The worst thing about religion

Post Reply New Topic

How important is that of Hawkings to being or not being a metaphysicist into give more or less value on his views about the universe?

Last edited by greenblue on 20 Aug 2008, 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

He was making an appeal to authority.

As you have done. Hypocrite. Appeal to authority. Appeal to popularity.

well, appealing to authority like Hawkings, is showing to have faith in what Hawkings says, at least if claiming absolute certainty, would be an error in the sense that it would sound similar like believing what the Bible says, in the opposite view, I would assume. He is a theoretical physicist, I don't know much about the issue, but aren't some of his views, just conjectures? I'm actually asking because I'm not sure

I was doing neither and you know it.


And changing opinions is seen how from a dualist perspective? Not all things that exist must be matter, unless you presuppose that things that exist must be matter. You simply are dismissing an idea because it does not conform to your presupposed opinion.


Umm.... let's see. Most rational people hold rational argument to some level of doubt.

Emotional responses can be proof of something other than emotional response, unless you argue that emotional responses emerge ex nihilo. In fact, you yourself were using an emotional response as proof of something.

I don't care if I show emotions, if only because I consider you dishonest already. From my perspective, you already violated the possibility of civil conversation. I am merely trying to be done with you.

You don't even know how to define an ad hominem attack!! ! I mean, several posters pointed out, that your definition of ad hominem was incorrect, and that I was merely insulting you, and this was done using your already accepted authorities on what an ad hominem was.

No, I characterize people in general as stupid. I characterized you specifically as those things.

I have to ask a simple question. What are you doing and why are you doing it?


If you do, then strive to be a seeker rather than charging in as arrogantly as you did.

That is not insanity, nor does it have to be dishonesty either.

Let's see:

1) Atheists do not accept that any god exists
2) Beings can argue a position without believing it
3) AG, an atheist argues that god exists
4) AG can consistently be an atheist

Now, let us look at dishonesty.

1) Dishonest individuals lie
2) Arguing for an unbelieved position is not lying(see devil's advocacy)
3) Therefore, an individual can argue for an unbelieved position without being dishonest.

Your logic fails because, one, the conclusion is COMPLETELY ABSURD and is almost to the point of being a reductio ad absurdum to a set of premises that nobody holds. There are very few positions that prevent people from saying certain things under all circumstances. Two, the logic itself is flawed as 4)(I labeled them), is not the result of any multiple prior accepted premises but rather is the restatement of 2) in terms of the law of non-contradiction, and 5) shows up out of NOWHERE and is not predicated by any prior premise AT ALL.

Right, because I do butchery to LOGIC and claim that that I am rational. Nice... The fact that I refuse to tell you something, given that I do not really care much for you, is proof of nothing given that multiple possibilities for that non-given rationale are available, and can theoretically make sense.

Arguing for the existence of god does not prove dishonesty, I would be dishonest if I said I were a theist and did this, and has absolutely nothing to do with rationality. What has more to do with rationality is your lack of logical capabilities and yet stated dependence upon reason. Either you are irrational, or you are deceitful(as you have explicitly defended yourself as depending upon reason)



I don't think that anybody other than you would come to the conclusion that I am "dishonest", unless they also have a very skewed definition of dishonesty, or very bad grasp upon logic.

How is that making me to be the hypocrite? You are the one who argued it was wrong. Ergo, you are the hypocrite. If you noticed, my comeback was to claim that Steven Hawkings, was not a metaphysicist. This might be a comment that his authority was imperfect because he would not be aware about the relevant literature in that field.

A lot of his views are conjectures, and I do not think that Steven Hawkings would ever admit to the notion that his ideas are perfect, but rather accept that they are tentative given that he is a theoretician. The claim he was not a metaphysicist may be a bit unfair, however, it certainly isn't Hawkings who is in the argument anyway, so the application of his thoughts to a metaphysical problem might therefore be imperfect anyway given that he isn't explicitly writing for metaphysicists necessarily. Certainly, one cannot appeal to Hawking's authority absolutely as the man himself can be wrong on physics issues as shown by him losing a bet about black holes, and well, he is fallible.

Why would anyone argue for the existence of a being they not believe in?

What possible motivation could you possibly have to do this?

You say you have a problem with butcher of logic. I have clearly demonstrated that your idea of time is incorrect. Physically and conceptually impossible.

Change needs something to change. Nothing cannot change. Therefore if time is change, then time needs something to change. Therefore time and matter are to inter
reliant propositions. This is a logical argument.

Simply put time cannot be measured without change occurred in physical bodies.

God cannot logically have any physical effect on the universe if he is not a physical.

Resorting to supernatural is frankly absurd.

Because they want to! Motivation is subjective, it is entirely based upon the acting object, and given a complex object such as the human brain, there are many many reasons for an individual to act in any particular way.


No, you really haven't. You've proven that from a materialist point of view, only matter exists. No clear demonstration on your part though, especially given that at various points in time, non-material things of varying natures, have been supposed by various people. If these things can philosophically exist, which they can, then we can argue that they actually exist, and that time can be an attribute involving these non-material things.


The missing proposition is that matter is the only thing that can change. The issue is that this is only true if you presuppose materialism, rather than if you look at the history of ideas, as non-material entities have historically had more or less existence and capability of changing. Hell, let's just take the idea of AN IDEA for instance, it is noted that ideas change. Now, perhaps you can claim that an idea is an improper thing to refer to, however, once again, you are presupposing that the only things to exist are material.

Only because you argue that non-physical entities cannot exist.

Umm... only because you presuppose that. The supernatural can philosophically exist, therefore there is no reason why it cannot necessarily exist. This means that God can logically have a physical effect, you simply deny that such a thing can work within the philosophical framework you have presupposed. It is really nothing that special you are doing, and you certainly aren't proving a damn thing other than your own lack of mental flexibility.

What is a non-physical entity?

How can such an entity affect the physical universe?

If such an entity existed, how would anyone know?

Why assume that a non-physical entity can exist, if there is no evidence?

The existence of an idea is not a proof of that idea having a absolute existence outside of the mind that holds it. If that were true, then unicorns would be real, albeit non-physical entities. The ontological argument is a very weak one.

Unless you can explain how a non-physical entity can possible interact with the physical world, then we are done.

An entity without physical form. Such a being can have a number of attributes such as information processing, or supernatural powers. Historically in fact, we have seen the mind considered a non-physical entity, which you should already know about if you've claimed to read Descartes.


The mechanisms could be called supernatural, because they are not natural, because the entity does not exist within the material/natural universe.

Because such an entity can impact human existence.

Because the argued inability for nature to create itself out of no-nature, demands something beyond nature and beyond physicality. Not only that, but some would also argue that there are historic arguments for such a being as well, and many cultures presuppose the existence of such a being, making this being that base-state that must be argued against rather than argued for in many cases.


I never argued that the existence of an idea being proof of an external reality, but only proof that a theory of an external reality was internally consistent. It was not an ontological proof so much as the proof of an ontological possibility.


So, you want me to explain how a mechanism, that is defined as beyond physics, works in terms of the physics of it? Isn't that like asking me to enter your closed system, despite the closedness of it? The notion that I can explain such a thing is logically contradictory given your own presuppositions of explanation of such a thing.

You are talking about magic? Supernatural power?



If a concept cannot be explained either by theory or experience, why hold this concept?

Do you believe in magic?

Ok, sure, why not? Can you disprove the existence of magic?

If a concept is a necessary concept for a theoretical functioning, and can make more logical sense than a violation of known facts, then it can be argued as logical to hold to the concept.

No, not at all, but I think a belief in magic can be internally consistent and coherent with an individual's understanding of the universe based upon the theoretical constructs and experiences(along with the interpretation thereof) that such an individual accepts.

and like i originally postulated: the religious will never know they're wrong because they'll be dead and there will be no end to it. no revelation, no big reveal...just death and non-existence.

i just hope i get to enjoy enough time here before the arrogant religious pricks blow everyone up in their confidence of an afterlife.

You must be referring to the Arab suicide-bombers ...