Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tommy go back to grade school, learn the language, learn how to use it the same way everyone else does, and then you can rejoin the adult table.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Your goal is to show that I don't live up to the standard of "we".
Click to expand...

No, that is not my goal. Nor does what you wrote have anything to do with my post. I find it highly amusing that someone who touts himself as an expert philosopher has so much trouble understanding very simple sentences. You seem to think spewing pseudo-philosophy in response to every challenge both marks you as an expert and parries the challenge. In fact it only shows you really don't have basic intercommunication skills.

You keep trying to characterize my argument. I keep trying to tell you that your characterization is wrong. The ability to summarize another's argument such that the other party accepts the summary as accurate is an essential part of intellectual communication, and an indispensable part of philosophy. Do you agree that if you attempt to summarize another's argument and he tells you that your summary is inaccurate, this means you're wrong?
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Yet I am still here and though different than you, we are both humans. How come we can be in contact, I am not dead and so on?
Click to expand...

What in the name of all that is unholy and malicious are you babbling about?

What does it do to me to be wrong?
Click to expand...

Nothing beyond being wrong and what it might entail within human interactions. I don't see why this is a conundrum to you. This is another concept that toddlers understand quite readily.

You are not wrong. You are different that me.
Click to expand...

No. If you say the moon has as much mass as a feather, you're wrong. That's a fact.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Yet I am still here and though different than you, we are both humans. How come we can be in contact, I am not dead and so on?
What does it do to me to be wrong? Are you going to diagnose me now? What is your degree?

You are not wrong. You are different that me. If you experience that you are wrong, then that is a result of your thinking. There is nothing wrong with that. But some other humans do it differently than how you use the word "wrong".
Click to expand...

For example, we have a room with 50 people. Physicalism would assert there is one shared physical room with 50 different units of consciousness (observers). Are you claiming there are 50 different rooms? If so (and that's OK), I'd like to hear more about that.
 
We're all adults here regardless of how we act. Nobody is going to explain the difference between 50 people experiencing the same room and 50 people experiencing different rooms.

"Experience" is not a magic word that grants people their own reality.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Nothing. And David insists on thinking he's trapped us in some logical "gotcha" with that.

Something that isn't falsifiable is just as "Not there" as something that is falsifiable and has been falsified.

Again that's the point of the Dragon in the Garage that people just keep not getting. Whether or not the dragon is presented as a falsified thing and is proven to not be there or is presented as a non-falsifiable nothing that has no characteristics and therefore can't be falsified... the dragon is equally "not there" in both scenarios.

In Scenario 1 someone tells me that a 1.7 meter tall, bright green with red stripes, 3 toed dragon lives in my garage. If there is no object that meets that definition in my garage, I have disproven the existence of the garage dragon. The dragon is not there.

In Scenario 2 someone tells me that a vague dragon of vague qualities with vague characteristics exists in my garage and every test is countered with an after the fact excuse why it doesn't technically disprove the vague dragon. THE DRAGON IS STILL NOT THERE. It's equally not there. No it's not "Just a little more" there than the first dragon.
Click to expand...
It's a tad funnier than that, after they've spent all that time and effort to redefine the word dragon to mean something totally and utterly unlike any previous definition of dragon they say “there so you see you can't say there isn't a dragon in your garage“ I mention again that I really can. They then go on and on again over the same hairsplitting and redefinition and they again say I can't say there isn't a dragon in my garage.

It's at that point I think out of common decency it is time to point out to them that I don't have a garage...

Of course then they will insist that by a garage they were only speaking metaphorically and really any enclosed space will do and I can't say there is no dragon in...

And so on and so on.
 
LarryS said:
For example, we have a room with 50 people. Physicalism would assert there is one shared physical room with 50 different units of consciousness (observers). Are you claiming there are 50 different rooms? If so (and that's OK), I'd like to hear more about that.
Click to expand...

Your example has its limits.
No, the room is there as shared, but the experience of it can be different. Now go wider: Physicalism would assert there is one shared physical world with all of humanity in it.
But for the totality of all that, there are different humans(with individual nature/nurture) in an overall shared physical world. The problem is that you can't reduce it down to one shared physical world, because that is to simple. It is over-reductive, because you reduce away the differences.

The idea of the same reality as one shared totally same reality in all aspects is easy to falsify:
  • Reality is one shared world.
  • Acceptance: Yes.
  • Falsification in effect: No.

Read this, it shows the limit of that kind of thinking with regards to real, logic, the universe in itself and so on. But you have to read it as how you can do it differently that it says.
All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.
Click to expand...

I will give you a hint: "...nor can a part contradict the whole...". Is this a contradiction?
  • Reality is one shared world.
  • Acceptance: Yes.
  • Falsification in effect: No.
 
Belz... said:
...
Nothing beyond being wrong and what it might entail within human interactions. I don't see why this is a conundrum to you. This is another concept that toddlers understand quite readily.
...
Click to expand...

Premise: I am wrong.
Missing premise: ?
Therefore: ?

Or are you going observation? You see that I am wrong and you see what to do, because you can see morality, like you can see an elephant?

Or are you going to use an ethical philosophical position?

Or are you using the scientific theory of ...?

What?
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
What?
Click to expand...

No, Tommy. You don't get to use pseudo-philosophy to escape being wrong about pseudo-philosophy.

It's been shown by several people in several ways that you are just plain wrong about ordinary things like what people are saying. This is not some lofty concept that can be glossed over by lengthy pseudo-philosophical prose. This is something you need to address in plain terms if you want to be accepted as a functional human being able to carry on conversations with other human beings.

Fix the foundation before you complain that the wall sconces aren't the pattern you ordered.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Are you ever going to speak English?
Click to expand...

75% of all adults are wrong be virtue of being religious, then we add for the atheists all contradictory claims of whether we can know if there are no gods, what science is, can do and so on, different politics, morality, CT, Woo and what not?
If we go strong skeptics on truth, knowledge, logic, reason and what empiricism is, most humans hold some form of false claims by virtue of the contradictions between different beliefs of what that is to all humans.

Including, me, I am wrong, that is a fact, we are approaching well over 90% of all adults being wrong. How do you deal with that?
That was my question.
 
Last edited:
Tommy Jeppesen said:
How do you deal with that?
Click to expand...

I've started by asking you whether it's wrong for you to systematically misrepresent the arguments of people with whom you disagree. Granted that won't make a dent in your estimate of 90%, but it will serve to put this particular thread on a more useful course.

Simple question, simple answer. Go.
 
JayUtah said:
No, Tommy. You don't get to use pseudo-philosophy to escape being wrong about pseudo-philosophy.

It's been shown by several people in several ways that you are just plain wrong about ordinary things like what people are saying. This is not some lofty concept that can be glossed over by lengthy pseudo-philosophical prose. This is something you need to address in plain terms if you want to be accepted as a functional human being able to carry on conversations with other human beings.

Fix the foundation before you complain that the wall sconces aren't the pattern you ordered.
Click to expand...

Tommy Jeppesen said:
75% of all adults are wrong be virtue of being religious, then we add for the atheists all contradictory claims of whether we can know if there are no gods, what science is, can do and so on, different politics, morality, CT, Woo and what not?
If we go strong skeptics on truth, knowledge, logic, reason and what empiricism is, most humans hold some form of false claims by virtue of the contradictions between different beliefs of what that is to all humans.

Including, me, I am wrong, that is a fact, we are approaching well over 90% of all adults being wrong. How do you deal with that?
That was my question.
Click to expand...

So how do you few people deal with all these wrong people?
 
Tommy the closest thing to a meaning I can wring out of your increasingly Jabba-esque walls of nonsense is some new, odd variation on the "A correct system cannot describe or understand an incorrect system" argument.

When someone is wrong and "science" (either real science or your strawman version) describes their "wrongness" and how it works, their wrongness doesn't magically turn into some new form of "correctness."
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Premise: I am wrong.
Missing premise: ?
Therefore: ?
Click to expand...

I'm not making a syllogism.

Or are you going observation? You see that I am wrong and you see what to do, because you can see morality, like you can see an elephant?

Or are you going to use an ethical philosophical position?

Or are you using the scientific theory of ...?

What?
Click to expand...

Stop playing confused. You know exactly what I'm saying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom