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

[TimeSeeker]

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.

Bandwagon fallacy. What if the general understanding is wrong?

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.

All the sophists in the philosophy community? Yeah - they are wrong.

Also. You are appealing to authority.

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.

Within the common community of HUMANITY I have published my work. You are using it right now. The internet. Cloud computing. Artifficial intelligence. All my work is on Github. The community of HUMANITY agrees with me. Because they keep PAYING ME for my work.

It is peer reviewed. And it is broadly accepted by a few BILLION people How's THAT for consensus?

I am also currently working on publishing my work in academia. But that's mainly out of charity.

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

It's accepted by broader society, so why should I care about your ivory tower?

My conception ADDRESSES HUMAN NEEDS. My conception SOLVES SOCIAL PROBLEMS.
What does your conception do?

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

I have no issue with which comes first.
Obviously it is spontaneous actions that come first and theories are abstracted from such actions.
Practice can be conditioned upon theories and vice versa in a spiral.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Bandwagon fallacy. What if the general understanding is wrong?

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.

All the sophists in the philosophy community? Yeah - they are wrong.

Also. You are appealing to authority.

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.

Within the common community of HUMANITY I have published my work. You are using it right now. The internet. Cloud computing. Artifficial intelligence. All my work is on Github. The community of HUMANITY agrees with me. Because they keep PAYING ME for my work.

It is peer reviewed. And it is broadly accepted by a few BILLION people How's THAT for consensus?

I am also currently working on publishing my work in academia. But that's mainly out of charity.

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

It's accepted by broader society, so why should I care about your ivory tower?

My conception ADDRESSES HUMAN NEEDS. My conception SOLVES SOCIAL PROBLEMS.
What does your conception do?

I will dismiss your claims re the internet as mere rubbish.

As for the concept of 'epistemology' we have to agree on what is the generally acceptable philosophical meaning of the term. You can qualify you don't agree with it. But then you have to argue why you do not agree with it.

This is why I asked you to deconstruct what is in here [in general]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
and show why it is wrong, false and not acceptable.

If your argument is sound, I will agree with it.
But based on what you have presented, you don't have the stuff to change the current meaning of 'what is epistemology'.

At most what you can claim is a heavily qualified;
"Epistemology [Timekeeper's view'] is ......."
I have no issue if you qualified the above and I reserve the discretion to reject it.

[Arising_uk]

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.

Ok, see you in 6 months.

[TimeSeeker]

I will dismiss your claims re the internet as mere rubbish.

So you dismiss my claims about the internet OVER THE INTERNET. OK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performat ... tradiction

As for the concept of 'epistemology' we have to agree on what is the generally acceptable philosophical meaning of the term. You can qualify you don't agree with it. But then you have to argue why you do not agree with it.

Because all of the philosophical conceptions are not useful for our survival.
And if knowledge is not useful - then what the fuck is it for ?

And if you claim to believe in the objective goal of survival then you are contradicting yourself...

This is why I asked you to deconstruct what is in here [in general]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
and show why it is wrong, false and not acceptable.

Because it's incomplete and it fails to address every edge case in every epistemological theory I have ever encountered.
It lacks the discipline of risk management!

If your argument is sound, I will agree with it.

If you are upfront about your OBJECTIVE CRITERIA for soundness. Then I will care to convince you - otherwise you are wasting my time.

But based on what you have presented, you don't have the stuff to change the current meaning of 'what is epistemology'.

I don't want to change your meaning. You are welcome to live in your cave. What I do care if your conceptions are harmful (and I think they are) so I care about burning down the Church of Philosophy more about I care about convincing you of anything.

I have no issue if you qualified the above and I reserve the discretion to reject it.

Epistemology is empirical understanding of HOW KNOWLEDGE WORKS. Epistemology-proper requires praxis!

[Age]

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.

Remember it is you, and your kind, that are confused about life, and it's meaning, and are continually looking for answers.

There is enough proof of your confusion, evidenced in your writings.

Have you read Hawkings' The Grand Design?

No.

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

There is not much there I can see that corresponds with the wikepedia version of what God is.

You must be having some sort of problem understanding my questions?

I will write them again;

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?

In other words, where is the link to hawking's writings that shows hawkings definition of God is the same as what is written in wikipedia? Provide the two links from each source, with the same definitions, and then YOUR explanation of how the two are similar.

Until then all you are doing is grasping onto anything that supports YOUR BELIEF that God is an impossibility. A profuse smile must of appeared across your face when you read, and believed that, hawking's final conclusion, which was written by some one else, was - There is NO 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?

Yes!!

So for the thousands upon thousands of years, even milleniums?, that human being's have been contemplating what the definition of God actually IS, you say ALL of that FULL range of the definition of God is summed up in just one wikipedia version. (Thank God for wikipedia, hey?)

That is the point. You are ignorant on this.

This is YOUR argument.
P1. You believe wholeheartedly that the absolute FULL range of definition of God is summed up in wikipedia.
P2. I do not agree, and so, I question you about this.
P3. Because I do not agree with your believe, and question you, THEN, that is the point.
C. Therefore, I am ignorant of this.

Does any one else see the absolute absurdity here.

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.

So, what mark or grade did you get on your thesis of God, with the final outcome that God is an impossibility?

And, do you seriously want us to believe that one person could in any real way could even make a dent in KNOWING the subject God? Let alone exhaust ALL that is necessary to KNOWING the subject God? The same subject that has completely bewildered human beings for many upon many thousands of years, yet little old 'you' has "exhausted whatever is necessary to know about the subject, in this case, God"?

Luckily for the rest of humanity they do not have to worry about this subject any more. It has all been solved and already been answered completely, by 'you'. Now that God is an impossibility, has finally been put to bed once and for all, then I might now take a look at that link you provided earlier about your argument that supports that outcome.Is that your final argument on this subject? Have you provided a sound, valid argument to support that God is an impossibility. An argument, which is a complete unambiguous, indisputable fact?

I hope you have, then I can stop wondering.

The rest of your questioning are merely kindergarten stuffs.

Perfect, childhood-like logic always overrides adulterated, so called, "logic". As you have once again proven here.

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?

I have been raising the number one critical point here. That is, there is NO uniform consensus on what the definition of God IS, yet.

Until that is discovered, then there is NO point in discussing if a THING, with no actual real definition, exists or not.

But you seem to miss my point nearly every time we talk.

By the way, you have NOT raised any critical point at all. All you have raised is saying in hawking's final book the words "There is NO God" is written.

The only point you are TRYING TO raise is you and hawking's are in agreement, with your own belief, in that God is an impossibility.

By the well being well versed in any thing NEVER provides as much clarity, of what another's perspective is, as just asking simple and easy clarifying questions does.

The reason WHY you ignore and dismiss what other's say and ask of you is obvious.

My asking you, WHY you BELIEVE some thing?, I think is very, very different from asking you something like, why is the sky blue?

Are you able to see the differences between the two questions. Here is a hint if you missed it;
One, is asking you a question about how and why you have a particular view; that is, the question is in regard to what is within you.
The other, is asking a question about some thing outside of your OWN head.

[TimeSeeker]

Obviously it is spontaneous actions that come first and theories are abstracted from such actions.
Practice can be conditioned upon theories and vice versa in a spiral.

Action is praxis! CHOOSING HOW TO ACT is praxis!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Obviously it is spontaneous actions that come first and theories are abstracted from such actions.
Practice can be conditioned upon theories and vice versa in a spiral.

Action is praxis! CHOOSING HOW TO ACT is praxis!

The majority of human actions are not based on conscious decisions but rather are instinctual and from the subconscious.

[TimeSeeker]

The majority of human actions are not based on conscious decisions but rather are instinctual and from the subconscious.

Strawman. I have spent a very long time training and developing my own instincts to be better than the average human's instincts.
I trust my 'gut'.

I have a tendency to be right. A lot. Which is the same as saying - I am less wrong than you are.

Naturally - you will reject this claim and accuse me of arrogance.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have been raising the number one critical point here. That is, there is NO uniform consensus on what the definition of God IS, yet.

Until that is discovered, then there is NO point in discussing if a THING, with no actual real definition, exists or not.

But you seem to miss my point nearly every time we talk.

Have you read the Wiki article?

That article presented a range of ideas of God and imply there is no consensus on all these ideas by all theists.
The monotheists, the polytheists, the pantheists, the panentheists, the deists do not agree with each other in various forms but there is a fundamental core definition of what is a God, i.e. the generic idea of a deity.

[TimeSeeker]

Have you read the Wiki article?

Red herring. Have you SOLVED MY PROBLEM?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The majority of human actions are not based on conscious decisions but rather are instinctual and from the subconscious.

Strawman. I have spent a very long time training and developing my own instincts to be better than the average human's instincts.
I trust my 'gut'.

I have a tendency to be right. A lot. Which is the same as saying - I am less wrong than you are.

Naturally - you will reject this claim and accuse me of arrogance.

Nah you are deflecting again.
Mine was a direct response to the point you raised.

[TimeSeeker]

Nah you are deflecting again.
Mine was a direct response to the point you raised.

Your accusations of deflection ARE a deflection.

The only direct point I am raising is that I have presented you with an EPISTEMIC PROBLEM that you have NO IDEA how to solve.

Respond to that...

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nah you are deflecting again.
Mine was a direct response to the point you raised.

Your accusations of deflection ARE a deflection.

The only direct point I am raising is that I have presented you with an EPISTEMIC PROBLEM that you have NO IDEA how to solve.

Respond to that...

I don't see any significant epistemic problem at all.
Give the clear definition of the problem?

[TimeSeeker]

I don't see any significant epistemic problem at all.
Give the clear definition of the problem?

None are so blind as those who cannot see

You are deflecting.
There are no ethical consideration within a 1 + 1 = 2 F&S or a binary F&S, etc.

To choose either would be outside the scope of the specific F&S which may not involve ethical elements at all.

There is only an ethical elements when there are consequences that effect the human individual[s] or group.

No I am not deflecting you stupid fuck.

THAT IS THE FUCKING EPISTEMIC PROBLEM YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO SOLVE

You have TWO SYSTEMS.

A: 1+1 = 10
B: 1 + 1 = 2

They are both COHERENT. SOUND. INTERNALLY CONSISTENT! They both produce EXACTLY THE SAME CONSEQUENCES.
Any difference is merely symbolic! Language!

What PROCEDURE did you USE to CHOOSE: A or B ?

CHOICE IS AN EPISTEMIC PROBLEM

You say A. I say B.

Lets decide