Hawking says there are no gods

[JoeMorgue]

Tommy stop acting like "open minded" and "every single possible thing is equally true" are the same statement.

Your mind is gone, it's not open anymore.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Tommy stop acting like "open minded" and "every single possible thing is equally true" are the same statement.

Your mind is gone, it's not open anymore.

Every single possible thing is differently true depending on POW.
Of course we could agree on Darwin Awards, but we don't agree on morality.
Brute physical facts versus social facts.

 

[Belz...]

Every single possible thing is differently true depending on POW.

No.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No.

Yes.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, the last one I read, in that Jay is the standard.

That was not my claim in the slightest. I proposed a standard. It happens to be one that is well-respected and commonly used. It also happened to be the one you adhered to until it became clear you couldn't meet it, whereupon you proposed a different standard of your own invention.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So basically Tommy has all but admitting that he's just going to make stuff up, support it with absolutely nothing, and still claim victory.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Every single possible thing is differently true depending on POW.

Thus absolving you of the need to examine the truth value of any proposition whatsoever. That appears to be what the authors mean by "intellectual apathy or slackness ".

Dave

 

[kellyb]

So basically Tommy has all but admitting that he's just going to make stuff up, support it with absolutely nothing, and still claim victory.

That is the way these conversations have always gone.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Thus absolving you of the need to examine the truth value of any proposition whatsoever. That appears to be what the authors mean by "intellectual apathy or slackness ".

Dave

No, I examine different POV and choose those who fit my overall worldview.

Reality is natural.
There is no need for me to believe in any form of objective morality.
I accept difference and based on my POW I act accordingly. That I accept you as human, doesn't mean that I have to agree with you.
And I don't agree with your POV.

Your claim is that if everything is relative, then it is the same. My claim is that POVs are the same as the category of POVs, but different for their effect and how someone rate that effect is a result of an individual POV .

 

[JoeMorgue]

So another 80 page thread where Tommy spouts gibberish until he's argued in a corner and the very next thread more esoteric than cookie recipes, he's gonna do the exact same thing.

And there's plenty of people out there with this "Reality is just what I say it is" mentality to some degree, they just don't want to argue it.

 

[JayUtah]

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

Stop trying to stuff your arguments into my mouth. You're spending a lot of time trying to rewrite my statements to make them easier to refute, and zero time delving into what I actually said and why. Some "philosopher."

I get the idea of an universal standard for truth and metaphysics. But it ain't there.

Like it or not, standards for proficiency exist. You know what the standard is for proficiency in philosophy because you tried to attain it. You failed, so now it's all about questioning whether there should be any standards, and if so, whether the ones you formulate yourself should matter. Sour grapes. You can't even make a consistent argument, much less a convincing one. As Darat says, your arguments are full of contradiction and hypocrisy. Don't blame your critics because they don't let you get away with them.

That something is meaningless to Jay, doesn't mean that it so to me. Or in reverse.

It is quite clear that the standard by which you are measuring your own prowess has considerable meaning to you. But your subsequent gaslighting suggests you think it should also have meaning to other people. You demand that Skeptic Ginger give the same credit to your "25 years of study" in philosophy as you do. And when we ask follow-up questions designed to see if it's prudent to do that, you get very defensive. The fact that you consider those questions invasive means you don't believe your own hype.

Convince me you're arguing in good faith.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

That was not my claim in the slightest. I proposed a standard. It happens to be one that is well-respected and commonly used. It also happened to be the one you adhered to until it became clear you couldn't meet it, whereupon you proposed a different standard of your own invention.

So you can propose at standard that is so for everybody, because you can do so. And I can't reject that and use another standard.

You can't as you decide if I am a philosopher and neither can I.
I get that because I am of the school of cognitive relativism, I get reject as a philosopher by most people.
And you are one of them.

Here it is:
It is not impossible that I could have learned to do it by myself.
But I don't qualify to your standard, because I am a cognitive relativist and to me that is a limited fact of reality.
But to you it confirms that I am not a philosopher, because you don't view limited cognitive relativism as a fact.
You demand I follow the facts.
I demand the same of you.
Yet we are different, because I can't demand that of you, but you can demand that of me.

We are the 2 sides of a coin. We both demand facts.
I just claim that there are 2 kinds of facts, for which one is caused by the other, but not reducible to it.
I don't know about you but you appear to do it differently, when it comes in effect what makes a fact a fact and if there is one kind of facts.

 

[JayUtah]

No, I examine different POV and choose those who fit my overall worldview.

No, you're advocating points of view based on how well they fit your worldview and gaslighting your critics for theirs.

And I don't agree with your POV.

Points of view don't matter. The people who are claiming gods exist and do all the things they claim those gods do are not talking about points of view. They insist that they're alleging facts. All you've done for eighty pages is engage in self-gratifying (pretend I used the more vulgar word for this) pseudo-intellectualism trying to pretend you're something you know you're not.

 

[Belz...]

Yes.

No.

It's simply not how things work, and your ignorance won't change that.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

Points of view don't matter. The people who are claiming gods exist and do all the things they claim those gods do are not talking about points of view. They insist that they're alleging facts. All you've done for eighty pages is engage in self-gratifying (pretend I used the more vulgar word for this) pseudo-intellectualism trying to pretend you're something you know you're not.

That is a POW.
Your POW is that you know all facts for all and metaphysics for all. I get your POW. And you can't get mine, because there are no POWs including your own.

You don't get that you are as much a product of nature/nurture as I am. We are just different products and thus have different POWs.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No.

It's simply not how things work, and your ignorance won't change that.

Yes, that is how things work, because you are observing it. It is limited cognitive relativism and it works for some humans and not others. That it doesn't work for you, doesn't mean it doesn't work for me.

You: Everything is different things.
Me: No.

That "no" is caused by things, but can't be reduced to a thing. We are doing different kinds of metaphysics. Materialism versus non-reductive physicalism.

 

[Belz...]

No, I examine different POV and choose those who fit my overall worldview.

And if reality disagrees with you?

 

[JayUtah]

So you can propose at standard that is so for everybody, because you can do so. And I can't reject that and use another standard.

No, for the reasons I already gave, which you have completely ignored. Further, I submit that the reason you rejected the common standard is because you didn't meet it, not because you disagreed with it philosophically.

It is not impossible that I could have learned to do it by myself.

Never claimed otherwise. What I claim is that if you make up the standards by which you judge your own competence, that is vastly less credible than if you meet standards that you do not control and upon which there is a well-reasoned consensus.

I work in a licensed profession. Licensure is one measure of competence. It is not the only measure, but it is the only measure that is acceptable if I wish to make certain claims in a certain context. Similarly, you are making arguments based on your claims to expertise, such that you expect others to respect that expertise in the same way you do. No. If you expect others to respect your claims to expertise, you must concede that they set the standards for that respect. If you are unwilling to meet them, your argument fails. If you are dishonest about your unwillingness, then your critics have cause to believe you are not arguing in good faith and to dismiss your contribution as trolling.

But I don't qualify to your standard, because I am a cognitive relativist and to me that is a limited fact of reality.

It is not my standard. It is a standard that I proposed, but it is not one that I invented. It is, appropriately enough, a standard you yourself adopted as meaningful until you failed to meet it. Now you're trying to make up a new standard in order to save face.

But to you it confirms that I am not a philosopher, because you don't view limited cognitive relativism as a fact.

No, that is not the reason. I reject you as a philosopher because you are patently incompetent as a philosopher; you string together meaningless chunks of jargon and gaslight people who rightly see it for the gibberish it is. But more importantly, I reject you as an expert in philosophy because you are unwilling to meet a standard of proof for that claim that is consistent with the context in which you made it and commensurate to the manner in which you want it received.

You demand I follow the facts.
I demand the same of you.

No, you demand that I accept your ad hoc standard of competence as mattering beyond the little world of your own brain. When I give you reasons why no one should do that, you try to rewrite my posts as an exercise in avoiding what they say.

Yet we are different, because I can't demand that of you, but you can demand that of me.

I demand that you substantiate your claims in the same vein you expected those claims to hold. You can't and won't do it, so now you're trying to find some way to blame me for that.

 

[Belz...]

So you can propose at standard that is so for everybody, because you can do so. And I can't reject that and use another standard.

I don't think you're clear on what the word "standard" means.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No, I examine different POV and choose those who fit my overall worldview.

Then you degrade philosophy to the intellectual level of shopping.

Dave