Hawking says there are no gods

[JayUtah]

BTW JayUtah. You are not the magistrate of reason.

My argument does not depend on my being so, nor have I made any such claim.

I get it, you trust your reasoning to be universal...

No. If that's what you think my argument is, then you don't get it at all. And you seem to fail to get my argument several times a day. Part of philosophy as I understand it is the basic ability to understand the argument someone else has made. You haven't reached that point yet. And I'm by no means the only person pointing this out to you.

You said that a standard of proficiency, in order to be effective, has to be believable. I've given you several examples of credible standards and explained what has made each credible and therefore useful. A basis in reason -- especially as opposed to an obvious basis in ego reinforcement -- seems to be a criterion common to credible standards. I've given you the reasons behind those common standards. Several times. Each time, you ignore them in entirely, personalize the argument, and waggle your finger philosophically in the air about some other topic. When people say, "These are the reasons why your standard sucks and I won't accept it" they don't want 5,000 words on "But pray, what is a reason?"

No matter how much you try to pontificate, to shift blame and responsibility, and no matter how many straw-man arguments you try to cram into my mouth, your conundrum is not changed. Nor is it especially difficult to understand. You make a claim to expertise based on nothing but your say-so, and you want others to give you credit for it solely on your terms, irrespective of theirs. It's a simple double standard, Tommy. You deny everyone the ability to impose their will on you, but claim the privilege of imposing yours on them. It's not one of the Great Questions of metaphysics or epistemology, such that you can gloss over it it by flowery oratory. It's just the same bad justification every ordinary joe all over the world uses to restore a flagging self-esteem.

When do you get that I am a skeptic?

When you start acting like one. You're arguing exactly like every other woo peddler with delusions of grandeur. And you're throwing exactly the same tantrums they do when they're confronted and cornered. If you want to be accepted as a skeptic by other skeptics, you should learn what rational skepticism entails. If you want to be something else, call yourself by that name instead.

 

[3point14]

"It is so because It is!"

That's not what I said at all. I mean, not even close.

I see. You have a dogma. It is impossible to debate with dogmatic people, either believer or atheist. The same stuff in opposite fields.

Don't willfully misapprehend what I say then accuse me of dogma.

Don't do that.

 

[Darat]

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".

Gibberish certainly does exist, we only have to look at any of your longer posts to see that gibberish has existence.

Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Gibberish certainly does exist, we only have to look at any of your longer posts to see that gibberish has existence.

Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk

And that is not independent of me and has an influence on you, otherwise you would post.
So everything is not independent of neither you nor me.
BTW Existence is an idea and not a property of the physical, because you can't observe existence. You believe in it. I do too, just differently.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

It's very difficult to figure out what you believe since you support gods existing because some critical mass of believers makes it so, you can't seem to recognize there is no evidence for these magical beings that don't live in volcanoes and on Mt Olympus, your criteria for evidence the stories are myths is as muddled as the paragraphs you write.

If you could state something concise about what you do believe maybe people won't offend you by not knowing what that is.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And that is not independent of me and has an influence on you, otherwise you would post.
So everything is not independent of neither you nor me.
BTW Existence is an idea and not a property of the physical, because you can't observe existence. You believe in it. I do too, just differently.

Saying 'existence' is not a property of the physical but rather is only a nebulous mental concept is a contradiction. If you want to go down that navel contemplating path then 'physical' and 'existence' are no different.

 

[JayUtah]

And that is not independent of me and has an influence on you, otherwise you would post.
So everything is not independent of neither you nor me.
BTW Existence is an idea and not a property of the physical, because you can't observe existence. You believe in it. I do too, just differently.

Do you have an argument that doesn't boil down to, "There's no such thing as _____________?"

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

My argument does not depend on my being so, nor have I made any such claim.



No. If that's what you think my argument is, then you don't get it at all. And you seem to fail to get my argument several times a day. Part of philosophy as I understand it is the basic ability to understand the argument someone else has made. You haven't reached that point yet. And I'm by no means the only person pointing this out to you.

You said that a standard of proficiency, in order to be effective, has to be believable. I've given you several examples of credible standards and explained what has made each credible and therefore useful. A basis in reason -- especially as opposed to an obvious basis in ego reinforcement -- seems to be a criterion common to credible standards. I've given you the reasons behind those common standards. Several times. Each time, you ignore them in entirely, personalize the argument, and waggle your finger philosophically in the air about some other topic. When people say, "These are the reasons why your standard sucks and I won't accept it" they don't want 5,000 words on "But pray, what is a reason?"

No matter how much you try to pontificate, to shift blame and responsibility, and no matter how many straw-man arguments you try to cram into my mouth, your conundrum is not changed. Nor is it especially difficult to understand. You make a claim to expertise based on nothing but your say-so, and you want others to give you credit for it solely on your terms, irrespective of theirs. It's a simple double standard, Tommy. You deny everyone the ability to impose their will on you, but claim the privilege of imposing yours on them. It's not one of the Great Questions of metaphysics or epistemology, such that you can gloss over it it by flowery oratory. It's just the same bad justification every ordinary joe all over the world uses to restore a flagging self-esteem.



When you start acting like one. You're arguing exactly like every other woo peddler with delusions of grandeur. And you're throwing exactly the same tantrums they do when they're confronted and cornered. If you want to be accepted as a skeptic by other skeptics, you should learn what rational skepticism entails. If you want to be something else, call yourself by that name instead.

You don't get it. You claim an objective standard for what reality is, because you Know what reality is, because you can do metaphysics as Knowledge.
I point out that nobody can, including you and I.
And you insist that I must show that reality is the same for everybody. But that is the point, reality is not universal the same of everybody in all aspects.
It point out the reason is different and you claim, I claim it is the same for everybody. The point is that it is different in some cases.
The evidence is that we can't agree, yet no of us are dead, we are both parts of reality and we are in some respects different.

It is you, who insist reason must be that same standard for all and I point out that it is not the case. What you do with that, is on you. I don't control you and how you act is something you do.
There is no universal standard for acting as a human and this thread is part of the evidence.
What is useful to you might not be the same for me.

You explain your POV and I can't explain mine, because I lecture and you don't. I lecture about how reality is one universal standard, which I don't, but you do because science can solve metaphysics for all.
You lecture and I do, we just do it differently.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Saying 'existence' is not a property of the physical but rather is only a nebulous mental concept is a contradiction. If you want to go down that navel contemplating path then 'physical' and 'existence' are no different.

No, physical is a class of experience and shared by all, which accept it. Not all humans do.
I can explain the physical without the need of existence.
Explain how you know the physical and how you know existence?

 

[Belz...]

You don't get it. You claim an objective standard for what reality is, because you Know what reality is, because you can do metaphysics as Knowledge.

No, clearly it's you who doesn't get it. Jay's point is not what you describe at all, and it's clear by now that you don't even have a solid enough basis in philosophy to understand even the most fundamental concepts and arguments.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Do you have an argument that doesn't boil down to, "There's no such thing as _____________?"

There are a lot of things and things give rise to the mental. The mental is dependent on things, but not reducible to things, i.e. other words of non-reductive physicalism.
Now there's no such thing as a reality solely independent of the observer, because humans are more that passive observers. Now what we can do, is limited, but you do more that just observing. You reason and act on it as you communicate to other, you are not just an observer. You are a part of the landscape and in it you make different maps, so you can act in the landscape.
You have just done so.

The problem is that you think there is one universal map for all.
And I simply act and say "No, that is to simple".

Now of course not all humans accept physicalism and that is how that is. They have different maps for part of their lives. I accept that and you don't, because you have the map to end all other maps. You can act on that and yet I can act differently.

 

[JayUtah]

You don't get it. You claim an objective standard for what reality is...

No, I don't.

And you insist that I must show that reality is the same for everybody.

No, I don't.

It is you, who insist reason must be that same standard for all...

No, I don't.

You lecture and I do, we just do it differently.

No, you spout irrelevant nonsense when confronted with simple arguments, label it philosophy, and then insist that everyone else doesn't "get it." It's quite arrogant. And now you've just crammed a whole lot of arguments into my mouth that I never made and am not now making. You simply don't seem to be able to read plain English and understand its meaning.

The argument is that the manner in which you want your expertise acknowledged is inconsistent with the manner in which you're prepared to substantiate it. Stop pontificating and start listening, Tommy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There are a lot of things and things give rise to the mental. The mental is dependent on things, but not reducible to things, i.e. other words of non-reductive physicalism.
Now there's no such thing as a reality solely independent of the observer, because humans are more that passive observers. Now what we can do, is limited, but you do more that just observing. You reason and act on it as you communicate to other, you are not just an observer. You are a part of the landscape and in it you make different maps, so you can act in the landscape.
You have just done so.

The problem is that you think there is one universal map for all.
And I simply act and say "No, that is to simple".

Now of course not all humans accept physicalism and that is how that is. They have different maps for part of their lives. I accept that and you don't, because you have the map to end all other maps. You can act on that and yet I can act differently.

Gibberish from beginning to end.

Every post you've made here could be replaced with "I want magic to be real" and nothing would change.

 

[JayUtah]

The problem is that you think there is one universal map for all.

No, I don't think this.

This is how we know you have no appreciable expertise in philosophy. You lack the skill to read simple paragraphs of English text and determine what they mean. You've spent most of today completely misrepresenting everything I've said. What's funnier is that I'm actually making a relativist argument. You just can't seem to hear it from high up on your horse.

 

[Belz...]

The mental is dependent on things, but not reducible to things, i.e. other words of non-reductive physicalism.

Prove it.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No, clearly it's you who doesn't get it. Jay's point is not what you describe at all, and it's clear by now that you don't even have a solid enough basis in philosophy to understand even the most fundamental concepts and arguments.

You don't get that not all words describe reality. So words are actions/commands/intentions and so on.
Here it is for words in general - all words are signs, have meaning in brains and have referents. Not all referents are observable.
You treat all words as having observable referents and I still answer: "No!" You understand that as gibberish. The fun part is that neither "no" nor "gibberish" have an observable referent. "No" and "gibberish" are about understanding reality for differences in how we understand, what reality is. They are not properties of things, they are properties of the mental, cognitive and so on.

 

[JayUtah]

You don't get that...

Stop trying to talk down to everyone, Tommy. It's plain to see you are the one having comprehension problems.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Prove it.

The words "prove it" prove it, because you can't see the referents to those words. "Prove it" is an artifact of your brain/mind.
You really should read up on non-reductive and reductive physicalism. Both are a form of naturalism, but they are not the same.

The word "elephant" is not in your brain as an elephant. The words "prove it" are in your brain as your cognition and not independent of you, because they require you. The elephant doesn't.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Stop trying to talk down to everyone, Tommy. It's plain to see you are the one having comprehension problems.

Sorry.

 

[Belz...]

You don't get that not all words describe reality.

I do get that. How can you think that I don't? The only reason I see why you keep mispresenting what everyone here argues for is that you simply don't understand what people are telling you.

None of your post has anything to do with Jay's request or my arguments. You're simply lost in your love for your own words. People are telling you that you are not making sense, and you try to explain it with more nonsense. You're not some sort of philosophical genius. You are, quite frankly, completely out of your depth here.

Not all referents are observable.

What does that even mean? And in 25 words or less, please. Posting more text doesn't make you easier to understand.

You treat all words as having observable referents

That sounds nothing like anything I've said, believed or implied. You're making stuff up as you go.

You understand that as gibberish.

Words that don't have a meaning or sense are called gibberish. It's not my understanding, it's a definition. Stop playing with words: no one is fooled by your feeble games.

The fun part is that neither "no" nor "gibberish" have an observable referent.

Philo class really broke you.