Hawking says there are no gods

[Tommy Jeppesen]

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.

You are an absolutist and I am a relativist.

How we deal with that is influenced by that difference. I get that we are different, you get it differently, because you "demand" to truly correct about anything.
I settle with that it appears to work in practice.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No. You start answering Jay's question.

Yes, the last one I read, in that Jay is the standard. I don't believe in Jay, just as I don't believe in any gods or any other claims of an objective standard for everything.

That you seem to be unable to understand that we are playing a version of limited relativism, is on you.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You are an absolutist and I am a relativist.

I don't care what philoso-babble label you slap on things Tommy.

You think you can spout off nonsense and still be as correct as people who put time and effort into coming to the correct answer.

You keep trying to paint intellectual standards as a moralistic failing.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I don't care what philoso-babble label you slap on things Tommy.

You think you can spout off nonsense and still be as correct as people who put time and effort into coming to the correct answer.

You keep trying to paint intellectual standards as a moralistic failing.

So it is about morality!!! I seem to remember that you denied that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So it is about morality!!! I seem to remember that you denied that.

I denied whatever woo-woo strawman of "morality" you were yapping about at the time.

Tommy when you dishonestly use the language the way you do, you don't get to "gotcha" people.

I almost certainly deny whatever you think of as "morality" because you use words at random.

How about this. It's immoral to be intentionally unclear with your language.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I denied whatever woo-woo strawman of "morality" you were yapping about at the time.

Tommy when you dishonestly use the language the way you do, you don't get to "gotcha" people.

I almost certainly deny whatever you think of as "morality" because you use words at random.

How about this. It's immoral to be intentionally unclear with your language.

So I use words differently as back to limited cognitive relativism and you are the standard of all words and all morality. Get it! Or are you a moral relativist?

 

[JoeMorgue]

So I use words differently as back to limited cognitive relativism and you are the standard of all words and all morality. Get it! Or are you a moral relativist?

As JayUtah has already challenged you, show that you are arguing honestly.

You have so far shown that you are not.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, the last one I read, in that Jay is the standard. I don't believe in Jay, just as I don't believe in any gods or any other claims of an objective standard for everything.

What in the blue hell are you babbling about? Jay has never claimed to be a standard-bearer of anything. You're being dishonest.

That you seem to be unable to understand that we are playing a version of limited relativism, is on you.

Stop coming up with nonsense in order to feel important. No one here is fooled except yourself.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

As JayUtah has already challenged you, show that you are arguing honestly.

You have so far shown that you are not.

I can't be honest to you, because you have a different concept of honest.

I am honest:

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

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

https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/

I am honest, that is how I understand truth and metaphysics.

That he has his standard is relative to some particular standpoint and so are mine.
Now as long as we use different standards of what truth and metaphysics are, I will remain dishonest to all of you.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I can't be honest to you, because you have a different concept of honest.

So being dishonest is just another way of being honest, just like things that don't exist are just another kind of things that do exist.

 

[Belz...]

I can't be honest to you, because you have a different concept of honest.

Right now you're not using relativism. You're using trolling.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H4

Start reading.

I like the bit that says:

On the other hand, relativism is sometimes advanced quite crudely. Then, instead of being a philosophical view about the status of our beliefs and the limitations on how we might support these beliefs, it becomes an excuse for accepting uncritically one's own culture's assumptions and epistemic norms; or it serves to rationalize intellectual apathy or slackness masquerading as tolerance of diverse opinions.

It reminds me of someone.

Dave

 

[JoeMorgue]

I like the bit that says:



It reminds me of someone.

Dave

I didn't even have to read the link to know that it wouldn't support Tommy's nonsense.

 

[Belz...]

Start reading.

I like the bit that says:



It reminds me of someone.

Dave

Maybe Tommy should have read it first.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

What in the blue hell are you babbling about? Jay has never claimed to be a standard-bearer of anything. You're being dishonest.

...

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.

Should read: "I explained to you why your standard is meaningless to me and mine isn't to me."

I get the idea of an universal standard for truth and metaphysics. But it ain't there.
And that is the meaningful/meaningless battle.
That something is meaningless to Jay, doesn't mean that it so to me. Or in reverse.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Is part of that "meaningfulness to you" the ability to dishonestly claim a link supports your argument when it doesn't?

 

[Belz...]

Should read: "I explained to you why your standard is meaningless to me and mine isn't to me."

No, it shouldn't. The problem is you, trying to fit relativism onto everything. Essentially you're trying to over-simplify the world AND allow yourself to think anything you want without having to put any work on it.

But not everything is relative. Some things are. And standards, while arbitrary, are not simply subjective. Don't tell us that you're a great philosopher based on a standard you made up. Either show us that you're such a person based on some standard we can verify, or simply admit that you were presumptuous in your post to Skeptic Ginger. A simple admission would go a long way, Tommy. You don't lose points for admitting to being wrong.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"I can just think, say, and argue anything I want and never be wrong because I have no intellectual standards and think that makes me a better person" is a bad mentality.

 

[JoeMorgue]

A simple admission would go a long way, Tommy. You don't lose points for admitting to being wrong.

Hell at this point I'd settle for a simple admission that the very concept of wrong exists.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I like the bit that says:



It reminds me of someone.

Dave

You read it.

On the other hand, relativism is sometimes advanced quite crudely. Then, instead of being a philosophical view about the status of our beliefs and the limitations on how we might support these beliefs, it becomes an excuse for accepting uncritically one's own culture's assumptions and epistemic norms; or it serves to rationalize intellectual apathy or slackness masquerading as tolerance of diverse opinions.

"...an excuse for accepting uncritically one's own culture's assumptions and epistemic norms".
I accept that we are different. All of you don't.

"...or it serves to rationalize intellectual apathy or slackness masquerading as tolerance of diverse opinions."
We are arguing if there is one truth for all. I don't accept that and I show that because I argue for the limitation of truth. You are not, because in the end you judge others with a claim of an universal standard.
Nobody has that.
The truth that eludes you, is that truth is limited, yet you demand truth. I demand the same; I demand truth. And that includes that truth is limited. That is what makes me a skeptic.