S. Hawking's Final Book: There is NO God.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Did hawking define what this thing called 'God' is?

Prior to any real consensus on what THE 'thing' itself actually is, is there any real point in trying to affirm that there is NO 'such thing', a God? (This also applies to trying to affirm there IS such 'a thing', a God.

NO one has a clue what hawking is referring to when, and if, hawking said, "There is NO God".

Veritas aequitas, you want to keep insisting that there is NO God. So, what exactly is this thing called God, which you believe wholeheartedly does NOT exist?

I believe Hawking's and my understanding [not agree with] the general definition is represented here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Why do you believe hawking's understanding of what the definition of God is is the same as what is written in wikipedia? Do you have some incredible insight into what hawking was actually thinking?

I have read of Hawking's view of God in his previous writings and statements and he had not given a new definition of 'what is God', otherwise it would be the news.
The Wiki article [...I have read it] covers the full range of the definition of God from various perspectives.
Therefore my views are most likely to be correct unless you can prove otherwise.

The ultimate God is 'The Absolute' along the following higher and more sophisticated definitions of God. [=mine]

How can there be God, and then be an ultimate God?

That is the problem with your shallow thinking.
It is the same with, there are physical particles and more refined particles like atoms, electrons, quarks and it is speculated there is the ultimate particle to be discovered, i.e. God particle, which I believe is an impossibility.
If you have read the article re God in Wiki or in other sources, you would have noted there are all forms of God and it is claimed there is an ultimate God, i.e. the ontological God as stated in my post.

St. Anselm's approach was to define God as, "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". [the Ontological God].

Famed pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza would later carry this idea to its extreme: "By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of infinite attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence." ... His proof for the existence of God was a variation of the Ontological argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

You say God is an impossibility. I would suggest to you that if you believe some thing is impossible that you would then have at least some idea of what the definition is for that thing, which you say is an impossibility.

Are you at all able to just write in your own words what the definition of God is?

If we are going to go on giving links of how other people define God, then we could, at this rate, literally go on for as long as human beings exist for.

As I had stated your views are very shallow and narrow.
My point with God is sufficiently represented in the Wiki article.
I have highlighted specifically the ultimate God, i.e. the ontological God which I had demonstrated is an impossibility here.

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

I invite you to provide counter arguments to the above and don't ask silly questions.

[HexHammer]

I know for a fact that he's wrong! I cursed the name of god and had 4 black cats in less than 1 h, next day I fell on my bike!

Nothing to do with you being a clumsy loon then?

It may not convince you but I'm sure the Hippie will return in 2-6 months and bring peace to the middle east in less than a year and do great miracles.

[Age]

Shouldn't you be defining it since you are the one who apparently believes in it? If you won't define it then everyone else can only assume it's that rather unlikeable character in the bible who's always smiting and smoting people.

If Hawking meant 'nature' I am sure he would have said 'nature'. And if 'God' is 'nature' by your definition then why not just call it 'nature'?

Have I said 'God' is 'nature' previously for you to make an assumption like this?

Surely there has to be some kind of consensus on what this 'God' thing is that people are always banging on about and saying they 'believe' in?

If there surely has to be some kind of consensus, then what is that consensus?

Are you saying they all believe in something but none of them know what that something is?

I have not said that, but that is just about right.

Human beings can be the most stupid creature on the planet. They, at times, believe in things that they have absolutely no evidence for support. They also, at times, believe in things that are completely and utterly false, untrue, and incorrect. Just maybe you, yourself, have believed in things from time to time, that you do not know what that thing is?

Have you ever believed in something that you do not know what that something is?

If you are going to answer this question, then be very careful with your answer. I can already see the outcome.

I always find it hilarious when religios expect atheists to define God as if that's somehow a brilliant counter-argument to .....what?....

Do you believe that i am in any way, shape or form religious, in the sense that you are proposing here? If so, then please explain WHY you believe this to be so.

In case you missed it, I also asked, Prior to any real consensus on what THE 'thing' itself actually is, is there any real point in trying to affirm there IS such 'a thing', a God, ALSO. I think that would have been enough evidence for most people that I am NOT religious, in the sense that I believe a God exists from the perspective of how you see what God is.

I have NEVER expect either side, of the most ridiculous debate in history, to define God. I have alluded to the fact that prior to any real consensus on what 'God' IS, BY ALL PEOPLE, what is the actual point of discussing if God exists or not.

Find out what God actually IS first, then you will KNOW, for sure, if It exists or not.

I find it extremely humorous how people on either side of this most stupid of human debates actually BELIEVE that I am on the other side of what they are. Either side can and do this, equally. Talk about being truly blinded by their own beliefs.

I will state it once, and for ALL; I do NOT take sides. I do NOT see nor have a side to take on this matter. There is NO side to truth.

I think we can all agree that 'God', no matter how you 'define' it/him/GBT etc. etc. is something supernatural--otherwise there's not much point to it is there?

Well you thought WRONG. I, for one, certainly do NOT agree that 'God' is supernatural. By definition 'supernatural' could NOT even exist. Now that is what is an impossibility.

Why do you believe that if God is not supernatural then there is not much point to it?

Exactly. 'Supernatual' can't exist by definiton (I wonder where you got that from?).

You are the one stating phrases like, "I think we can all agree that God is something supernatural". I just said what you think is WRONG, because I do NOT agree, and because of the obvious fact that it is an impossibility.

If something can not exist, then why do you think that we ALL could agree that it does? Seems a rather foolish to think, to me.

Why now are trying to pretend that you are superior to others? You are the one claiming something that was obviously completely false from the very outset.

But maybe you would like to explain in more detail WHY you would write such a thing?

What the fuck else would a 'God' be then?

If you ever become open enough, then you will, one day, find out what God actually IS, and then, you will KNOW if It exists or not.

Or are you another illiterate yank nuisance who 'think's that word meanings are entirely subjective?

Your racism is not allowing you to see, nor write, things logically. Being a so called "yank" has no actual real relationship to what a person actually thinks about subjectivity or not. Also, if you actually read (into) what I wrote, then you would see the obvious statements I make about word meanings and how subjective or not they really are.

By the way, you did NOT respond to ANY of my questions.

What was the real reason for this?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Have I said 'God' is 'nature' previously for you to make an assumption like this?



If there surely has to be some kind of consensus, then what is that consensus?



I have not said that, but that is just about right.

Human beings can be the most stupid creature on the planet. They, at times, believe in things that they have absolutely no evidence for support. They also, at times, believe in things that are completely and utterly false, untrue, and incorrect. Just maybe you, yourself, have believed in things from time to time, that you do not know what that thing is?

Have you ever believed in something that you do not know what that something is?

If you are going to answer this question, then be very careful with your answer. I can already see the outcome.



Do you believe that i am in any way, shape or form religious, in the sense that you are proposing here? If so, then please explain WHY you believe this to be so.

In case you missed it, I also asked, Prior to any real consensus on what THE 'thing' itself actually is, is there any real point in trying to affirm there IS such 'a thing', a God, ALSO. I think that would have been enough evidence for most people that I am NOT religious, in the sense that I believe a God exists from the perspective of how you see what God is.

I have NEVER expect either side, of the most ridiculous debate in history, to define God. I have alluded to the fact that prior to any real consensus on what 'God' IS, BY ALL PEOPLE, what is the actual point of discussing if God exists or not.

Find out what God actually IS first, then you will KNOW, for sure, if It exists or not.

I find it extremely humorous how people on either side of this most stupid of human debates actually BELIEVE that I am on the other side of what they are. Either side can and do this, equally. Talk about being truly blinded by their own beliefs.

I will state it once, and for ALL; I do NOT take sides. I do NOT see nor have a side to take on this matter. There is NO side to truth.



Well you thought WRONG. I, for one, certainly do NOT agree that 'God' is supernatural. By definition 'supernatural' could NOT even exist. Now that is what is an impossibility.

Why do you believe that if God is not supernatural then there is not much point to it?

Exactly. 'Supernatual' can't exist by definiton (I wonder where you got that from?).

You are the one stating phrases like, "I think we can all agree that God is something supernatural". I just said what you think is WRONG, because I do NOT agree, and because of the obvious fact that it is an impossibility.

If something can not exist, then why do you think that we ALL could agree that it does? Seems a rather foolish to think, to me.

Why now are trying to pretend that you are superior to others? You are the one claiming something that was obviously completely false from the very outset.

But maybe you would like to explain in more detail WHY you would write such a thing?

What the fuck else would a 'God' be then?

If you ever become open enough, then you will, one day, find out what God actually IS, and then, you will KNOW if It exists or not.

Or are you another illiterate yank nuisance who 'think's that word meanings are entirely subjective?

Your racism is not allowing you to see, nor write, things logically. Being a so called "yank" has no actual real relationship to what a person actually thinks about subjectivity or not. Also, if you actually read (into) what I wrote, then you would see the obvious statements I make about word meanings and how subjective or not they really are.

By the way, you did NOT respond to ANY of my questions.

What was the real reason for this?

Being a yank makes someone a moron. I've never seen any evidence to say otherwise.

[TimeSeeker]

Ask them?

Well, that is about as unscientific as it gets.

In order for somebody to give an answer, first they have to understand you question in EXACTLY the way you mean it to be understood.
So that presents you with a challenge already. Do they understand the question? Worse yet. Do YOU understand the question?

Question: What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything?
Answer: 42.

Or as a direct example: Do you believe in grobmunf?

You could probably find it in neuronal activation patterns or even in the endocrine system

And? Instead of calling it God you have now called it a 'neuronal pattern'. You are just equivocating. You still haven't told me of any consequences of said neuronal pattern.

Suppose that the pattern in their brain which they call God corresponds to the pattern in your brain which I call grobmunf.
You are no closer to understanding what God means to them OR grobmunf means to me!

WE are no closer to understanding the EFFECTS this neural pattern has on your actual behavior - this is the empirical part I actually care about!

What are the measurable EFFECTS of believing in grobmunf/God?

You are still in the dark!

[Reflex]

Being a yank makes someone a moron. I've never seen any evidence to say otherwise.

Look in the mirror veggie-head.

P.S.:

Who gives a rat’s excrement what Hawking believed in such matters?

[Age]

I believe Hawking's and my understanding [not agree with] the general definition is represented here;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Why do you believe hawking's understanding of what the definition of God is is the same as what is written in wikipedia? Do you have some incredible insight into what hawking was actually thinking?

I have read of Hawking's view of God in his previous writings and statements and he had not given a new definition of 'what is God', otherwise it would be the news.

So what, what you have read?

I asked you a specific question, if you do not want to answer it, unwilling to, and/or can not answer it, then so be it.

Where is the actual evidence that hawking's understanding of what the definition of God is, is the exact same as what is written in wikipedia? Where is the link to, that what you say you have read, that hawking's wrote in regard to the definition of God?

The Wiki article [...I have read it] covers the full range of the definition of God from various perspectives.

Does it really cover the FULL range of the definition of God?

Therefore my views are most likely to be correct unless you can prove otherwise.

What views?

I am still waiting for you to write YOUR views down.

Just linking a wikipedia explanation does not show in anyway that that version is the exact same as hawking's version.

You have this incredible ability to actual BELIEVE that just because you have read some thing, and you agree with that version, then that IS the correct version of things. You actually BELIEVE that your views are the actual TRUTH of things.

The ultimate God is 'The Absolute' along the following higher and more sophisticated definitions of God. [=mine]

How can there be God, and then be an ultimate God?

That is the problem with your shallow thinking.

It is the same with, there are physical particles and more refined particles like atoms, electrons, quarks and it is speculated there is the ultimate particle to be discovered, i.e. God particle, which I believe is an impossibility.

That is NOT the exact same at all. Particles of matter, and their differing sizes, is only a fraction of what the definition of what God actually IS.

If you have read the article re God in Wiki or in other sources, you would have noted there are all forms of God and it is claimed there is an ultimate God, i.e. the ontological God as stated in my post.

That there are all forms of God, GIVEN by human beings, is nothing new and it is also very widely KNOWN and accepted. These giving different forms of God has been going on for as long as human beings have been discussing and trying to work out what this God thing is. This is what I am talking about. What is the actual agreed upon version of what God is. I think you will find that a wikipedia definition of God is NOT what ALL people would agree with.

Your attempt at an answer is like saying there are physical particles of matter, and then there are ultimate physical particles of matter. This is nonsensical. All you did was explain the obvious, that is; that some things are bigger and some things are smaller than other things. As for your comment about the God particle, and your BELIEF that it is an impossibility, is the whole issue here. What is the actual definition of 'God'?

What is the actual definition for that THING that human beings are actually looking for, and/or are disputing exists or not?

As for who has shallow thinking. The evidence is right here for any one to plainly see.

In regards to the former I will question you again, How can there be a God, and then be an ultimate God?

God is usually defined as a whole overarching and encompassing thing, in and of Itself. There can NOT logically therefore be an further or more ultimate thing, than the most ultimate of things.

You say God is an impossibility. I would suggest to you that if you believe some thing is impossible that you would then have at least some idea of what the definition is for that thing, which you say is an impossibility.

Are you at all able to just write in your own words what the definition of God is?

If we are going to go on giving links of how other people define God, then we could, at this rate, literally go on for as long as human beings exist for.

As I had stated your views are very shallow and narrow.

Just because you have written some thing previously and BELIEVE that it is true, right, and correct does NOT, and I will repeat for you, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

My point with God is sufficiently represented in the Wiki article.

If you are going to accept that version as a sufficiently represented version, then there is no wonder WHY you BELIEVE God is an impossibility. That definition, combined with your presently held views, then it is no wonder that you are so completely confused here, and now. The reason WHY you are so confused is very obvious to more people now.

I have highlighted specifically the ultimate God, i.e. the ontological God which I had demonstrated is an impossibility here.

God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

I invite you to provide counter arguments to the above and don't ask silly questions.

Let me guess, any question you do not like to answer, can not answer, and will not answer, you class as "silly questions". But any question you do like to answer, can answer, and will answer, you class them as "non-silly questions".

If I can not question you, to clarify you about your absolutely absurd attempts at arguing only for your currently strongly held onto position/s, then there is no use providing any thing at all. By the way I do NOT ask questions for my benefit. I ask them hoping that you will eventually see the truth of the matter, and, so that others, through your responses, can see what I have been explaining for a while now

You have already proven countless times already that you are in NO way open enough to even looking at counter arguments, let alone seeing them. You are, at the moment, intrinsically incapable to see any thing other than what you already BELIEVE is true. That, my friends, IS HOW the belief-system works.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why do you believe hawking's understanding of what the definition of God is is the same as what is written in wikipedia? Do you have some incredible insight into what hawking was actually thinking?

I have read of Hawking's view of God in his previous writings and statements and he had not given a new definition of 'what is God', otherwise it would be the news.

So what, what you have read?

I asked you a specific question, if you do not want to answer it, unwilling to, and/or can not answer it, then so be it.

Where is the actual evidence that hawking's understanding of what the definition of God is, is the exact same as what is written in wikipedia? Where is the link to, that what you say you have read, that hawking's wrote in regard to the definition of God?

I don't think you read widely. If you have read widely you would not have asked such 'childish' [relatively] questions.

Have you read Hawkings' The Grand Design?

In Chapter 2 Hawking described the various ideas of God from primitive to the ontological perfect God of Descartes, e.g.

According to Descartes, God could at will alter the truth or falsity of ethical propositions or mathematical theorems, but not nature. He believed that God ordained the laws of nature but had no choice in the laws; rather, he picked them because the laws we experience are the only possible laws. This would seem to impinge on God’s authority, but
Descartes got around that by arguing that the laws are unalterable because they are a reflection of God’s own intrinsic nature. If that were true, one might think that God still had the choice of creating a variety of different worlds, each corresponding to a different set of initial conditions, but Descartes also denied this. No matter what the arrangement of matter at the beginning of the universe, he argued, over time a world identical to ours would evolve. Moreover, Descartes felt, once God set the world going, he left it entirely alone.

-Chapter 2; The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking

The Wiki article [...I have read it] covers the full range of the definition of God from various perspectives.

Does it really cover the FULL range of the definition of God?

Yes!!
That is the point. You are ignorant on this.
For whatever serious thesis I worked on, I make sure I exhaust whatever is necessary to know about the main subject and topic, i.e. in this case God.

The rest of your questioning are merely kindergarten stuffs.
If you are well versed with the subject, you should know more or less from which perspective I am talking about and raise the critical points rather than the childish ones, like Why is the Sky Blue?

[TimeSeeker]

That is the point. You are ignorant on this.
For whatever serious thesis I worked on, I make sure I exhaust whatever is necessary to know about the main subject and topic, i.e. in this case God.

The rest of your questioning are merely kindergarten stuffs.
If you are well versed with the subject, you should know more or less from which perspective I am talking about and raise the critical points rather than the childish ones, like Why is the Sky Blue?

But I am well versed in epistemology. And I can determine (even if you can't) that you are not well versed in epistemology.

I keep raising the critical points which plague ALL perspectives. And you keep ignoring them :/

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Being a yank makes someone a moron. I've never seen any evidence to say otherwise.

Look in the mirror veggie-head.

P.S.:

Who gives a rat’s excrement what Hawking believed in such matters?

I don't, but apparently some do. There are people in this world who are incapable of thinking for themselves. I know it's hard to believe, but true nonetheless.

[Veritas Aequitas]

That is the point. You are ignorant on this.
For whatever serious thesis I worked on, I make sure I exhaust whatever is necessary to know about the main subject and topic, i.e. in this case God.

The rest of your questioning are merely kindergarten stuffs.
If you are well versed with the subject, you should know more or less from which perspective I am talking about and raise the critical points rather than the childish ones, like Why is the Sky Blue?

But I am well versed in epistemology. And I can determine (even if you can't) that you are not well versed in epistemology.

I keep raising the critical points which plague ALL perspectives. And you keep ignoring them :/

Tell me which area of epistemology I have overlooked or is ignorant of, e.g. in this article or anywhere else?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

Epistemology (/ɪˌpɪstɪˈmɒlədʒi/ (About this sound listen); from Greek ἐπιστήμη, epistēmē, meaning 'knowledge', and λόγος, logos, meaning 'logical discourse') is the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge.

You are more likely to have an incomplete grasp of epistemology [ a main branch of philosophy] since you are not adept [as admitted] in philosophy.

[TimeSeeker]

Tell me which area of epistemology I have overlooked or is ignorant of, e.g. in this article or anywhere else?

No, you don't get to frame the debate around 'this article'. The reference frame is reality

You have overlooked and you are ignorant of the applied/practical aspects of epistemology.

You have learned about knowledge from a book, I have learned about knowledge from iterative failure through contact with reality.

Then I went to read your books and recognized that those who write books on epistemology know nothing about knowledge.

Those hard questions I keep asking you and you keep avoiding - those are your gaps in epistemology

You are more likely to have an incomplete grasp of epistemology [ a main branch of philosophy] since you are not adept [as admitted] in philosophy.

I am adept in praxis. To say that I am not adept in philosophy is to commit a 'No true scotsman' fallacy.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

But we might as well bend it a little: In philosophy there is no difference between philosophy and reality, but in reality there is.

In reality - errors in reasoning have negative consequences. In philosophy they don't. Which is why so much of philosophy is bullshit. Stupid doesn't hurt. It should!

[Reflex]

My point with God is sufficiently represented in the Wiki article.

Anyone who believes that is 6 cans short of a six-pack.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Tell me which area of epistemology I have overlooked or is ignorant of, e.g. in this article or anywhere else?

No, you don't get to frame the debate around 'this article'. The reference frame is reality

You have overlooked and you are ignorant of the applied/practical aspects of epistemology.

You have learned about knowledge from a book, I have learned about knowledge from iterative failure through contact with reality.

Then I went to read your books and recognized that those who write books on epistemology know nothing about knowledge.

Those hard questions I keep asking you and you keep avoiding - those are your gaps in epistemology

You are going into the wrong direction.
Note this is a philosophy forum and thus we need to conform to the general understanding of what is philosophy.
What I had presented to you as generally understood as 'epistemology' is based on the consensus of the majority of those within the philosophy community.

Until you have published your version of what is 'epistemology' and accepted by the majority of peers, then you have to start from the general understanding of what is epistemology within the common community of philosophy.

In any case, your concept of epistemology is not likely to be accepted by the average people engaged in philosophy.

You are more likely to have an incomplete grasp of epistemology [ a main branch of philosophy] since you are not adept [as admitted] in philosophy.

I am adept in praxis. To say that I am not adept in philosophy is to commit a 'No true scotsman' fallacy.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

But we might as well bend it a little: In philosophy there is no difference between philosophy and reality, but in reality there is.

In reality - errors in reasoning have negative consequences. In philosophy they don't. Which is why so much of philosophy is bullshit. Stupid doesn't hurt. It should!

Note in Philosophy the following distinction are critical;

• 1. Theory or Pure [specific]
  2. Practice or Applied [specific]
  3. Theory and practice or vice versa

You just cannot conflate them as you like.

It is just like Science is Science which is mainly theory abstracted from experiments [practice or thoughts].
But scientific theories when applied into technology [praxis] or personal practice is a different topic altogether because praxis entail the combination with other fields of knowledge.

[TimeSeeker]

1. Theory or Pure [specific]
2. Practice or Applied [specific]
3. Theory and practice or vice versa[/list]

I disagree with your taxonomy.

Practice comes first. Theory later.

Theory is a subset of practice.