• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
He's roundaboutadly (that needs to be a word) trying to make his own version of the inane "Science can deal in facts, but only PHILOSOPHERS (hold for applause) can deal in THE TRUTH" nonsense we get from the navel gazing crowd so often.
 
JayUtah said:
But he can't therefore claim it's real in the way he claims it to be real. And subsequently claiming that "real" means something other than how he first meant it doesn't fix the problem. A god that does all the things today's believers attribute to him is not an entirely supernatural god. The part he alleges results in change in the universe -- that exists the way he says his god exists -- is the natural part that is susceptible to science. When the religious person turns around says his god becomes only supernatural, and therefore inscrutable, only when science is looking is thoroughly immersed in special pleading.
Click to expand...

I can't tell you how to understand "real", because you can do that differently than me and I can't show you "real". "Real" has no objective referent and it is not on the list of the international list of scientific measurement standards and I know of no scientific instrument, which can measure "real".

You use the word "real" differently than me. Now if you want to use "real" as a scientific fact, then you can do so. And I will check and repeat this: "Real" has no objective referent and it is not on the list of the international list of scientific measurement standards and I know of no scientific instrument, which can measure "real".

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.
Click to expand...
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
This appears to be written by scientists with degrees. Please explain, how they do it "wrong".

"Special Pleading" is a fact that some humans do and it works in some cases. Religion is a fact. It is a fact, that there are humans who think/feel/believe differently that you and it has a name: Cognitive relativism. Now that is limited for how it works, but it still works as long as you don't cross brute physical facts. But not all facts are brute physical facts. If that was so, then culture couldn't change. Culture is caused by brute physical facts, but not reducible to brute physical facts.
And what you find useful is not a brute physical fact for all cases of useful, but rather it is in some cases culture.

I know that I meet a standard, because I can explain cognitive relativism as a fact and you answer with how you believe.
Some of your axioms are about culture and some are about brute physical facts. That is how I know I meet a standard, i.e. I can explain that nature causes nurture(and thus culture), but that nurture is not reducible to only brute physical facts.
I have given it much thought as to your question if I meet a standard? I do, you just think differently, because you have another standard.
There is no brute physical facts standard for how the universe matter to humans. That is culture. You and I have a different culture including for the word "real".
 
Darat said:
Especially when he is quite happy to claim there are facts, but apparently no one else can claim there are facts.

His responses are riddled with intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

There are 2 kinds of facts. That you and I treat them differently, is a fact of culture, not brute physical facts.
And yes, brute physical facts cause the other kind, but there is no methodology to reduce cultural facts to brute physical facts.

It has a name: Non-reductive physicalism.
... While ontological physicalism is often presupposed in the philosophical discussion, controversy arises about the properties possessed by these physical particulars. For example, what is the ontological status of putative mental properties? Are they reducible to underlying physical properties, or do they have a kind of being of their own? The reductive physicalist affirms, while the nonreductive physicalist denies, that mental properties are "nothing but" the physical. Broadly conceived, reductive physicalism asserts that all nonphysical properties are coextensive with particular physical properties. Nonreductive physicalism, on the other hand, conjoins the irreducibility of nonphysical properties (property dualism) to ontological physicalism.
Click to expand...
https://www.encyclopedia.com/educat...d-maps/physicalism-reductive-and-nonreductive
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
I have given it much thought as to your question if I meet a standard? I do, you just think differently, because you have another standard.
Click to expand...

I explained to you why your standard is meaningless and mine isn't. Specifically, the standard I propose is not governed by the people who are expected to meet it. The non-standard you propose is that the person being tested by it gets to say what it is. It should be self-evident that is is not a standard that can inspire true confidence. The fact that you haven't given it much subsequent thought is just more evidence to your critics that you're trying to see how much you can get away with.

Convince me that you're arguing in good faith.
 
JayUtah said:
The people who are claiming their god is real are using the word differently than you. This is why your argument fails. It's a straw man. ...
Click to expand...

"Real" is a case of cognitive relativism. Thus "real" to them is not the same as to me. The same as with you and I.
"Real" is not a property of things. "Real" is a mental idea, abstract and so on.
 
When "reality" gets argued as "Well yeah that's just like... your opinion man" the argument is over by even the most loose of standards. One side is simply declaring their intent to argue dishonestly in bad faith, making up things with no rhyme or reason.
 
JayUtah said:
I explained to you why your standard is meaningless and mine isn't. Specifically, the standard I propose is not governed by the people who are expected to meet it. The non-standard you propose is that the person being tested by it gets to say what it is. It should be self-evident that is is not a standard that can inspire true confidence. The fact that you haven't given it much subsequent thought is just more evidence to your critics that you're trying to see how much you can get away with.

Convince me that you're arguing in good faith.
Click to expand...

You are not the only standard for what the universe is and neither am I. The problem is that you don't understand that a standard is a cultural artifact.

We are going n-rounds around limited cognitive relativism and you don't seem to understand that it is limited, yet a fact.
And you seem unable to understand that your standard is a much a product of culture as is mine.
I don't have to accept your standard because it is not objective and neither is mine. They are both inter-subjective and to some other humans I am a philosopher.

You show your hand here:
"I explained to you why your standard is meaningless and mine isn't."
It should read:
"I explained to you why your standard is meaningless to me and mine isn't to me."
We are playing limited cognitive relativism and I get it and you get it differently.
Your standard is not really inter-subjective, cultural and what not. Your standard is a brute physical fact, yet it is not.
 
Tommy, grow up. You're arguing for "no standards" and hiding behind "different standards" and being really, really obvious about it.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
I don't have to accept your standard because it is not objective and neither is mine.
Click to expand...

Objectivity is not a requirement. It just has to be a relevant, reasonable standard you don't dictate. You declared by what standards you can call yourself an expert philosopher, and you declared that you met those standards. Now you're begging that we all must accept that as somehow effective upon us.

No, we don't accept your self-proclaimed expertise. Your posts are pseudo-intellectual gibberish and wanton gaslighting. They're poor arguments, for those and other reasons.

...to some other humans I am a philosopher.
Click to expand...

Pray tell what standard they measured you by.

It should read:
Click to expand...

No, it shouldn't. Don't put words in my mouth. Like it or not, effective standards for proficiency exist, and effective methods exist to apply them. You know you cannot meet them, so you're equivocating.

Convince me you're arguing in good faith.
 
Last edited:
Tommy you're not only arguing that a dog has 5 legs if you call a tail a leg, you're arguing that a platypus has 9 tentacles if you call a whisker a tailfin.
 
JoeMorgue said:
When "reality" gets argued as "Well yeah that's just like... your opinion man" the argument is over by even the most loose of standards. One side is simply declaring their intent to argue dishonestly in bad faith, making up things with no rhyme or reason.
Click to expand...

Indeed, spreading the relativist mayonnaise on everything appears to be the only recipe in that restaurant.
 
But here's the thing that bugs me the most, and I've mentioned this before.

Tommy and David's "Reality is just like... your opinion man" act... is not unique. This mentality comes up in the margins of people's arguments all the damn time. But when it comes time to defend it they all scatter, leaving only our two usual suspects.

There's a lot more reality deniers on this board and in our society than just this board's Ying and Yang twins, but whenever the discussion goes to ground they are the only two thinking they can still argue it.

I'm more annoyed that more people who obviously follow this same mental pathway aren't in here trying to argue it than I am with Tommy and David arguing it.

Plenty of people think what Tommy and David are arguing is silly and would never make their arguments in so many words, but are sure as hell following the same trade winds.
 
Here:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H4

Start reading.

Now TL;DR
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
Click to expand...

Now these are my words and only mine. But that means I either hacked the site or that I have a degree.

So I will make all of you feel better:
"Everything is an opinion" is exactly the same as "Everything is not just independent of your brain, but has an element of individuality down to the single human, including you."
They are the same, because you all say so. And that is so, because you say so.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Here:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H4

Start reading.

Now TL;DR


Now these are my words and only mine. But that means I either hacked the site or that I have a degree.

So I will make all of you feel better:
"Everything is an opinion" is exactly the same as "Everything is not just independent of your brain, but has an element of individuality down to the single human, including you."
They are the same, because you all say so. And that is so, because you say so.
Click to expand...

How do you know in our reality that your link doesn't say something completely different and totally prove you wrong?

You can't present facts and evidence and arguments in support of conclusion when you're ENTIRE ARGUMENT is that facts and evidence doesn't exist and you can't reach conclusions.

You can't sit there and argue with people about how nobody can ever be truly correct about anything. It's self defeating nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom