Philosophy is Dead

Concerning God there are two interdependent problems and not one...

...its not just about if God is or is not to be true, before WHAT is supposed to be in the first place...

To me it makes no difference, as God=Universe=Meta-verse=Multi-verse=Being, means just the same, one step up or one step down...I believe in Truth=Finity=Circular Infinity (but no new quality´s or property´s or new rules of Nature)

You claim atheists are wrong; the reverse of that is you can prove god exists. You haven't done that.

failures art wrote:

Lock the whole of philosophers in a room and keep them there for a decade. When they emerge, it will not be as if thought has been on pause for 10 years. The reason for this is because philosophers never have nor will they ever hold the keys to thought itself. Thinking is not optional (no matter how we joke about some individuals).

When Eistein introduced the idea of a fourth dimension and bent space, he did not simply capture the most elite scientific minds, he also captured the minds of artists, writers, and musicians. How many artists have over-clocked their imagination since 1917 trying to create some depiction of the 4th dimension in a piece of art?

Great thinking happens, and I'd say those in the armchairs self elevate their own importance to the practice of thinking. I won't say they are unimportant, but I'd say the most profound thinkers rarely wear the badge of "philosopher."

A
R
T

Einstein and Bohr thought they did. Hawking in our day thinks he does. And apparently you are unfamiliar with the names of W.V.O. Quine, Donald Davidson, Daniel Dennett, Saul Kripke, or else, you refuse to allow that they are profound thinkers just because they are philosophers. Which is flawed thinking since it is a textbook example of circular reasoning.

That's your opinion. In my world, if something doesn't exist although it has an identity, I say I don't believe in it. I'm an atheist when it comes to Santa Clause, the tooth fairy, and Harvey. Until somebody can produce evidence that they exist, I'll remain an atheist. It's not a matter of "I don't know."

Its not philosophers that are special but PHILOSOPHY. (It concerns every aspect of the distinctiveness in human being and all types of knowledge in a unifying sense.)

Roses just wilt.

The meaning or usefulness of Truth may even not be neutral when applied, but to imply from there that Truth is therefore relative to moral form is the same as saying that moral form itself has no particular meaning...
You navigate dangerous waters !...

On the contrary Moral form is dependent on whether there is a fixed Truth in the first place, or an order axis, from which we can stablish several layers to which it can conform. ("Gravity belts of relation")

I'm not going to go into what "knowledge" is, and whether "judgement" (moral or otherwise) is involved. I merely note that your remarks are anthropocentric, thereby adding to apparent religious tendencies. Some scientists/philosophers have seen anthropocentrism as parochial.

In my view both Hawkings and his fellow crusaders of the church of athiesm are hell bent on distorting truth. Sorry, this is an extremely strong statement and I do not make it lightly. They hold a dogmatic belief that no God exists. They believe in their unproven and unprovable statement and present physical evidence from time to time which in their view is proof of their world view. What they present is nothing of the sort. At best they are presenting physical models which do not contain God as their initial condition but then which scientific model does that? So proposing theories which satisfy this scientific condition is no proof against the existence of God. Its not even close!

On Hawkings book - The physical model M-Theory of Supersymmetry is an unproven theory at best and at worst its wrong and in the worst case scenario is not even testable and makes no predictions and may not be capable of doing so (there are two many parameters to choose from)!
Hawkings book is a disgrace to the open minded intellectual thinker and should be consigned to the alter of the dogma and deceivers.

He believes he has found his ultimate truth and therefore all thought is now closed i.e. no more philosophy!! Remind you of something?? ....The inquisitions? the trial of Galileo!

Your idea that knowledge can be made a foundation for good morals while belief cannot, what is that based on? And who's to say what's knowledge and what's belief?