‘There is NO GOD’ Stephen Hawking’s final revelation of the afterlife REVEALED

[sear]

M #579

I won't address Sam's antics here.
Suffice it to say, it's the reason defining terms is so basic to structured debate.

- Introductions
- Recite the resolve
- Define terms

But just between you & me M, demons are real. The only refuge is death. Have a nice day.

 

[Micawber]

No.

Scope doesn't matter. Form of argument does.

Sure. The phrase "there are no gods" is a positive. It is a definitive statement. If you use it as a predicate, it would be a positive predicate. Used as a conclusion it is a positive conclusion.

Attempting to use it as a predicate will likely result in challenges, since the statement itself as a conclusion is not possible. The reason it is not possible is because the only predicates available are negative ones. The same is true of the statement "there are gods". It is not possible to prove a positive with negative predicates.

I challenged you on the positive statement "there is no evidence" because that is likewise a positive statement, and you were using it as a conclusion. It is an invalid conclusion because you were basing that conclusion on a circular argument. Supporting evidence DOES exist for both cases. ALL of it is negative statements or circular arguments in their own right. Because of that, NONE of it can be used to form the positive conclusion "there is a god" or "there is no god". Such a conclusion is also therefore a circular argument, and the argument of ignorance fallacy.

This brings up the question: What is a negative statement? What is a positive statement?

A positive statement is one that is definitive and specific. A negative statement is everything else. Thus, "there is no god" is a positive statement. It is definitive. It is specific. It also happens to be a circular argument, but that in and of itself is not a fallacy. The same is true of the statement "there is a god".

The statement "there is no evidence", however, is a negative statement. It is NOT definitive. It is NOT specific. It attempts to declare a non-void set as void. The only way this can be a positive statement is if the set can be proven void. No such proof was given.

The supporting evidence I listed for both cases, such as "life itself" is a negative statement. It is not definitive. It is not specific. It is an set of an unknown number of elements which makes the set too generic to be specific.

You said "there are no gods" is positive due to its definitive character, yet you said "there is no evidence" was negative because it as not definitive and not specific.
You did not require gods to be specific, and you need to reconcile. I must infer you think gods is specific or for some other reason the stated requirement of specificity
doesn't apply.

 

[Micawber]

Ummm...

...that kinda is a categorical assertion, Mic.

Yes and no, Frank. He said "science is incapable of prediction" I said "false"
For my categorical assertion that his was false to be true, I need only show a single instance of science being capable of prediction.
So I offered several examples where science is capable of prediction.
I suppose we can quarrel over how capable, but incapable is patently untrue on the facts.
I said people make too many categorical statements. Mine was not too many, mine was among the true ones.

I also think he was just being overly restrictive in what he considers science. That may be subjective.
Perhaps anything but the gathering of evidence and assemblage of it is what he considers the science .
Most people are predicting by the mere instance of making a hypothesis in the first place, and I consider that "science" as well.
Those hypotheses' are predictive as well, and derive from prior science in most cases.

 

[Ross Dolan]

No.

Scope doesn't matter. Form of argument does.

Sure. The phrase "there are no gods" is a positive. It is a definitive statement. If you use it as a predicate, it would be a positive predicate. Used as a conclusion it is a positive conclusion.

Attempting to use it as a predicate will likely result in challenges, since the statement itself as a conclusion is not possible. The reason it is not possible is because the only predicates available are negative ones. The same is true of the statement "there are gods". It is not possible to prove a positive with negative predicates.

I challenged you on the positive statement "there is no evidence" because that is likewise a positive statement, and you were using it as a conclusion. It is an invalid conclusion because you were basing that conclusion on a circular argument. Supporting evidence DOES exist for both cases. ALL of it is negative statements or circular arguments in their own right. Because of that, NONE of it can be used to form the positive conclusion "there is a god" or "there is no god". Such a conclusion is also therefore a circular argument, and the argument of ignorance fallacy.

This brings up the question: What is a negative statement? What is a positive statement?

A positive statement is one that is definitive and specific. A negative statement is everything else. Thus, "there is no god" is a positive statement. It is definitive. It is specific. It also happens to be a circular argument, but that in and of itself is not a fallacy. The same is true of the statement "there is a god".

The statement "there is no evidence", however, is a negative statement. It is NOT definitive. It is NOT specific. It attempts to declare a non-void set as void. The only way this can be a positive statement is if the set can be proven void. No such proof was given.

The supporting evidence I listed for both cases, such as "life itself" is a negative statement. It is not definitive. It is not specific. It is an set of an unknown number of elements which makes the set too generic to be specific.

I just want to make clear that earlier (to someone other than you) I mentioned that EVERYTHING is evidence of "at least one god exists"...IF GODS EXIST...and that EVERYTHING is evidence of "no gods exist"...IF NO GODS EXIST.

So, yes, I agree that technically it is evidence, but it is evidence of such ambiguity almost all of it can be used as evidence of both assertions. It certainly is not unambiguous evidence...and it is not even evidence that should be offered in support of either assertion. I appreciate you COULD offer it, however, in refutation of my "there is no evidence"...but for what purpose?

That scholarly nit picking does not move this discussion forward any, although I will acknowledge "moving this discussion forward" is probably not going to happen no matter what.

The theists seem content with "I 'believe' there is a GOD" (they have a specific one in mind) and "my 'faith' is strong" (meaning my insistence that my blind guess is correct will not waiver.)

The atheists (or atheist thinkers) are determined not to concede anything...even points that are obvious. Discussions of this sort are no more productive under those circumstances than are debates. An essential of debate (or discussions of this sort) is to concede points made...and not have them linger.

There is just the fun of the give and take here now...and anyone who does not enjoy it (especially if irritated with it)...should abandon ship.

I've got more to say. We put off going to the wood pile, because there is a light mist right now...and no need to get the chop saw wet.

More to come in a bit.

 

[Micawber]

M #579

I won't address Sam's antics here.
Suffice it to say, it's the reason defining terms is so basic to structured debate.

- Introductions
- Recite the resolve
- Define terms

But just between you & me M, demons are real. The only refuge is death. Have a nice day.

You too Sear. Komodo dragons aren't that scary unless you get their saliva on your arm somehow. They seem slow and disinterested in us.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Yes and no, Frank. He said "science is incapable of prediction" I said "false"
For my categorical assertion that his was false to be true, I need only show a single instance of science being capable of prediction.
So I offered several examples where science is capable of prediction.
I suppose we can quarrel over how capable, but incapable is patently untrue on the facts.
I said people make too many categorical statements. Mine was not too many, mine was among the true ones.

I also think he was just being overly restrictive in what he considers science. That may be subjective.
Perhaps anything but the gathering of evidence and assemblage of it is what he considers the science .
Most people are predicting by the mere instance of making a hypothesis in the first place, and I consider that "science" as well.
Those hypotheses' are predictive as well, and derive from prior science in most cases.

My comment about the highlighted quote being a categorical assertion was just me being a wise-ass...although the comment was categorical.

The last phrase in that last paragraph of mine...is a categorical statement.

So was that last sentence.

And this one.

Just the nature of conversation.

 

[Micawber]

I just want to make clear that earlier (to someone other than you) I mentioned that EVERYTHING is evidence of "at least one god exists"...IF GODS EXIST...and that EVERYTHING is evidence of "no gods exist"...IF NO GODS EXIST.

So, yes, I agree that technically it is evidence, but it is evidence of such ambiguity almost all of it can be used as evidence of both assertions. It certainly is not unambiguous evidence...and it is not even evidence that should be offered in support of either assertion. I appreciate you COULD offer it, however, in refutation of my "there is no evidence"...but for what purpose?

That scholarly nit picking does not move this discussion forward any, although I will acknowledge "moving this discussion forward" is probably not going to happen no matter what.

The theists seem content with "I 'believe' there is a GOD" (they have a specific one in mind) and "my 'faith' is strong" (meaning my insistence that my blind guess is correct will not waiver.)

The atheists (or atheist thinkers) are determined not to concede anything...even points that are obvious. Discussions of this sort are no more productive under those circumstances than are debates. An essential of debate (or discussions of this sort) is to concede points made...and not have them linger.

There is just the fun of the give and take here now...and anyone who does not enjoy it (especially if irritated with it)...should abandon ship.

I've got more to say. We put off going to the wood pile, because there is a light mist right now...and no need to get the chop saw wet.

More to come in a bit.

You use a chop saw for firewood?

 

[Ross Dolan]

You use a chop saw for firewood?

Yeah.

My wood burning stove won't take anything longer than 19"...and although lots of the stuff I buy (2 cords a year) is 18" or less...some fireplace logs always get included. Maybe 1/4 or slightly less of the load.

I use a special chop saw I have just for that. The 3 - 4 inch pieces I chop off I chop down further sith a small hatchet into kindling/tinder. So it all works out okay...or at least that is my rationalization. It is a pain-in-the-ass and I'd rather not do it.

My stacking area is on the other side of he house from where the drop is made...so hauling wheelbarrows across lawn is more than enough exercise without the cutting.

 

[sear]

M #585

Komodo dragons seem slow & disinterested in humans within reach, unless they're guarding territory, or are hungry.

Exotherms often display casual gait. Yet such dragons, alligators and crocodiles are capable of brief bursts of speed and agility. Cobras are exotherms. Yet their strike is rapid enough not only to have sustained their species for millennia, but fast enough for few to avoid.

 

[Micawber]

Yeah.

My wood burning stove won't take anything longer than 19"...and although lots of the stuff I buy (2 cords a year) is 18" or less...some fireplace logs always get included. Maybe 1/4 or slightly less of the load.

I use a special chop saw I have just for that. The 3 - 4 inch pieces I chop off I chop down further sith a small hatchet into kindling/tinder. So it all works out okay...or at least that is my rationalization. It is a pain-in-the-ass and I'd rather not do it.

My stacking area is on the other side of he house from where the drop is made...so hauling wheelbarrows across lawn is more than enough exercise without the cutting.

I get it. Wear eye guards for the bark spray. 82 and wheelbarrowing wood around? I should be so lucky.

 

[Micawber]

My comment about the highlighted quote being a categorical assertion was just me being a wise-ass...although the comment was categorical.

The last phrase in that last paragraph of mine...is a categorical statement.

So was that last sentence.

And this one.

Just the nature of conversation.

I like caveats and weasel words and provisos and exceptions and nuance and gray areas.
Coming out naked and declaring something isn't much of a food fight.
It's like monty python's argument clinic, mere gainsaying...
"No it's not, yes it is...."

 

[Micawber]

I like caveats and weasel words and provisos and exceptions and nuance and gray areas.
Coming out naked and declaring something isn't much of a food fight.
It's like monty python's argument clinic, mere gainsaying...
"No it's not, yes it is...."

Plus, subjecting arguments to some formal logic like a rigid syllogism seldom works or applies in real time.
Spend all that energy and in the rare isntance when you can declare somethign an invalid syllogism is rare.
And even if you do, the other guys is still going to say, yes, but you know it's true anyway, and be more persuasive.
Rhetoric and this is not math, it's supposed to be persuasion.

apologize for posting to myself, but it's what I do most of the time anyway.

 

[Sailor]

If God doesn't exist then despite everyone praying to Him at least once, nobody did. If you have trouble with that, test it out with an imaginary thing or being. For instance, as you read this, pray to a giant dragon that sits in your back yard. Okay, now, when you've finished praying I'll ask the question.

Did you just pray to the giant dragon in your backyard?

If you say 'yes' you are making a mistake because no such dragon exists.

It means that you were, in fact, praying to yourself.

The truth hurt you I see. Poor bastard.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Yeah.

My wood burning stove won't take anything longer than 19"...and although lots of the stuff I buy (2 cords a year) is 18" or less...some fireplace logs always get included. Maybe 1/4 or slightly less of the load.

I use a special chop saw I have just for that. The 3 - 4 inch pieces I chop off I chop down further sith a small hatchet into kindling/tinder. So it all works out okay...or at least that is my rationalization. It is a pain-in-the-ass and I'd rather not do it.

My stacking area is on the other side of he house from where the drop is made...so hauling wheelbarrows across lawn is more than enough exercise without the cutting.

I'm completely exhausted just reading this post.
Quick tip, Frank: adjusting the thermostat also works.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I'm completely exhausted just reading this post.
Quick tip, Frank: adjusting the thermostat also works.

It does.

But cozying up to a fire in the wood burning stove is something the house heat cannot match.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

It does.

But cozying up to a fire in the wood burning stove is something the house heat cannot match.

Congrats on your energy, my friend.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm 82 years old and I have seen neurological ophthalmologists about it. They've pretty much advised me on what most likely will or will not happen in the time I have left. Lots of viewing of the kind I used to do is probably not a part of that.

I see. Unfortunate. At least you remember what you saw earlier.

 

[Into the Night]

Okay...don't stop. You are obviously less interested in making contributions to conversations...than attempting to seem a genius.

I am not trying to seem like a genius.

That is probably true. My graduate work was in Psychology (with Economic and Philosophy majors in undergrad)...so I have. But that was a long, long time ago...and I undoubtedly have lost a lot of what I had in this area. I acknowledge that.

For what it's worth, you do seem to have a better grasp of it than most people here.

Anyone looking to PROVE that gods exist...or do not exist...is a fool.

True. They are also illiterate in logic.

That is not what we are about here.

The bullshit you offered as "evidence" of "there are no gods" is not even close to evidence that there are no gods...and the attempt was beneath someone with your supposed intelligence. Same thing goes for the bullshit ou offered as "evidence" of "there are gods."

Nevertheless it is supporting evidence. I never said evidence is a proof. I've said the opposite consistently.

If you are just showing that you are going to be stone-headed...that was a success.

Inversion fallacy.

I suspect this is going south anyway...but, I'm gonna be here no matter what.

I am not asking you to leave. Indeed, we agree on the basic argument that you making, that one cannot prove the existence or non-existence of any god or gods. You are one of very few people that have arrived at this conclusion.

 

[Into the Night]

It does.

But cozying up to a fire in the wood burning stove is something the house heat cannot match.

Heh. I know what you mean.

 

[Micawber]

I am not trying to seem like a genius.


For what it's worth, you do seem to have a better grasp of it than most people here.

True. They are also illiterate in logic.

Nevertheless it is supporting evidence. I never said evidence is a proof. I've said the opposite consistently.

Inversion fallacy.

I am not asking you to leave. Indeed, we agree on the basic argument that you making, that one cannot prove the existence or non-existence of any god or gods. You are one of very few people that have arrived at this conclusion.

Everyone here believes that you can neither prove or disprove god. The problem that skeptics here have is the idea that a natural world (which contains no describable or identifiable evidence of god at all) should have no bearing
on a conclusion as to whether or not a god exists. That is simply saying that nothing we experience matters in determining whether or not candyland is real.

Fantasy is not entitled to equal dignity as everything we know. That is the line that is being drawn, or at least that I am drawing.

The things we know are rational, experienced and real. The idea of god has no existence other than in the realm of a thought experiment.

Anyone who uses the inability of recorded experience to disprove a deity should, as a matter of conscience, if nothing else, admit and pronounce that the
scientific case for god is nonexistent. Remember, we are speaking to children, dummies and god knows what else, possibly even Republicans.

One thing I am waiting to hear from Frank loudly and clearly, is that there is no scientific evidence of a deity and that there is nothing demonstrable other than
empirical evidence.