Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hawking Comes Clean
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 106 of 148 (580326)
09-08-2010 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by nwr
09-08-2010 5:08 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 5:08 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 5:52 PM slevesque has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 107 of 148 (580328)
09-08-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by slevesque
09-08-2010 5:46 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
slevesque writes:
Metaphorical ??
For those who see "God" as a metaphor, it couldn't be anything else.
slevesque writes:
It goes without saying that the statement has to be meaningful ...
That's to be doubted.
slevesque writes:
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.
I don't even have to view it as a claim.
slevesque writes:
It doesn't depend on your own worldview or point of view.
Meaning is subjective. In a conversation, a speaker and a listener are not guaranteed to take it the same way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 5:46 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 5:58 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 108 of 148 (580329)
09-08-2010 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by slevesque
09-08-2010 4:36 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 4:36 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 6:06 PM Straggler has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 109 of 148 (580332)
09-08-2010 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by nwr
09-08-2010 5:52 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 5:52 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 110 of 148 (580333)
09-08-2010 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Buzsaw
09-08-2010 8:18 AM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
Buzsaw writes:
If there was a first cause ...
There probably wasn't a first cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Buzsaw, posted 09-08-2010 8:18 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 6:07 PM nwr has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 111 of 148 (580334)
09-08-2010 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Straggler
09-08-2010 5:55 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2010 5:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2010 6:33 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 112 of 148 (580335)
09-08-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by nwr
09-08-2010 6:04 PM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
And there goes colliding branes out the window I guess.
How can you even judge which one is more probable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 6:04 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 7:41 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 125 by cavediver, posted 09-09-2010 3:32 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 113 of 148 (580342)
09-08-2010 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by slevesque
09-08-2010 6:06 PM


Metaphysical Claims
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 6:06 PM slevesque has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by 1.61803, posted 09-08-2010 9:14 PM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 114 of 148 (580344)
09-08-2010 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by slevesque
09-08-2010 4:36 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 4:36 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 6:53 PM jar has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 115 of 148 (580346)
09-08-2010 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by jar
09-08-2010 6:40 PM


Re: Lennox on Hawking
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by jar, posted 09-08-2010 6:40 PM jar has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 116 of 148 (580350)
09-08-2010 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by slevesque
09-08-2010 6:07 PM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
nwr writes:
There probably wasn't a first cause.
slevesque writes:
And there goes colliding branes out the window I guess.
The only implication would be that could have been something before the colliding branes. And something before that, and something before that.
slevesque writes:
How can you even judge which one is more probable.
I am content to wait for actual evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 6:07 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 8:47 PM nwr has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 117 of 148 (580360)
09-08-2010 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by nwr
09-08-2010 7:41 PM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 7:41 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by onifre, posted 09-08-2010 9:04 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 119 by nwr, posted 09-08-2010 9:13 PM slevesque has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 118 of 148 (580363)
09-08-2010 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by slevesque
09-08-2010 8:47 PM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 8:47 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 9:19 PM onifre has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 119 of 148 (580368)
09-08-2010 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by slevesque
09-08-2010 8:47 PM


Re: We just don't know... And that's okay.
slevesque writes:
So does this mean you consider the 'no first cause' position as the default position ?
I have no need for a 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 8:47 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by slevesque, posted 09-08-2010 9:21 PM nwr has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 120 of 148 (580369)
09-08-2010 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Straggler
09-08-2010 6:33 PM


Re: Metaphysical Claims
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2010 6:33 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2010 4:58 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024