|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hawking Comes Clean | |||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
It will be seen by some as metaphorical, provided that they give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is meaningful. Metaphorical ?? It goes without saying that the statement has to be meaningful ... But even if I tell you that ''Xyroflexians use specially made Roteflaziozos to make objects fall to the ground'', and you know I actually some kind of mental image of what both those thigns are, even if you think it is complete bullocks you still have to view my claim as metaphysical. It doesn't depend on your own worldview or point of view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
slevesque writes:
For those who see "God" as a metaphor, it couldn't be anything else.
Metaphorical ?? slevesque writes:
That's to be doubted.
It goes without saying that the statement has to be meaningful ... slevesque writes:
I don't even have to view it as a claim.
But even if I tell you that ''Xyroflexians use specially made Roteflaziozos to make objects fall to the ground'', and you know I actually some kind of mental image of what both those thigns are, even if you think it is complete bullocks you still have to view my claim as metaphysical. slevesque writes:
Meaning is subjective. In a conversation, a speaker and a listener are not guaranteed to take it the same way.
It doesn't depend on your own worldview or point of view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: What was said is "No god needed." Totally not a metaphysical statement. Slevesque writes: Then you didn't really read what I said, or you didn't try to understand what I was meaning. You seem to be saying that anyone can subjectively and meaningfully claim a role for the supernatural in whatever situation no matter what evidence there is for such a role being objectively unnecessary. Is that correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
For those who see "God" as a metaphor, it couldn't be anything else. Even those who view God as a metaphor will understand that the one making the statement isn't stating it as a metaphor.
That's to be doubted. How can you doubt that a statement has to be meaningful in order to be properly evaluated/identified (as metaphysical or anything else) ?
I don't even have to view it as a claim. WTF. This makes no sense at all
Meaning is subjective. In a conversation, a speaker and a listener are not guaranteed to take it the same way. This shows only the shortcomings of the speaker and listener, nothing to do with the nature of the claim per se. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Buzsaw writes:
There probably wasn't a first cause.
If there was a first cause ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
It's because saying such a role is objectively unnecessary is a metaphysical statement. That's all. Who's to know if God stopped to exist, that the universal laws wouldn't cease to exist ?
Answering: ''No, the universe could run consistently on it's own without God'' is just as metaphysical as saying ''Yes, the universe needs a consistent God in order to function''. Both are outside the realm of science Science will, however, tell you that you don't need to postulate God in order to understand the universe and it's laws. This is methodological naturalism, but it is different from the above statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
And there goes colliding branes out the window I guess.
How can you even judge which one is more probable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Slev writes: It's because saying such a role is objectively unnecessary is a metaphysical statement. Why? If there is no requirement for supernatural involvement in the formation of the universe, if this is explicable in natural terms alone, how is this different to saying that Earthquakes or Volcanoes are explicable in natural terms alone? Is the conclusion that rain occurs without supernatural involvement a metaphysical claim?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Ok, then either I didn't understand you or you didn't make it clear up to this point.
Then as I said earlier, I can't say if his interpretation is correct. I know not enough of the current book, nor Hawkins to know what interpretation of this claim would be correct. probably you neither. However, as i said, it's normal that at some point theoretical physicists like him will make this sort of metaphysical claim. They have a worldview like anybody else and there is no problem of making some metaphysical claims in a book you write. It's not like it was a scientific paper. For all we know, the Hawkins could very well have intended this statement to be metaphysical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
nwr writes: There probably wasn't a first cause. slevesque writes:
The only implication would be that could have been something before the colliding branes. And something before that, and something before that.
And there goes colliding branes out the window I guess. slevesque writes:
I am content to wait for actual evidence.
How can you even judge which one is more probable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4640 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
The only implication would be that could have been something before the colliding branes. And something before that, and something before that. This is supposing the 'first caused' was itself caused. Which isn't necessarily the case
I am content to wait for actual evidence. So does this mean you consider the 'no first cause' position as the default position ? Why so ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
So does this mean you consider the 'no first cause' position as the default position ? I think the default position is, intelligent entities that exist in supposed realms that are not subject to the laws of physics, and can create universes with laws, don't exist until evidence for them is provided.
If the leading theory in theoretical physics is that of 'no first cause,' as it seems to be, then that is where the evidence lead the experts. In fact, the default position for most of history has been God. It is because of the evidence that it has lead science away from that. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
slevesque writes:
I have no need for a default position.So does this mean you consider the 'no first cause' position as the default position ? It does not trouble me that there are questions for which we do not currently have answers, and perhaps some for which we will never have answers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1503 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Straggler writes: Is the conclusion that rain occurs without supernatural involvement a metaphysical claim? OHHHHHH knOOOOooowwWW! Straggler's next thread." Has Metaphysical claims failed" " I failed my metaphysics exam, my teacher caught me looking into another students soul." Woody Allen Edited by 1.61803, : added quote
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024