Hawking says there are no gods

[Tommy Jeppesen]

As JayUtah has said (unless I've misunderstood his post), even though there are different frames of reference, and a certain amount of relativism may be warranted, you need to take into account in which frame of reference a claim is made and judge it accordingly.
You can't simply take a case where theists are trying to shoehorn a magically evasive god-of-the-gaps into our current scientific framework, and then claim that well, any system of metaphysics is as good as any other, so how dare you science absolutists claim that the theists are wrong?
It's not because the current scientific paradigm is seen as absolute, it's because that's the frame of reference for judging these particular theistic claims.

That is the crux of the matter.
Now are there no frame at all, only one frame and/or many frames?
Depending on how you look there is no overall frame, only one frame, but in effect many frames!
It depends on what you take for granted. I can check all 3 positions, hold them as different and then integrate them as different parts of reality, yet interconnected.
We share reality as viewed without special bias, but with objectivity as a neutral view, yet a form of bias(one frame), there are many different biases as for what matters(many frames) and there in no overall frame, which connects all biases without using a bias.
We all have biases, when it comes to what matters. Then we either corporate, fight or go different ways.

 

[Belz...]

No, not exactly the same reality. We are different in time, space and other aspects.

You're still in the same reality. He didn't ask you if you occupied the same spacetime coordinates.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Do spelling, grammar and syntax depend on your POV as well?

Dave

 

[Belz...]

There are different standards, bot one one overall

Stop trying to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

That is the crux of the matter.
Now are there no frame at all, only one frame and/or many frames?
Depending on how you look there is no overall frame, only one frame, but in effect many frames!
It depends on what you take for granted. I can check all 3 positions, hold them as different and then integrate them as different parts of reality, yet interconnected.
We share reality as viewed without special bias, but with objectivity as a neutral view, yet a form of bias(one frame), there are many different biases as for what matters(many frames) and there in no overall frame, which connects all biases without using a bias.
We all have biases, when it comes to what matters. Then we either corporate, fight or go different ways.

Hawking: The laws of physics as we understand them leave no room for divine intervention as it exists in our religions.

Tommy: Ah, but that's just from your point of view. I bet I can think of a god nobody believes in, that could exist in a different hypothetical framework which nobody's arguing from! So then I could claim that there is room for gods in the world, who either don't intervene, or intervene in ways science can't detect by definition, even though I don't believe in them myself, and nobody alive believes in the kind of gods I could invent!

Some other poster: that's useless Tommy

Tommy: you're just not being intersubjective enough, I win! You fools can't see that you're merely observing one tiny eddy in the flow of spacetime, while I, though I also cannot, acknowledge that there is a veritable maelstom of stuff that is outside my view. Failure to see every point of view as valid is the same as thinking that your own perspective is absolute!

 

[JayUtah]

That is it. That is cognitive relativism.

Quit trying to play teacher. None of my posts will ever be intended as an invitation to one of these walls of irrelevant screed.

And now I will answer you about standards.

And it's not an answer, it's just another meandering lecture that fails to address a single point anyone has made. You fancy yourself to be an expert philosopher, but you're still working on basic reading comprehension.

You're right about one thing. A standard is useless unless it is believed in. And no one believes your made-up, self-administered standard for your own expertise. They have good reasons not to, not a single one of which you've addressed head on. People have faith in standards when they are transparently based on reason. It's reasonable, for example, for someone planning to be a doctor to be able to demonstrate a correct knowledge of anatomy. They have faith when the standard applies equally to everyone. Ad hoc standards are simply not standards at all. As someone said, you seem not to know what the word even means. And most importantly, standards are believed in when someone other than the applicant decides if they have been met.

You can satisfy none of this.

Your "standard" isn't based on reason. It's a fallback position from your having failed to meet the real standard. Face-saving moves are rarely rational. Your "standard" doesn't reach beyond you -- although that's clearly what effect you want it to have. No one but you decided whether you met your "standard," and you're even trying to undermine the notion of measured proficiency altogether. I've given you several examples of credible standards for different kinds of competence. All you've given me is a series of long-winded excuses for why we should just do as you say.

It's one thing to believe in your own mind that you are an expert philosopher, baker, auto mechanic, or business guru. But when you demand credit from others for that, as you demanded it from Skeptic Ginger and continue to demand it from us all, you don't get to set the standard by which that happens. You don't get to demand that the audience share your delusions.

You know this. That's why you were initially so defensive. And it's why you keep burying the pieces of the dismembered corpse of your argument deep within the walls of text you probably hope no one will read. It's the blatant insincerity and hypocrisy that really sink your argument.

And no, I don't concede, I will accept a truce...

But I won't. You're the one trying to wheel and deal your way out of a corner after sniping and evading for a week. The guy who knows he's in the weak position is always the one trying to make a deal. No, I'll just win if it's all the same to you.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What is boring is that Mr. Morgue and two more repeat again and again that I think that all is subjective and the Bible is right. I have explicitely said just the opposite several times.

At least you could respect the ideas of others and not tell them the other way around.

You can get huffy all you want. When your argument is "You can't tell someone that X is wrong because *lets my cat walk across the keyboard*" you are agreeing with it.

Exactly like Tommy you are incapable of seeing the philosophy you profess to defend so much as anything beyond "You can't prove magic isn't real when you're not looking" and "Everything is subjective... therefore I'm somehow right about everything."

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Hawking: The laws of physics as we understand them leave no room for divine intervention as it exists in our religions.

Tommy: Ah, but that's just from your point of view. I bet I can think of a god nobody believes in, that could exist in a different hypothetical framework which nobody's arguing from! So then I could claim that there is room for gods in the world, who either don't intervene, or intervene in ways science can't detect by definition, even though I don't believe in them myself, and nobody alive believes in the kind of gods I could invent!
Some other poster: that's useless Tommy

Tommy: you're just not being intersubjective enough, I win! You fools can't see that you're merely observing one tiny eddy in the flow of spacetime, while I, though I also cannot, acknowledge that there is a veritable maelstom of stuff that is outside my view. Failure to see every point of view as valid is the same as thinking that your own perspective is absolute!

Could you at least acknowledge at of course I am Aristotle and I came up with the first unmoved mover and and all forms of deism and any non-god creator is all on me.
I mean, I am so good at this, that I hack several sites and post fake information, which I then reference.

You could try google list of gods, first unmoved mover, deism and what not. But be aware, I have hacked you already and will trick you. By the way I am the only one who do thought experiments. Further I came up with a Boltzmann Brain. And I wrote that there are different theoretical interpretations of the likelihood of there being a Boltzmann Brain.
So here is a thought experiment:
If reality is the cause of you and you are not the cause of reality, can you then ultimately control the experiences in your mind? That is also me, this time as Descartes. BTW "I think, therefore I am" is nothing but, that something is going on and it doesn't tell if you have memories or you get memories. The naturalist version of the God of last Thursday, is that you are a computer simulation that started when you woke this morning.
You don't control reality, reality controls you and you are just along for the ride.
Now of course you trust your senses, but that is a core axiom. And you trust that reality is fair and that you are in a natural universe, that is also a core axiom.
But that is the problem.
P1: I trust that I am in a natural universe.
P2: My calculations and observations tell me that I am in a natural universe.
Therefore I am in a natural universe.
That one is also from me. Now I am Agrippa the Skeptic.

The problem with reason is that both right and wrong reasoning is a form of reasoning and what is right or wrong depends on how you reason. In philosophy that is the following effect: What you take for granted will determine what result you get.
You trust reason, logic and evidence differently than me.

Now we go phenomenology and concern our reasoning on the second part of this version of philosophy: The rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.
You are not the single only human and when there are 2 or more humans, there is no one single context, because each human is in a limited sense her/his own context.
So how do you judge another human's context based on your own?
That is the problem of the universal approach of the correct context for all, it works both ways. I can judge you and you can judge me as for one of us being wrong. The problem is that neither of us can in a universal sense judge each other.
And that one cuts right down to this:
No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others. In other words, there is no magisterium for all of reality. No one has ever solved that, neither in science, philosophy or religion.
You can do your life differently that me and that is so in reverse.

What some people don't get, is that if that 2 people reason differently, even to the effect of a contradiction, both of them reason though differently. It is in both cases a process in a given brain.
And if you can believe differently than me, then it is also so in reverse.
And that you should avoid contradictions in your thinking is a moral claim.

So phenomenology ends here: What matters to you need not be that same as to me or in reverse.

BTW JayUtah. You are not the magistrate of reason. Neither am I. I just reason to that effect and you reason that your reasoning is for all. I get it, you trust your reasoning to be universal, so mine can't really be different, because my reasoning is wrong.
When do you get that I am a skeptic???
We both follow the facts though differently: You can speak for all and I claim that nobody can speak for all. You then believe that I judge you. I just point out, that we are different and that this is a fact, that your model doesn't account for, as we are not different, rather you are right with reason and I am wrong. The problem is that this reasoning works in both directions and is how it is self-defeating.

There is a limit to reason, logic and evidence just as e.g. human mobility. We just do it differently. I am a skeptic, what are you? Well, we are both humans, warts and all. We just have different warts.

Sig: I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Tommy stop vomiting walls of text at people.

Didn't some Philosophizer somewhere say something about "Brevity is good" or something for you to obsess over and emulate?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Tommy stop vomiting walls of text at people.

Didn't some Philosophizer somewhere say something about "Brevity is good" or something for you to obsess over and emulate?

We are different as humans and neither of us hold authority over the good life. There are overlaps, but also differences.
As for the 80%/20% example I won't trade with you unless you pay taxes. Now if you are in the 20%, you loose. If you are in 80%, you win. A small group of libertarians would be worse of, if the rest of society wouldn't trade with them.
I can actually check your reasoning and find your hidden assumption. Your hidden assumption is that people will do as you want them to. Look at reality, that is not the case.

 

[JayUtah]

We are different as humans and neither of us hold authority over the good life.

Part of your idea of the good life is to be accepted by others as an expert in philosophy, because that's what you set out to be and for whatever reason you didn't get there. And toward that end you've demanded that Skeptic Ginger and others here grant you that acceptance. When other people tell you their terms for that grant, you abuse them and insist that you must be respected simply because you say so.

And as that relates to the thread, you simply cannot fathom that all your pseudo-intellectual spewage is entirely irrelevant to the question Hawking raises. You're desperately trying to transform the argument into one upon which you can pontificate endlessly about one topic in philosophy which, frankly at this point, is an obvious obsession with you.

A reality you cannot escape is that you cannot browbeat, gaslight, cajole, threaten, or shame people into making sacrifices for your idea of the good life.

I can actually check your reasoning and find your hidden assumption. Your hidden assumption is that people will do as you want them to.

Project much?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again Tommy the functional end to your "philosophy" can't be "Nobody can ever be sure of anything and everything is just a subjective interpretation... therefore I'm 100% absolutely right about everything."

You're operating under a mistaken assumption we see too much of, the idea that you somehow magically become correct by arguing that everything is the same.

 

[Belz...]

Could you at least acknowledge at of course I am Aristotle and I came up with the first unmoved mover and and all forms of deism and any non-god creator is all on me.
I mean, I am so good at this, that I hack several sites and post fake information, which I then reference.

You could try google list of gods, first unmoved mover, deism and what not. But be aware, I have hacked you already and will trick you. By the way I am the only one who do thought experiments. Further I came up with a Boltzmann Brain. And I wrote that there are different theoretical interpretations of the likelihood of there being a Boltzmann Brain.
So here is a thought experiment:
If reality is the cause of you and you are not the cause of reality, can you then ultimately control the experiences in your mind? That is also me, this time as Descartes. BTW "I think, therefore I am" is nothing but, that something is going on and it doesn't tell if you have memories or you get memories. The naturalist version of the God of last Thursday, is that you are a computer simulation that started when you woke this morning.
You don't control reality, reality controls you and you are just along for the ride.
Now of course you trust your senses, but that is a core axiom. And you trust that reality is fair and that you are in a natural universe, that is also a core axiom.
But that is the problem.
P1: I trust that I am in a natural universe.
P2: My calculations and observations tell me that I am in a natural universe.
Therefore I am in a natural universe.
That one is also from me. Now I am Agrippa the Skeptic.

The problem with reason is that both right and wrong reasoning is a form of reasoning and what is right or wrong depends on how you reason. In philosophy that is the following effect: What you take for granted will determine what result you get.
You trust reason, logic and evidence differently than me.

Now we go phenomenology and concern our reasoning on the second part of this version of philosophy: The rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.
You are not the single only human and when there are 2 or more humans, there is no one single context, because each human is in a limited sense her/his own context.
So how do you judge another human's context based on your own?
That is the problem of the universal approach of the correct context for all, it works both ways. I can judge you and you can judge me as for one of us being wrong. The problem is that neither of us can in a universal sense judge each other.
And that one cuts right down to this:
No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others. In other words, there is no magisterium for all of reality. No one has ever solved that, neither in science, philosophy or religion.
You can do your life differently that me and that is so in reverse.

What some people don't get, is that if that 2 people reason differently, even to the effect of a contradiction, both of them reason though differently. It is in both cases a process in a given brain.
And if you can believe differently than me, then it is also so in reverse.
And that you should avoid contradictions in your thinking is a moral claim.

So phenomenology ends here: What matters to you need not be that same as to me or in reverse.

BTW JayUtah. You are not the magistrate of reason. Neither am I. I just reason to that effect and you reason that your reasoning is for all. I get it, you trust your reasoning to be universal, so mine can't really be different, because my reasoning is wrong.
When do you get that I am a skeptic???
We both follow the facts though differently: You can speak for all and I claim that nobody can speak for all. You then believe that I judge you. I just point out, that we are different and that this is a fact, that your model doesn't account for, as we are not different, rather you are right with reason and I am wrong. The problem is that this reasoning works in both directions and is how it is self-defeating.

There is a limit to reason, logic and evidence just as e.g. human mobility. We just do it differently. I am a skeptic, what are you? Well, we are both humans, warts and all. We just have different warts.

Sig: I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.

But still reality must adjudicate your results for all people, and it's well known that philosophy is not congruent with all results unless it can lay experiments that will match expectations. Irrespective of your objections the distinguishing factor between what is generally considered to be the actuality is that the complement does not necessarily resolve consistently across all possibilities. I know you are committed to the idea that the breadth of hypotheses allows one the required variance to appear as if their elucubrations, but at the end of the day it's been known for a long time that we can only say that a thing is veridical once you've demonstrated that it is so for all observers. Inasmuch as we have a vested interest in sharing in the same plane of existence and use events to serve some end, each must therefore be habilitated to differentiate between such a consistent manifestation and one which only appears as an emphemeral; an artifact of the process within the observer. And there are only so many means to appropriately collapse that function, opening the box and diagnose the feline therein. The most evident way, and one that has been employed by generation upon generation of truth-sphere denizens, is the cognitive and rational methodology which purports to verily surmise whether the conflagration of dreams and perceptions correlates with that of our significant and less-than-significant others in this ostensible reality. This pathway to illumination takes many a shape, but always follows a similar itinerary. You may know it as the quaint, short and rather unassuming name of 'science'.

Every other method has failed, and no amount of word salad with solve that.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Again Tommy the functional end to your "philosophy" can't be "Nobody can ever be sure of anything and everything is just a subjective interpretation... therefore I'm 100% absolutely right about everything."

You're operating under a mistaken assumption we see too much of, the idea that you somehow magically become correct by arguing that everything is the same.

Everything is the same breaks down for the acceptance of "yes" and the denial of "no".
Everything is different breaks down, because then "everything is different" is different.
Nothing is the same breaks down, because "nothing is the same" is the same.
Nothing is different breaks down for the acceptance of "yes" and the denial of "no".

Now I can never be right or wrong for your life as your life, because it is your life.
Of course you can, because you know that other humans are wrong and you care for them. The problem is that they might not need your "right" or that your "right" is not their right.

You and I share regularities in reality and are different for the variations. You want everybody to be the same as you, because you know "right" for everybody.
I don't and I point that out. You hold no authority over me and I hold none over you.
I just point out the differences between us.

 

[Belz...]

Everything is the same breaks down for the acceptance of "yes" and the denial of "no".

Gibberish. Words do not define reality, they attempt to describe it.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

But still reality must adjudicate your results for all people, and it's well known that philosophy is not congruent with all results unless it can lay experiments that will match expectations. Irrespective of your objections the distinguishing factor between what is generally considered to be the actuality is that the complement does not necessarily resolve consistently across all possibilities. I know you are committed to the idea that the breadth of hypotheses allows one the required variance to appear as if their elucubrations, but at the end of the day it's been known for a long time that we can only say that a thing is veridical once you've demonstrated that it is so for all observers. Inasmuch as we have a vested interest in sharing in the same plane of existence and use events to serve some end, each must therefore be habilitated to differentiate between such a consistent manifestation and one which only appears as an emphemeral; an artifact of the process within the observer. And there are only so many means to appropriately collapse that function, opening the box and diagnose the feline therein. The most evident way, and one that has been employed by generation upon generation of truth-sphere denizens, is the cognitive and rational methodology which purports to verily surmise whether the conflagration of dreams and perceptions correlates with that of our significant and less-than-significant others in this ostensible reality. This pathway to illumination takes many a shape, but always follows a similar itinerary. You may know it as the quaint, short and rather unassuming name of 'science'.

Every other method has failed, and no amount of word salad with solve that.

Nice Now the problem is that everything is not a thing. Everything is in part things, which give rise to the mental. And that differentiates in individuals.
Your problem is that "each must therefore be habilitated to differentiate between such a consistent manifestation and one which only appears as an emphemeral; an artifact of the process within the observer" is an artifact itself. It is an mental idea, which defeats itself, because everything is not independent of the observer.
That is the problem of everything is independent of the observer. "Everything is independent of the observer" is one which only appears as an emphemeral; an artifact of the process within the observer.
You can claim what you like and I then point you that your claim of how to make sense of everything in not independent of you.
That is the problem with "one which only appears as an emphemeral; an artifact of the process within the observer". It is itself an emphemeral; an artifact of the process within the observer.

You can't reduce empiricism down to only observation, because that empiricism is only observation, is not an observation.
You can't make what matters to you independent of you. That is where it ends. Everything is independent of me, matter to me and thus is dependent on me.
Naive empiricism is self-defeating.

 

[Belz...]

Nice

If you think so then you didn't understand it.

Now the problem is that everything is not a thing. Everything is in part things, which give rise to the mental. And that differentiates in individuals.

That sounds nice, I'm sure. Can you prove this?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Gibberish. Words do not define reality, they attempt to describe it.

But words are sometimes stand-ins for dependent processes in you. Your problem is that not all word are independent of you. The word "gibberish" describes something in you and not independent of you. So in a very limited sense you have just named a part of reality as "gibberish".

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

If you think so then you didn't understand it.



That sounds nice, I'm sure. Can you prove this?

Yes, "that sounds nice, I'm sure. Can you prove this?" is not independent of you. It is one which only appears as an emphemeral; an artifact of the process within the observer.
You proved it yourself, because your in part "nice" is not independent of you. It is an evaluation in you and your post is the result of that.

 

[Belz...]

But words are sometimes stand-ins for dependent processes in you.

Irrelevant.

Yes, "that sounds nice, I'm sure. Can you prove this?" is not independent of you.

Irrelevant. They are words asking for action. Stop acting like you know everything and then going on to prove that you know next to nothing.

It is one which only appears as an emphemeral; an artifact of the process within the observer.

It's quite telling that you take deliberate word salad as nuggets of wisdom.

You proved it yourself, because your in part "nice" is not independent of you.

No one's denying the existence of thought processes. You're still mixing up map and territory.