Hawking says there are no gods

[Tommy Jeppesen]

More gibberish. And if your "argument" ultimately requires you to accept that parts of it are incoherent and meaningless, then it's not a very good argument.

That is the joke, you only check every different argument than yours for coherence, not your own.
You can't avoid incoherence, you can minimize to a few as possible, but not avoid it.
Your hidden assumption is that you can do, but everybody else fails. Everybody fails because it is not possible.
Logic is no different than human mobility, it has limits. You can't move around in every possible way of movement. And you can't use logic in every possible way of logic.
And that is also true for me. But because I am skeptic, I know it applies to both of us. You just think that you are the exception.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

"Why" questions are just "What" questions badly worded.

What do you want? - Is not the same as - What is water?

The 4 Fs in biology can't be solved with "what is water?" questions, because what follows after what is not the same type of question.

 

[Belz...]

And how we ought to behave.

You can't solve is/ought simply by talking about how things behave.

You're confusing descriptive with prescriptive. We're not talking about morals, but the 'nature' of reality. For the latter we need only understand how things behave. For the latter, well, that's a lot more subjective.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What do you want? - Is not the same as - What is water?.

Yes it is.

This is why you and your philosophbabble squad are so enamored with phrasing things a certain way. The second you phrase it in a not word salad way it stops being meaningful and you stop thinking you look "clever."

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

You're confusing descriptive with prescriptive. We're not talking about morals, but the 'nature' of reality. For the latter we need only understand how things behave. For the latter, well, that's a lot more subjective.

But prescriptive is part of the 'nature' of reality, unless that is totally unreal and part of non-reality.
Take your pick.
Either prescriptive is part of the 'nature' of reality or you are doing ontological dualism.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Yes it is.
This is why you and your philosophbabble squad are so enamored with phrasing things a certain way. The second you phrase it in a not word salad way it stops being meaningful and you stop thinking you look "clever."

I like your dogmatic style.

What do you want? - Is not the same as - What is water? - are not the same words nor the same relationship.
One is what is water to you and others? How do we manage that? It ends in practical ethics, i.e. political ideologies. The other is science.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I like your dogmatic style.

What do you want? - Is not the same as - What is water? - are not the same words nor the same relationship.
One is what is water to you and others? How do we manage that? It ends in practical ethics, i.e. political ideologies. The other is science.

Gibberish.

 

[Belz...]

But prescriptive is part of the 'nature' of reality, unless that is totally unreal and part of non-reality.

"Ought" doesn't tell you "how". It's really that simple. Yes, beliefs and values are part of reality but only as brain states. The thing you believe in, and the value you assign, have no real existence beyond those states. You can thus describe the belief or value in terms of how it works, in its causes and its effects, without taking them at face value.

Again, you are easily confused by things that even toddlers can distinguish. This isn't complicated.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

"Ought" doesn't tell you "how". It's really that simple. Yes, beliefs and values are part of reality but only as brain states. The thing you believe in, and the value you assign, have no real existence beyond those states. You can thus describe the belief or value in terms of how it works, in its causes and its effects, without taking them at face value.

Again, you are easily confused by things that even toddlers can distinguish. This isn't complicated.

It works for me to be a pacifist, it doesn't work for others. Now what?

 

[Belz...]

It works for me to be a pacifist, it doesn't work for others. Now what?

Now what what? I can understand and study your belief in pacifism. That doesn't make pacifism objectively correct or wrong. What part of this confuses you?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Every statement out of a human being's mouth is either:

A) A claim of an objective fact about the universe that is either correct or not.
B) An opinion about how the universe is or should not be.

Period. There's not a magical "philosophical" third option.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Now what what? I can understand and study your belief in pacifism. That doesn't make pacifism objectively correct or wrong. What part of this confuses you?

We agree, gravity is objective, common to all humans. For objectively correct or wrong in the moral sense. it is not so, because it is not objective.
Now take that up with JoeMorgue and use his trigger word - subjective. That should be fun.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Every statement out of a human being's mouth is either:

A) A claim of an objective fact about the universe that is either correct or not.
B) An opinion about how the universe is or should not be.

Period. There's not a magical "philosophical" third option.

A is objective
B I can't phrase.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Now take that up with JoeMorgue and use his trigger word - subjective. That should be fun.

Don't assume for a second that your or any of the other Word Salad philosophy crowd's random gibberish affects me in the slightest.

 

[Belz...]

We agree, gravity is objective, common to all humans. For objectively correct or wrong in the moral sense. it is not so, because it is not objective.
Now take that up with JoeMorgue and use his trigger word - subjective. That should be fun.

I'm going to play it safe and assume you simply didn't understand Joe's point.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again across a dozen topics using a dozen different code words... it's just people wanting magic to be real.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I'm going to play it safe and assume you simply didn't understand Joe's point.

No, I understand it. He has an opinion, which is not an opinion to him, about intellectually better and how someone is wrong, if they don't live up to being his version of intellectual, which is not a version, but rather that is how it is.

We disagree, because I admit mine is an opinion and he disagrees that his is an opinion in the same sense. Mine is magic and his is apparently objective.
I get it.

It is not any more different that all other people's opinion, which are individually objectively better than all other different opinions.
I just do it differently and admit that my magic works for me. I have a life, which is good enough based on that which I can't control and that which I can control.

Some people just want to control everybody else' life based on some version of objective.

 

[Nonpareil]

That is the joke, you only check every different argument than yours for coherence, not your own.

On the contrary. I check constantly. If you think there is something incoherent about my argument, point it out.

 

[JoeMorgue]

No, I understand it. He has an opinion, which is not an opinion to him, about intellectually better and how someone is wrong, if they don't live up to being his version of intellectual, which is not a version, but rather that is how it is.

We disagree, because I admit mine is an opinion and he disagrees that his is an opinion in the same sense. Mine is magic and his is apparently objective.
I get it.

It is not any more different that all other people's opinion, which are individually objectively better than all other different opinions.
I just do it differently and admit that my magic works for me. I have a life, which is good enough based on that which I can't control and that which I can control.

Some people just want to control everybody else' life based on some version of objective.

"I want magic to be real and Joe is being a big meany by saying it isn't."

There. I said what you said without taking up space in the thread with 4 paragraphs of gibberish.

 

[Belz...]

No, I understand it. He has an opinion, which is not an opinion to him, about intellectually better and how someone is wrong, if they don't live up to being his version of intellectual, which is not a version, but rather that is how it is.

We disagree, because I admit mine is an opinion and he disagrees that his is an opinion in the same sense. Mine is magic and his is apparently objective.
I get it.

It is not any more different that all other people's opinion, which are individually objectively better than all other different opinions.
I just do it differently and admit that my magic works for me. I have a life, which is good enough based on that which I can't control and that which I can control.

Some people just want to control everybody else' life based on some version of objective.

No, I'm pretty sure you don't understand it.