Infer is a synonym of assume. Your body of work on here would readily explain why you didn't know the difference.
If you actually bothered to think about this comment of yours, you would appreciate just how silly it is. At any rate, that's quite enough fun for me in this here thread.
Why would I confess to something that's only a figment of your imagination? Is it my problem that elementary logic is over your head? You can't deal with the fact that Hawking's theories without evidence aren't accepted as fact and I pointed it out with the same insult that's frequently used by atheists against God. Not having anything remotely intellectual to counter with, you resort to setting up this fake strawman and refusing to budge from it. Why don't you just try to accept the fact that you didn't see the obvious similarity between athiests calling God a flying spaghetti monster, and me calling out Hawking's theories as no better because they have no evidence behind them? I've been through all this with you before. Remember the Goldman Sachs in the Obama admin topic? When you actually claimed that 58 former employees of Goldman Sachs in the Obama admin wasn't noteworthy as to their influence on policy unless I personally knew someone from Goldman Sachs, I knew right then and there that I was dealing with someone that will resort to the most irrational, illogical arguments conceivable to defend and inane position. And now we're at it again. Unable to refute the obvious and that you couldn't put two and two together, here you are making a wild accusation out of the blue to cover up your own pathetic lack of awareness. Being extremely triggered every time God is mentioned, as you are, generally has a root. And that root is very often spelled Q U E E R.
Good. Go on back to 'that there' economics forum where you're more accomplished in faking an aura of knowledge.
I believe "thinking" is highly overrated in fhl's world. Much better to run around the playground yelling "Fag!", so insulting.
Since I and pretty much everyone who isn't a fundy could give fuck all what you think about their or anyone else's sexual orientation, you again sound like kid lost on the 1990's middle school playground. If you want to talk physics, I'm happy to indulge that given that you know the first thing about it. However since what you know about science in general could fit on the head of a pin, given your fixation of "proof" in astrophysics, it would be a short conversation. I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed.
Not really. Infer takes into account some evidence or clues to draw a conclusion. Assume does not require that - but can have it. Sorry - I'm a word nerd.
Damn - I was a little bit agreeing with you, but then - this is totally illogical, which is the same criticism you applied to your opponent.
dawkins may be a good biologist but when he starts giving lectures about the lack of evidence of a Creator he becomes disingenuous at best. His arguments against one of the implications of the fine tunings of the physical constants of our universe are disingenuous (based on the videos of his lectures on college campuses.) Dawkins does not belong in the same thread as Hawking. (I am happy to discuss the weakness of some of Dawkins arguments on another thread.) Hawking deserves respect in my opinion.