wanted to mention Hawkins because I wished to talk about what constitutes evidence and Hawkins' use of evidence - through which he convinces many - is exceptionally atrocious.

Trying to remember the guy's name, my mind sorted past the other two, so I used them to add interest to the topic head.

Any critique of Dawkins or Hawking would be totally different - the two are incommensurable and Hawkins is in a class of his own.

AG:

you have opted out, so I will not reply to any of your total misunderstanding of God, or if you prefer the concept of God.

BUT

I say again - I am probably the least brainwashed person you have ever encountered.

My conclusions are my own; based on what I have seen and heard and observed, critically reviewed and revised on a regular basis.

You have yourself noted - as a criticism, interestingly - that my formulations differ as much from any individual Christian or other theist you choose to pick as from your own.

The brainwashed IS gleichgeschalted, socialized, assimilated. I do not even come close and a moment's reflection should make it clear to you that brainwashing is not an adequate account of how I got here.

That is gleichgeschaltet - I noticed the anglofingering based typo as I hit submit.