|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,481 Year: 3,738/9,624 Month: 609/974 Week: 222/276 Day: 62/34 Hour: 1/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hawking Comes Clean | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It's pretty much what George Lematre wrote to the Pope back in the late 1920s.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yup.
The only significant difference I would mention is of course Lematre's profession. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
In a well done study you would not be able to tell the position of the surveyor.
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
But the claim that "a god is not required" is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific statement. HUH? If I say that by lowering the temperature of water I can get it to change from a liquid to a solid all on my own with intervention from a god, how is that a metaphysical claim? If there is a full and sufficient explanation for something is there a need to add in additional conditions? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Personally, I might even agree with what you say up to a point. I believe you, kb and even I make metaphysical statements when we speak of GOD, but that does not mean Hawkins did. He simply stated a fact, the fact that no God is needed to explain what is seen.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
And my point is it is only metaphysical to those that might believe in some god. The statement itself is not metaphysical, only certain people consider it as metaphysical.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Of course a statement can be metaphysical or not. It all depends on the pov of the speaker and the listener.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Of course it is a fact.
If things can be explained without referring to some god then guess what, no god need apply. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If I say ''God sustains the laws of physics'', which is a metaphysical statement, how can this not be metaphysical for anyone, regardless of their worldview ? If the term God has absolutely no meaning, then the statement is not metaphysical, just silly. BUT...that was not what was said. What was said is "No god needed." Totally not a metaphysical statement. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If ''No god needed'' is interpreted as Kbertsche interprets what Hawkins meant, then it is a metaphysical statement. Which is exactly what I have been saying. It is KB's interpretation that makes it a metaphysical statement, not the statement itself, Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
kbertsche writes: Consider an automobile. Why postulate a human designer and builder, which is much more complex than the automobile itself? Isn't it simpler to postulate that the automobile was self-caused? Yes let's consider the automobile. Let's see, I find a plate that says Body by Fisher or Ghia or Bertone or Ital Design. I find patent numbers and part numbers and made by stamped on part after part. I find Ford and Chevy and Jaguar and Alfa Romeo and Fiat and Peugeot and Rover and I can bring the designers in, interview them and test them. I can look at the parts, say and engine and tell whether it was cast or machined, original or aftermarket, whether it has been modified. We can look at the product "automobile" tell that not only is it designed but different parts were designed by different people and that similar parts found in other automobiles were designed by yet other folk. In addition, as I pointed out way back in 2006 here:
quote: What we see in living things and in designed artifacts like automobiles is simply not the same. If when we looked at living things we found the same things we find in designed stuff like automobiles then it might be worth considering if living things were designed. But so far no evidence has come forward supporting living things being designed. Edited by jar, : change sub-title. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024