Hawking says there are no gods

[JoeMorgue]

Jesus Christ Mister Miyagi stop it with Wax On and Wax Off and get to the part where you teach us the Crane Kick.

 

[Belz...]

The words "prove it" prove it, because you can't see the referents to those words.

No, they don't! That the mind can imagine things does not mean that it is not reducible to things. It doesn't follow, and thus you have not proved it. You need to demonstrate that what you said is true because that is the only conclusion you can reach from the premises. Use of logic is one of the fundamentals of philosophy. Use it.

So PROVE IT. Stop pretending that I'm making your own case for you by the mere fact of existing or talking. PROVE YOUR CLAIM.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

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

...

You can't observe meaning, yet you know it. Hence no observable referent.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry.

No you're not. You are pretentious, arrogant and rude. Add to that ignorance and poorly-constructed thoughts, and the result is more than a mess. You're not half as clever as you think you are.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Sorry.

I don't believe you.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No, they don't! That the mind can imagine things does not mean that it is not reducible to things. It doesn't follow, and thus you have not proved it. You need to demonstrate that what you said is true because that is the only conclusion you can reach from the premises. Use of logic is one of the fundamentals of philosophy. Use it.

So PROVE IT. Stop pretending that I'm making your own case for you by the mere fact of existing or talking. PROVE YOUR CLAIM.

That you imagine a thing, is not a thing.

 

[Belz...]

You can't observe meaning, yet you know it. Hence no observable referent.

Of course you can observe meaning. All the time. There, you're wrong. Again.

Do you know how I can observe meaning? Because other people can put it into words that communicate it to me.

Boy, you really do suck at this.

 

[Belz...]

That you imagine a thing, is not a thing.

Yes, it absolutely is. A process is a real thing. It's not an object, but it's a thing. Thoughts are processes. The act of imagining something, is a thing in and of itself, but it is not the same thing as the thing being imagined.

Even a three year-old understands this. You're beneath that level. Think about that. In your efforts to think too much, you've regressed to below even the threshold of rational thought.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Of course you can observe meaning. All the time. There, you're wrong. Again.

Do you know how I can observe meaning? Because other people can put it into words that communicate it to me.

Boy, you really do suck at this.

So you see meaning as you see an elephant? No, the latter has a shape, weigh and so on. Meaning doesn't have that. There are no meaning in words as words. Words are signs. The meaning is in brains through the mind.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So you see meaning as you see an elephant? No, the latter has a shape, weigh and so on. Meaning doesn't have that. There are no meaning in words as words. Words are signs. The meaning is in brains through the mind.

Okay Tommy we've explained to you how.... concepts work before.

Stop acting like an obtuse child in one breath and speaking down to us like you're Yoda in the other.

 

[Belz...]

So you see meaning as you see an elephant?

Meanings are thoughts. Thoughts are processes. They can be communicated through various means. You probably learned this at the same time as you first heard "the Elephant goes 'FROOOO'".

It's clear that you understand nothing about philosophy, logic or science. You can't even begin to form coherent thoughts or understand those of others. The sad thing is, you problably think you're running circles around us here, while in fact you can't even reach rational conclusions that a toddler can manage.

It's really pathetic.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Yes, it absolutely is. A process is a real thing. It's not an object, but it's a thing. Thoughts are processes. The act of imagining something, is a thing in and of itself, but it is not the same thing as the thing being imagined.
Even a three year-old understands this. You're beneath that level. Think about that. In your efforts to think too much, you've regressed to below even the threshold of rational thought.

So we have 2 different things, since they are not the same. That is the point. You have just differentiated between different things. Now show that they are the same.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So we have 2 different things, since they are not the same. That is the point. You have just differentiated between different things. Now show that they are the same.

Oh my God Tommy this is stuff I'd get frustrated with a child for. How a picture of a kitty cat and an actual kitty cat are related is something you should have learned in kindergarten.

Drop the act. Making us walk you through simple concepts doesn't make you wiser than us.

 

[Belz...]

So we have 2 different things, since they are not the same. That is the point. You have just differentiated between different things. Now show that they are the same.

Why the hell would I make a case for something I'm not arguing for?

No two things are the same anyway. The difference between the thought and the thing it represents is that the latter doesn't exist except as part of the first. You know, like a map of France on a piece of paper is just ink and paper, and yet we can see France through it.

France is not literally on the paper.

 

[JayUtah]

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.

That's the most charitable interpretation. Otherwise we'd have to conclude he's doing it on purpose, and that would be mean-spirited.

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.

That's pretty much it. He's in the dock, presented with a knife that bears the victim's blood and his fingerprints, and he's being asked for an explanation. "Well, Your Honor, we have to start with Mesopotamian metallurgy..." And the sad thing is, he doesn't know anything about metallurgy anyway.

I've noticed that this is a common trait with self-proclaimed experts. They can't answer specific questions or respond to specific points because they lack the actual expertise to do so. But they think that if they just string words together than vaguely relate to the field, someone will assume they're just talking so much above the level of their critics. This was the approach Jabba took, and it sure fooled his Shroudie friends.

You are, quite frankly, completely out of your depth here.

And we can tell.

Stop playing with words: no one is fooled by your feeble games.

But I think he really does think he's fooling everyone. He may even be fooling himself. A big part of this schtick is, "No one can possibly know I'm faking it." But we always do know, despite all the gaslighting.

Philo class really broke you.

This is the problem with half-baked, self-administered programs of education. A student who quits surgical school between the time he learns to make incisions and the time he learns to clamp veins and suture tissue is going to have a rough time of it.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry.

Then act like you are. You drop a smiley-qualified non-apology and then continue in the same arrogant, dismissive manner. This does not convince us that you're not just trolling.

 

[JayUtah]

Making us walk you through simple concepts doesn't make you wiser than us.

Nor is philosophy just mindlessly questioning or challenging everything.

 

[Belz...]

Then act like you are. You drop a smiley-qualified non-apology and then continue in the same arrogant, dismissive manner. This does not convince us that you're not just trolling.

There are a lot of posters here who are very lucky that we don't have a rule against that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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?

Nonsense.

 

[Belz...]

Oh my God Tommy this is stuff I'd get frustrated with a child for. How a picture of a kitty cat and an actual kitty cat are related is something you should have learned in kindergarten.

Drop the act. Making us walk you through simple concepts doesn't make you wiser than us.

Quite the opposite in fact, since as I've said many times before, even young children do it to troll adults on a regular basis. They understand those concepts and those distinctions quite readily. Naturally, even. It seems humans are born with the ability to distinguish fiction and concepts from reality. Comes in handy with a species so apt at abstract thinking.

Some adults seem to lose that as they become too clever for their own good. The incessant "why" of the child has eventually convinced him that the question is actually meaningful.