Analysis of Christopher Hitchen's argument against God

Quote from killthesunshine:


but stu, ahhh man his refutation is so brutally reasonable and insightful, and honest. he just makes instant sense when i read him :D
More...

Ok - I lost my Worship Ruler at the last clam-bake, but that has got to be right up to the goal line - maybe just over it.....

Do worshipers of the Religion Of Stu get a day off, like

Monday, Studay, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday....

Or do you use one of the 2 weekend days so you don't have to change the mini-calendars?.....

Also, is there Bingo Night?

Because, you know, I am uncertain, but I CAN be persuaded...... :D
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Incompleteness is sometimes used to refute the existence of an omnipotent god: If God were omnipotent, he would act as an oracle (in the mathematical sense) for any mathematical theory. That is, he could decide for any statement S whether S or not-S were true, which contradicts incompleteness. This argument is a more formal version of the "Can God make a rock even He could not move" paradox.

On the other hand, the same Godel that formulated the Incompleteness Theorems used those same tools (Model Theory) to forge an onthological proof of God's existence.[1]

Similarly, the existence of undecidable statements proves the illogic of atheistic attempts to demand proof for the existence of God. Because we know that there exist true statements that we can never logically prove, there are necessarily things that must be believed on the basis of faith, rather than logic. The atheistic mantra that "the burden of proof lies with the believer" ignores this classic result in mathematical logic, and exposes their ignorance. It is notable that Kurt Godel who demonstrated the existence of undecidability in mathematical logic was a devoutly religious man.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Godel's_Incompleteness_Theorems
More...

Godel is specific and particular in scope applicable where there is no separate self standing referent to an argument itself.
Godel's Incompleteness works on referentially empty statements. Russell showed as much.

Trying to use Godel Incompleteness as reason to have faith is worse than suggesting, as there is no complete information as to whether pigs fly or not somewhere in the universe, it's possible pigs fly. Therefore have faith that pigs fly.

So yes the theist is being silly trying to use Godel. But what's new.
I doubted it would help you and it seems I was right.
 
Quote from jem:

you are completely full of shit... I have misquoted nobody ever... you are just to emotional to accept science. It is hard to misquote when I quote and paste the quotes.

you implied the same thing in the past about weinberg and now you see a mit prof quoting him for the idea.
More...

You misquoted Susskind and Christian de Duve. You tell Susskind he is saying something different than what he actually speaks himself in a video and you've taken no notice when it was pointed out that half of de Duve's quote was missing to make it sound as if he was saying the opposite to what he did.

You sir in this regard are a liar and a fraud.
 
Quote from MarketMasher:

Let me see if I can sum some things up....

On the topic of the existence/non of God, Stu said

"Sure I know."

If he was in fact addressing the topic, and not what he was going to have for dinner that night, or he was simply acknowledging comprehension of the topic at hand, his ANSWER is - He knows whether God exists or not.

HOWEVER, by his own admission, he is not CLAIMING to know.
The definition of "claim" most appropriate in this context is "to assert or maintain as a fact".

Therefore, his ANSWER is he "knows" without asserting or maintaining it as a fact.

Which puts us back to "Belief", or "Faith".

So I suppose there is now a new religion called The Religion Of Stu.

Has a kinda catchy ring to it too..... :D
More...


Why all the quotation marks?
It may put you back to to "Belief", or "Faith" but it doesn't me.

But you are quite correct in as far as it is my ANSWER not my CLAIM , because I stated I know, without asserting or maintaining it as a fact.

That's all there is to it.
But then you, like others, go right off the rails.
You really can't make someone have belief or faith or have them make claims where they have and do non of those things.

You faithers act like a bunch of middle east dictators

I notice you are still dodging the All Knowledge contradiction you made.
 
Quote from stu:

Why all the quotation marks?
It may put you back to to "Belief", or "Faith" but it doesn't me.

But you are quite correct in as far as it is my ANSWER not my CLAIM , because I stated I know, without asserting or maintaining it as a fact.

That's all there is to it.
But then you, like others, go right off the rails.
You really can't make someone have belief or faith or have them make claims where they have and do non of those things.

You faithers act like a bunch of middle east dictators

I notice you are still dodging the All Knowledge contradiction you made.
More...

"I notice you are still dodging the All Knowledge contradiction you made."

Are you THE Stu? The High Priest of the Religion Of Stu?

Hi your Whollyness! :D

"I notice you are still dodging the All Knowledge contradiction you made."

I told you your Whollyness, read Ghost of Cutten's post. He'll explain it to you.

I think I understand now - your Answer is devoid of any claim. In other words, it's hollow.

Ok. Got it. :D

I was going to ask about BINGO Night again, but I figured you just say "I know"....
 
Not a reason to have faith...but a reason to doubt "your knowledge."

"Godel's Incompleteness works on referentially empty statements. Russell showed as much."

Oh, do you mean empty statements like "non God?"

Care to prove that claim of yours above? Or is the another of the special "my knowledges" that you are privy to?

Of course we both know you don't have knowledge...you have belief in non God.
Quote from stu:

Godel is specific and particular in scope applicable where there is no separate self standing referent to an argument itself.
Godel's Incompleteness works on referentially empty statements. Russell showed as much.

Trying to use Godel Incompleteness as reason to have faith is worse than suggesting, as there is no complete information as to whether pigs fly or not somewhere in the universe, it's possible pigs fly. Therefore have faith that pigs fly.

So yes the theist is being silly trying to use Godel. But what's new.
I doubted it would help you and it seems I was right.
More...
 
WAIT!!!!

I FIGURED IT OUT - Stu IS saying there is NO GOD!!!

How do I "know" this, you may ask...?

Follow....

Stu says that his ANSWER of "I know" does not make a claim....

BUT - he IS making a claim!! He is CLAIMING that he is not making a claim!!

Now, since he says he is NOT making a claim. we can negate the CLAIM that he is not making a claim, which means he IS making a claim.

Oooo....sneaky High Priest Stu....very sneaky..........

Oh yeah - what about BINGO Nights?
 
Quote from stu:

You misquoted Susskind and Christian de Duve. You tell Susskind he is saying something different than what he actually speaks himself in a video and you've taken no notice when it was pointed out that half of de Duve's quote was missing to make it sound as if he was saying the opposite to what he did.

You sir in this regard are a liar and a fraud.
More...

bring the link to the video you dipshit. I will transcribe it for you as I have in the past.
 
Oh it is much more misleading than that.

Since stu only answered with "his knowledge"...he asserts that he did not make a claim.

How can that be?

My guess is that he thinks a claim only comes before a question. You know, someone is not asked about God, but they state "I know there is no God." That would be a claim, but not an answer to the question posed to him about God. Well, in stu's way of playing the equivocation game, like Clinton's famous:

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

Since he didn't first assert (claim) non God, he only answered a question with "his knowledge" of non God...he thinks he is off the hook...

Silly boy...

Quote from MarketMasher:

WAIT!!!!

I FIGURED IT OUT - Stu IS saying there is NO GOD!!!

How do I "know" this, you may ask...?

Follow....

Stu says that his ANSWER of "I know" does not make a claim....

BUT - he IS making a claim!! He is CLAIMING that he is not making a claim!!

Now, since he says he is NOT making a claim. we can negate the CLAIM that he is not making a claim, which means he IS making a claim.

Oooo....sneaky High Priest Stu....very sneaky..........

Oh yeah - what about BINGO Nights?
More...
 
Quote from stu:

Yes you are right. Hopelessly depending on trying to turn an answer into a claim with semantics, is pointless really.

But then , that's often how arguments, even just in search of any possibility of God, normally go.
It's obviously all you've got.
More...


You're simply delusional :D :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top