re: Stephen Hawking was full of shite

quote:

---

Matter and Energy is indeed imbued with essential Intelligence

---

one obvious problem with this thinking is how they are related. at one point, people thought the pineal gland was responsible for this (descartes, et al), which isn't the case.

another problem is that this just kicks the causality can down the road.

quote:

---

I said that Hawkins is correct in saying that there is no proof that god exists

---

which is stupid as i have pointed out multiple times

quote:

---

How you managed to twist that into a strawman of my saying that there is proof god doesn’t exist is baffling.

---

thank you for admitting you are confused. would you like for me to restate my explanation?

quote:

---

Not persuasive

---

to who? almost every person who has ever lived (in recorded history) has been a theist.

quote:

---

Utter nonsense

---

typical blithe response from someone who doesn't understand/comprehend.

Nihil est in intellectu quod non sit prius in sensu

tell me what you think that means

quote:

---

FTFY

---

they are not "purported." they actually exist. they've been around for hundreds of years and are still being used which would not be possible if they were false/not cogent/illogical

you seem like you haven't studied philosophy of religion/philosophy/logic/epistemology yet think you know something about it

Always

quote:

---

Nihil est in intellectu quod non sit prius in sensu tell me what you think that means

---

Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur.

A blind man not being able to comprehend visual form is a far cry from claiming proof of god’s existence because we have a mental image of an uber personified sky daddy.

Your silly, sophomoric sophistry is boring. I’m going to bed. Enjoy your elevated blood pressure.

quote:

---

no one can know that God doesn't exist. it would take complete knowledge of everything supernatural which no person can obtain since they are limited by the natural world. it's like a square trying to know what a cube is.

---

What kind of nonsense is this. You could just stated “you can’t prove a negative” and that “absence of proof is not proof of absence.”

And since I’m reading this thread backwards I I suspected you were just regurgitating (if not straight up plagiarizing) someone else. Your random inclusion of Latin phrases and your philosophical responses that were written like an actual philosophy manuscript, but they were nothing like your posts I’ve seen before. Not to mention that philosophical writing style, doesn’t lend itself well to a forum/discussion like this. A person who could write like that, or truly understand it, would probably be able to know this and explain it without the flare. But a person just regurgitating it but not truly understanding it wouldn’t be able to simplify it.

But since I don’t really understand much of that myself, it wasn’t until I came across this post that it became obvious since argument only required simple logical justification, not whatever you write.

By the way, I understand exactly what you wrote in Latin. I don’t even know pig Latin though but this thing called Google can make me seem smart too.

Do we really know that robot voice was his thoughts and not some NPC code?...

quote:

---

Your silly, sophomoric sophistry is boring

---

he said while making silly sophomoric sophist statements.

when you have an actual substantive reply, then maybe the conversation can actually progress

do you have a specific question to something i posted?