Hawking says there are no gods

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Irrelevant gibberish. We're trying to resolve the question of your alleged expertise in philosophy, upon which you've principally based your argument. Do you concede that your claims to expertise have no evidentiary value in this forum?

Please explain irrelevant gibberish and the rest in physical terms.

There is a limit to science and philosophy.
Everything is not doable using science and there is no universal morality/ethics in philosophy.

You confirm both since it is a fact that we disagree (my point in part) and that you can't answer with science (there in no overall framework).

You show the limitations to reason, logic and evidence, since you don't use evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

Please explain irrelevant gibberish and the rest in physical terms.

Knee-jerk nonsense.

...you can't answer with science

Argument from silence.

...you don't use evidence.

I've shown evidence that you have no basis from which to claim expertise in philosophy and to insist that others must respect that claim. You have refused to address that evidence. Hence I am pressing the question. Do you concede that your claims to expertise have no evidentiary value in this forum?

 

[LarryS]

Hence I am pressing the question. Do you concede that your claims to expertise have no evidentiary value in this forum?

I'm not sure why this is important - either TJ can make adequate speech on the topic at hand, or he can't. BTW, what point is TJ making on the topic at hand?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Knee-jerk nonsense.



Argument from silence.



I've shown evidence that you have no basis from which to claim expertise in philosophy and to insist that others must respect that claim. You have refused to address that evidence. Hence I am pressing the question. Do you concede that your claims to expertise have no evidentiary value in this forum?

You win in the following sense. I am ready to concede that I am wrong and all those other words, you use to describe me as personal evaluations. And thus I win, because if that is a fact, it is also a fact, that you can't describe that using hard science.
You are using social facts, not brute physical facts.

So I won't concede the debate. The longer it goes on, then more you show that you can't use hard science on everything.
There is no international scientific measurement standard, no instruments and no evidence to show that I am wrong. Because that is the limit of your worldview.

 

[ynot]

It's a valid point. Not feeding the trolls achieves the result of depriving them of attention. However, if done prematurely or dismissively, it also has the effect of providing a silence from which an spurious claim of victory can be argued. This is how Jabba worked. People often gave up on him because he was just as prolific at stone-walling as Tommy has been. Jabba then boasted that he had bested them in debate with his superior intellect and skills, and that's why they went away. Hence there is a sort of art in making sure there is enough of a claimant's foolishness on the record to preclude crowing of that sort.

The point you make is also valid. But how long and much do "you" need to feed a troll/nutter until enough is enough?

If I get the time I'm thinking of starting a new thread to debate this quandary.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not sure why this is important

Tommy's critics contend that his attempt to refute Hawking simply misses the mark because he does nothing more than redefine all the operative words and concepts. Under his foisted definitions, he argues Hawking's preclusion is no longer valid. When his critics provide good reasons for not buying into the pseudo-philosophical equivocations, Tommy falls back to his pretense of authority and insists his critics don't "get it." The effect of his rejoinder is, "You clearly don't know as much as I do about philosophy and therefore clearly can't see how I'm right -- but I am."

 

[JayUtah]

I am ready to concede that I am wrong and all those other words, you use to describe me as personal evaluations.

That's not what I asked you to concede.

So I won't concede the debate.

I'm not asking you to concede the debate. I'm asking you to concede that your claims to expertise have no evidentiary value in his forum. Will you concede exactly that?

 

[JayUtah]

The point you make is also valid. But how long and much do "you" need to feed a troll/nutter until enough is enough?

There's no clear answer to that, since different readers are convinced at different times. How long do you let bread dough rise? Until it's done. No, obviously I'm not going to keep asking Tommy the same question indefinitely. It's clear he doesn't want to have to concede that no one is obliged to accept, as a premise to an argument, that he is an expert in philosophy. No one does, of course. But until he admits he shouldn't, he'll keep trying. Or until it's suitably apparent that this is something he's afraid to discuss.

If I get the time I'm thinking of starting a new thread to debate this quandary.

Do. There's probably no consensus to be had, but we need to know how the strategy is laid.

 

[Myriad]

I can explain the physical without the need of existence.

You can? You can explain the remarkable intersubjective consistency of experiences, such that for instance I experience seeing an elephant when and only when any other people nearby also report experiencing seeing an elephant (the quality of experience, in short, that we designate the physical), without positing the existence of an elephant?

Good, I've been waiting a long time for you to explain exactly that. Please do. I'm all ears. (And so is the elephant.)

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

That's not what I asked you to concede.



I'm not asking you to concede the debate. I'm asking you to concede that your claims to expertise have no evidentiary value in his forum. Will you concede exactly that?

No, because that we in fact can disagree and both get away with it, is the point.
By pointing out that we are cognitively different, you lose, because you can't explain that using hard science.

My end point is that you can't explain this difference using hard science. Thus this stands:

(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/#H3

The very fact, that we are different, is the point.

You can't explain the very difference you point out as your "win" using hard science.
That is my expertise. I win by point out the differences and you keep confirming those, thus you confirm cognitive relativism.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

You can? You can explain the remarkable intersubjective consistency of experiences, such that for instance I experience seeing an elephant when and only when any other people nearby also report experiencing seeing an elephant (the quality of experience, in short, that we designate the physical), without positing the existence of an elephant?

Good, I've been waiting a long time for you to explain exactly that. Please do. I'm all ears. (And so is the elephant.)

https://www.ontology.co/existence.htm
Scroll down to LOGIC AND EXISTENCE

... (1) "all existential propositions are synthetic" and that (2) "Being is obviously not a real predicate; that is, it is not a concept of something which could be added to the concept of a thing." His conviction that "existence is quite definitely not a predicate"...

Existence is an abstract idea and not the predicate of an elephant.
Existence is ontology and thus philosophy.

 

[JayUtah]

No, because that we in fact can disagree and both get away with it, is the point.

No, that's not the point. The point is your request that your claims to expertise should have evidentiary value in this forum -- i.e., that others should accept them as valid the same way you do. None of the gibberish you wrote addresses that.

The very fact, that we are different, is the point.

You claim this when it's convenient, but then you go on to say that when it comes to the question of your expertise, you and Skeptic Ginger should have the same point of view of it -- yours. You refuse to address the reasons we give for why we shouldn't do that. And since your purported expertise is what your refutation of Hawking ultimately comes down to, you're left with few options. One of them is to concede that your claims to expertise have no evidentiary value, and to proceed on less personalized grounds.

That is my expertise. I win by point out the differences and you keep confirming those, thus you confirm cognitive relativism.

Or rather, you keep confirming that your adjudication of own expertise is philosophy is simply your own opinion of how well you've argued a point. Relativism is your bug-bear, not mine. And you seem to have no ability beyond pointing that wand at everything and pretending it refutes every argument regardless of its facts or character.

Please concede that your claims to expertise have no evidentiary value in this forum.

 

[Myriad]

https://www.ontology.co/existence.htm
Scroll down to LOGIC AND EXISTENCE


Existence is an abstract idea and not the predicate of an elephant.
Existence is ontology and thus philosophy.

That argument does not explain the physical without the need of existence. (You omitted the "explaining the physical" part.)

You said you could. Don't disappoint me.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

... Relativism is your bug-bear, not mine. And you seem to have no ability beyond pointing that wand at everything and pretending it refutes every argument regardless of its facts or character.

...

We share brute facts, but we don't share social differences.
We agree on some things, but you claim expertise about in the end about metaphysics and an universal standard for all facts.
You don't have that and neither have I.
We only share some facts. E.g. we both need water, but that is not everything.

You want to claim reality for all for an universal standard for all facts and in metaphysical terms. But you can't actually do that. Neither can I.
I still maintain limited cognitive relativism and you confirm that because you point out in effect that there is no universal standard for philosophy by admitting that we in effect think differently.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

That argument does not explain the physical without the need of existence. (You omitted the "explaining the physical" part.)

You said you could. Don't disappoint me.

The physical is in effect that you can't do by only thinking differently.

 

[JayUtah]

..but you claim expertise about in the end about metaphysics and an universal standard for all facts.

No, I don't.

You want to claim reality for all for an universal standard for all facts and in metaphysical terms.

No, I don't.

...there is no universal standard for philosophy by admitting that we in effect think differently.

Irrelevant. The manner in which you want your claims of expertise accepted by others is inconsistent with the manner in which you're prepared to substantiate them. Relativism does not save you from that double standard. You appear to have no response to the actual arguments, so -- as usual -- you've resorted to making up straw-man arguments and stuffing them in my mouth, trying in vain to pretend I'm making a universal argument. I am not, and never have when discussing your claims to expertise.

A case has been made that your claims to expertise should not have evidentiary value in this forum. You are unwilling to address that case. Therefore, do you concede that your claims to expertise should have no evidentiary value?

 

[Myriad]

The physical is in effect that you can't do by only thinking differently.

That's a reasonable definition of the physical.

Now please explain it without existence, as you said you can do. An adequate explanation should address such issues as why there are effects you can't do by only thinking differently, and where their perceived characteristics come from.

 

[LarryS]

That's a reasonable definition of the physical.

Now please explain it without existence, as you said you can do. An adequate explanation should address such issues as why there are effects you can't do by only thinking differently, and where their perceived characteristics come from.

I'm not sure if we are slicing this correctly. When we are thinking of an elephant and when we are perceiving an elephant - we are experiencing the same 'substance'. The substance of thinking and the substance of perception is the same - the substance is the actual experience arising in consciousness.
Experience is the substance - so thinking is not one thing and perception another.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Jesus Goddamn Christ I never thought I would have describe basic object permanence to so many adults in my life.

 

[Myriad]

I'm not sure if we are slicing this correctly. When we are thinking of an elephant and when we are perceiving an elephant - we are experiencing the same 'substance'. The substance of thinking and the substance of perception is the same - the substance is the actual experience arising in consciousness.
Experience is the substance - so thinking is not one thing and perception another.

Once again: I didn't ask for an explanation of why I perceive an elephant. I asked for an explanation of why, when I perceive an elephant, I also perceive that any other people who are nearby also perceive an elephant.

My explanation is that elephants exist independently of our experience. This is a very robust and reasonably parsimonious explanation; for instance, it also explains how I could be born into a world, and my species could evolve into a world, prior to having experienced it. The world existing independently of our experience neatly solves such mysteries. That's why we posit existence in the first place. It's a conclusion based on experience, not an assumption.

Tommy has promised an explanation, which I hope will prove to be of at least comparable quality, and which he claims does not need to posit existence. I eagerly await that explanation.