|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Jan 31, 2011 14:11:05 GMT
bjorn wrote:
That’s what I said from the outset, so why all the incessant demands to argue about something that has never been proven and most likely can never be proven via your methods? Why not shift gears and try to find evidence that folks other than a few, elite, prejudiced philosophers will accept?
|
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jan 31, 2011 14:28:32 GMT
Name one conclusion philosophy has come up with let alone the question of god/s. It may be a good way of marshalling thought but It has been found wanting when conclusions are necessary. Sure. Descartes writing in the 17th century provideed proofs of the laws of motion and these are based on what he calls ‘deductions’ founded on ‘intuitions’. He says at the beginning of part three of the principles: ‘we have thus discovered certain principles as regards material objects, derived not from the prejudices of our senses, but from the light of reason’.(i.e Philosophy and theology) According to Descartes method of reason, the existence of god is self evident (which he argues for via his ontological argument) and therefore must be the cause of the motion in the universe. Since, Descartes reasons, God’s essence involves immutability, immutability must apply for his operations. God not only causes the motion in the universe but he also sustains the total amount of motion in the universe, even if the individual motions of bodies vary. This is the ancestor of the principle of ‘conservation of momentum’ and you can see it is derived as a deduction from intuition regarding God and motion. Descartes three laws follow from this. For instance, when Descartes wrote to Mersenne regarding the first law he said: ‘I prove this through metaphysics. For since God, who is the creator of all things, is entirely perfect and immutable, it seems repugnant to me that any simple thing that exists and, consequently, of which God was the creator, has in itself the principle of its own destruction’In a few of them he gives examples of experimental confirmation, but he always regards them as primarily derivable from the immutability of God and the divine simplicity of the operation by which God preserves motion. For Descartes, empirical ‘confirmation’ does not establish the truth of a proposition with the certainty he demands (it’s not true that he distained experiment, he just didn’t regard it that highly). He therefore goes above and beyond experiment via deduction. This is all part of the early modern idea of laws of nature which is grounded in a particular conception of divine activity and theological considerations common to both Protestantism and Catholicism. For Descartes and indeed for people like Newton and Isaac Barrow, these are nothing less than God directly moving things in the world according to mathematical, regular principles and this principle is derived from philosophy and theology. |
|
|
|
Post by captainzman on Jan 31, 2011 19:36:19 GMT
Got it. Let's not send kids to school anymore. Clearly, education is a waste of time. We can make up our facts! Even better, we can let other people make up facts for us! Clearly, all the books I have read and all the papers I have written mean nothing. No, I should wait for some random crank on the internet to come along and explain the meaning of life to me. Or... I could use the head on my shoulders and think for myself. I think I know which option I should choose.
Several big problems here
1) If you think the alternatives to Christianity are problem-free (naturalism, I'm looking at you here), then I've got a few dozen bridges to sell you.
2) you assume that philosophers and theologians have had nothing to say about those problems, which is hilarious, because in order to evaluate their answers, you would have to usephilosophy. You would also have to crack or book or two and maybe learn something.
3) The arguments for the existence of God (you know, one reason why a person might believe in God) are also philosophical arguments, and in order to evaluate them, you would have to use philosophy
Only for a fundamentalist.
Yeah, it's impossible for someone else to have different beliefs from you without that person being crazy or irrational.
|
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Feb 3, 2011 0:25:37 GMT
gymnopodie wrote:
And then captainzman replied:
We think differently, don't we? I am beyond amazed how you could come up with that conclusion about what I wrote above. Is that how you do your philosophy?
If you think Christianity can solve the problems that I mentioned, then I have some prime swamp land to sell you. If you toss Christianity out the door, then everything makes sense, except maybe for some philosophers who have a lot of time on their hands. But I'll bite. What problems do you see with no Christian god involved?
|
|
|
|
Post by captainzman on Feb 3, 2011 0:51:11 GMT
Well, let’s see. You dismiss what some of the greatest minds have ever said as a bunch of opinions and claim that your conclusions are obvious, despite a lot, I repeat, a lot of people disagreeing with you. Even worse, you obviously have no familiarity with what those people have said, i.e. quoting Wittgenstein in support of your dismissal of philosophy, despite him being a philosopher. The reason we study what other people have said in philosophy, even if we disagree with them, is to see what the best cases are for competing world views. You have done none of this and it shows. The only way to get people to think like you is to have them stop thinking.
You take a look at something, think that’s it’s complicated, and then dismiss it because complicated things can’t be true. Guess what? Life is complicated. If the rest of us followed your kind of thinking, we’d never get anywhere. Thankfully, we don’t. That's what an education is for.
How about you stop changing the subject and actually defend your position? Wait, you can’t. You can’t, or won’t, use philosophy. And you won’t be able to understand my answers, because you can’t, or won't, use philosophy. It's like talking to a brick wall, only less interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Feb 3, 2011 13:05:37 GMT
captainzman wrote:
You need to either get out more or live a few more years. I do not have a lot of people disagreeing with me. Quite the opposite, actually.
You're being silly now.
You're just frustrated because you can't get your philosophy to conjure up a god that you believe in. Your bunch of opinions tell you nothing about your superstitions and myths. Hang on to your faith, if you must, because that is all you have.
|
|
|
|
Post by himself on Feb 7, 2011 2:25:07 GMT
I didn't realize I was banned from using logic (though It has it's limits, I prefer the scientific method myself) if I was not a philosopher. One of the first things you would have learned in logic is not to draw non-sequitur conclusions like that. You are no more banned from using logic for not being a philosopher than you are banned from using the fruits of science for not being a scientist. Your conclusion simply does not follow. logic ... has it's limits, I prefer the scientific method myself Come now, is the scientific method illogical? Surely the subset has more stringent limits than the superset. The scientific method applies to the metrical attributes of physical bodies. Everywhere else, it is cargo cultism. But logic applies to any field of discourse. Music and art, are another matter. Its just that most modern philosophers really gets my goat. What with post modernism BS, their anti-science rhetoric and becoming woo merchants and trying to prove god with syllogisms or trying to define (perfect) god/s into existence. You seem unclear on the status of post-modernism in departments of philosophy. There was a famous incident some years back when a body of philosophers decided that deconstructivism should not be counted as philosophy, however useful it might or might not be in literary criticism. My leftist friends were livid. Po-mo is essentially a radical leftist protocol for reading literary texts in terms of power structures. Foucault has some respect within philosophy; but Derrida does not. (In fact, Foucault is highly critical of Derrida.) And if you think any of these atheist literary critics are trying to prove god with syllogisms, you are sore mistaken. The feminist and environmentalist critique of science has some merit, although their "solutions" to it do not. Modern philosophy run from the time of Descartes to the early 20th century; after that, the Modern Age began to come apart. However, most of the "traditional" and "unsolvable" problems of philosophy date from the advent of modernism, when anything "old-fashioned" was automatically counted as wrong. "Four hundred years of philosophical squid ink," one traditionalist philosopher has said. First we have Mary Midgley whose reading comprehension skills leave her to believe you really can judge a book by its cover (title) re: the selfish gene. Oh, how stupid the woman is compared to you! Yet, I have read the Selfish Gene, and say she pegged it [and Dawkins' evasions] spot on. Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini. Who destroyed all of evolutionary theory by not even acknowledging let alone understanding that populations evolve... Actually, their critique was from an atheist perspective and was not of evolution as such, but of "natural selection," which is a particular "engine" supposedly driving evolution. They believed that natural selection was in and of itself much too teleological, and they associated teleology with God. So they tried to find a way to "de-teleologicize" the theory. Most biologists who responded to the perceived heretics with calls for an auto da fe did not even understand the sort of questions that Fodor was raising. To people who are narrowly trained in the metrical properties of physical bodies, everything is seen as a metrical property of a physical body. OTOH, this very teleology of natural selection accords well with the writings of Thomas Aquinas: thomism.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/evolution-and-teleology/#comment-5763 who states that the chief internal end of the universe if diversity of species. not for them that 'an uncaused cause (that's not eternal) can never happen, I suggest they take that up with an quantum physicist.' Actually, it might be better if you took it up with a quantum physicist, rather than rely on pop-sci interpretations of the Cophenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. None have ever said that an 'uncaused cause' can happen through quantum mechanics. (And Copenhagen is not the only interpretation, anyhow.) |
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 7, 2011 17:40:32 GMT
I didn't realize I was banned from using logic (though It has it's limits, I prefer the scientific method myself) if I was not a philosopher. One of the first things you would have learned in logic is not to draw non-sequitur conclusions like that. You are no more banned from using logic for not being a philosopher than you are banned from using the fruits of science for not being a scientist. Your conclusion simply does not follow. It was my sarcastic reply to someone claiming that this was all philosophy. Read it in context. Again I have nothing against logic you just have to be aware of it's limitations for reaching conclusions. Nothing new under the sun is patently false other than that. If philosophy is grounded in reality it's fine, if it is grounded in superstition it's flawed. There's not much else I can say on the issue. If she can't even comprehend a science book that is written for the layperson, has her objections and critiques countered yet still fails to address them and carries on making the same claims. What would you have me do 'praise her intelligence.'  In Defence of Selfish Genes, Read it in Richard's own words. thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7337 Fodor & Piattelli-Palmarini raise what they see as problems with evolution, but they basically reveal their own ignorance of the subject. I've already pointed out the 'populations evolve not individuals' an obvious fact of evolutionary biology that completely pasted them by. That alone shows that no one in biology will take them seriously. Though the stupid just gets worse. The pigs with wings argument shows that they don't know what they are talking about. Of course the bauplan has constraints and a new set of limbs are unlikely to evolve but that wont stop their fore limbs evolving given the right set of conditions. Look at a close relative of pigs which has adapted to a new environment. Whales evolving flippers to swim around in the deep ocean sifting the waters for its food. Just replace flippers for wings. Certainly, one can't say that the free-riding trait is selected "for" but this isn't a counter-example to natural selection, only to a naïve and teleological version of it. Natural Selection has no fore-thought. The trait of having sickle-shaped red blood cells cells is actually less fit than normal cells, but the trait is favoured because it is linked to the trait of malaria resistance. Odd that nobody sees this as a problem for evolutionary theory. This book has theistic philosophy written all over it. They just try to keep it hidden so the US law courts wont notice it. not for them that 'an uncaused cause (that's not eternal) can never happen, I suggest they take that up with an quantum physicist.' I admit I don't understand quantum mechanics but I do understand the peer to peer review process and I'm more than happy to follow that. I don't see quantum mechanics undergrads rushing out to join Christianity after their first class either.  |
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Feb 7, 2011 21:23:07 GMT
O.k. I am not a quantum physicist, but a scientist anyway (a biochemist).
Are there ‘uncaused’ events in science? Let us look at science in practice. As far as I know, being a scientist myself, in the tens of thousands scientific laboratories around the world the principle of looking for natural causes to natural effects is still very much alive. In fact, science as it is currently practiced and will be in the foreseeable future, is firmly based on this central principle. It obviously includes the broader assumption that every effect has a cause.
There appears to be some confusion, however, as to whether the findings from quantum mechanics suggest a loosening of the bond between cause and effect. Such a loosening does not really take place. Yet what does happen in the realm of quantum processes, is that a cause does not have a deterministic effect anymore, but a probabilistic effect. That the bond between cause and effect is unbroken is proven by the fact that the statistical distribution of the effects can be represented by exact mathematical formulas.
This can be well illustrated by radioactive decay: The cause for radioactive decay is the instability of certain types of atom which triggers them to loose a particle, e.g. a beta-particle, and in the process to convert into another element. Yet radioactive decay is also a quantum process.
If you have an agglomeration of 32-Phosphorus (32-P) atoms, or an agglomeration of molecules containing 32-P atoms, it is impossible to tell which one of the 32-P atoms will decay next to give stable 32-Sulfur (32-S). However, it is known that the half-life of 32-P is 14.28 days, i.e. after this time half of the material has decayed to 32-S, regardless which precise molecules out of the agglomeration of atoms do the decaying. This holds for any quantity of 32-P that is more than unimaginably miniscule. Even a chemically barely detectable trace amount of 1 femtomol still has 600 million atoms 32-P atoms. Obviously, this is still such a huge number that, statistically, also this tiny trace amount will always decay with a half-life of precisely 14.28 days. The cause for the decay is the instability of the 32-P nucleus, and the effect is always this precisely determinable half-life. Thus, there is a clear correlation between cause and effect, a probabilistically determined correlation. Certainly, on the local level of the lowest imaginable quantities, statistics cease to work, but the correlation between cause and effect is still there. Let us assume, hypothetically, that we have an agglomerate of just three 32-P atoms. One may decay in, let’s say, the next two minutes, one in 4 weeks, and another one in 10 months. Obviously, a statistically determined half-life of 14.28 days will only work on a global level of many atoms, but not on the local level of these three atoms. The effect is random – who can predict when exactly these three atoms will decay? Nobody can. But is the cause for the decay different from that for a larger agglomeration of 32-P atoms, for which a half-life of precisely 14.28 days could be determined? No, of course not. The cause is still the exact same instability of the 32-P nucleus.
Thus, the effect of decay is still tied to that cause, even though the factor of precise statistical determinability falls away. The cause is the same, regardless if the effect is that the decay takes place within 2 minutes, or after 10 months.
***
It should be clear from this that the concepts of ‘random effect’ and ‘cause-less effect’ are two very different things. ‘Random’ in science means ‘by chance’, ‘unpredictable’, ‘indeterministic’ but not ‘uncaused’.
Therefore, an ‘uncaused’ event, much less an entire ‘uncaused’ universe, ‘spontaneously from nothing’, has no support from any observational findings in science.
|
|
|
|
Post by himself on Feb 8, 2011 0:09:19 GMT
I've also read Midgley's response to Dawkins' response. Dawkins tried to have it both ways in his book about original sin: The Selfish Gene, and Midgley called him on it. For that matter, so have other practicing naturalists and geneticists. Dawkins' notion that organisms are simply tools used by genes selfishly advancing their own agendas are too bizarre. Yes, he constantly says his language is metaphorical and can be cashed out; but he has never done so. + + + [Fodor's] book has theistic philosophy written all over it. They just try to keep it hidden so the US law courts wont notice it.Fodor is an atheist. His complaint against natural selection is that it is too teleological, and thus crypto-religious. Most people don't realize that Fodor's critique was on the logical level, not the biological level. For that matter, another atheist, David Stove, has also been mighty caustic about the logical holes in the theory. I don't see quantum mechanics undergrads rushing out to join Christianity after their first class either.Why should they? If they did, they would not get to sit at the Kool Kids table. The contention was that quantum mechanics somehow meant that there were causeless effects. But this is not anything to do with the science of quantum physics, but with the metaphysical story called the Copenhagen interpretation. But be careful of embracing it because it also means embracing the idea (per Heisenberg) that matter itself cannot be explained materialistically. And that the physics is now about our knowledge of the world and says nothing about the world itself. The many-worlds story was an attempt to get around the paradoxes -- yet many camp followers do not hesitate to embrace BOTH Copenhagen AND Many-Worlds. The transactional theory is yet another effort to dismiss the paradoxes, and one that seems quite promising. For a popular-level article on transactional quantum mechanics, see here: www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw16.htmland here: www.analogsf.com/0412/altview.shtml |
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 8, 2011 1:38:15 GMT
O.k. I am not a quantum physicist, but a scientist anyway (a biochemist). Are there ‘uncaused’ events in science? Let us look at science in practice. As far as I know, being a scientist myself, in the tens of thousands scientific laboratories around the world the principle of looking for natural causes to natural effects is still very much alive. In fact, science as it is currently practiced and will be in the foreseeable future, is firmly based on this central principle. It obviously includes the broader assumption that every effect has a cause. There appears to be some confusion, however, as to whether the findings from quantum mechanics suggest a loosening of the bond between cause and effect. Such a loosening does not really take place. Yet what does happen in the realm of quantum processes, is that a cause does not have a deterministic effect anymore, but a probabilistic effect. That the bond between cause and effect is unbroken is proven by the fact that the statistical distribution of the effects can be represented by exact mathematical formulas. This can be well illustrated by radioactive decay: The cause for radioactive decay is the instability of certain types of atom which triggers them to loose a particle, e.g. a beta-particle, and in the process to convert into another element. Yet radioactive decay is also a quantum process. If you have an agglomeration of 32-Phosphorus (32-P) atoms, or an agglomeration of molecules containing 32-P atoms, it is impossible to tell which one of the 32-P atoms will decay next to give stable 32-Sulfur (32-S). However, it is known that the half-life of 32-P is 14.28 days, i.e. after this time half of the material has decayed to 32-S, regardless which precise molecules out of the agglomeration of atoms do the decaying. This holds for any quantity of 32-P that is more than unimaginably miniscule. Even a chemically barely detectable trace amount of 1 femtomol still has 600 million atoms 32-P atoms. Obviously, this is still such a huge number that, statistically, also this tiny trace amount will always decay with a half-life of precisely 14.28 days. The cause for the decay is the instability of the 32-P nucleus, and the effect is always this precisely determinable half-life. Thus, there is a clear correlation between cause and effect, a probabilistically determined correlation. Certainly, on the local level of the lowest imaginable quantities, statistics cease to work, but the correlation between cause and effect is still there. Let us assume, hypothetically, that we have an agglomerate of just three 32-P atoms. One may decay in, let’s say, the next two minutes, one in 4 weeks, and another one in 10 months. Obviously, a statistically determined half-life of 14.28 days will only work on a global level of many atoms, but not on the local level of these three atoms. The effect is random – who can predict when exactly these three atoms will decay? Nobody can. But is the cause for the decay different from that for a larger agglomeration of 32-P atoms, for which a half-life of precisely 14.28 days could be determined? No, of course not. The cause is still the exact same instability of the 32-P nucleus. Thus, the effect of decay is still tied to that cause, even though the factor of precise statistical determinability falls away. The cause is the same, regardless if the effect is that the decay takes place within 2 minutes, or after 10 months. *** It should be clear from this that the concepts of ‘random effect’ and ‘cause-less effect’ are two very different things. ‘Random’ in science means ‘by chance’, ‘unpredictable’, ‘indeterministic’ but not ‘uncaused’. Therefore, an ‘uncaused’ event, much less an entire ‘uncaused’ universe, ‘spontaneously from nothing’, has no support from any observational findings in science. You will have to forgive me I'm just a person who lives in reality, yes I have a biology degree but how does that equate with anything. One of my best friends has a biochemistry degree from Manchester university no less and yet he is a young earth creationist and is studying theology. Ken Ham wants to build a theme park to the extermination to all mankind and all land dwelling animals (that didn't make it to his ark) like this is a good thing. OK there is a god and it is very interested in what we get up to in the bedroom. Please spare me this f**kwitterey, I don't care if there was a first cause or any cause to the universe. Your god is an arsehole don't take my word for it just read your bible. I am not going to join your insane cult just so I can become sexist, racist, homophobic and hate the 'other.' Ignore our own critical thinking abilities and believe any fairy tales you want just don't pretend science led you to them conclusions or you will be shown to be delusional. |
|
|
|
Post by noons on Feb 8, 2011 2:20:39 GMT
You will have to forgive me I'm just a person who lives in reality, yes I have a biology degree but how does that equate with anything. One of my best friends has a biochemistry degree from Manchester university no less and yet he is a young earth creationist and is studying theology. Ken Ham wants to build a theme park to the extermination to all mankind and all land dwelling animals (that didn't make it to his ark) like this is a good thing. OK there is a god and it is very interested in what we get up to in the bedroom. Please spare me this f**kwitterey, I don't care if there was a first cause or any cause to the universe. Your god is an arsehole don't take my word for it just read your bible. I am not going to join your insane cult just so I can become sexist, racist, homophobic and hate the 'other.' Ignore our own critical thinking abilities and believe any fairy tales you want just don't pretend science led you to them conclusions or you will be shown to be delusional. A perfect, spot-on, irrefutable response to Al's post. Time to pack the forum up and dedicate it to Ayn Rand! |
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 8, 2011 3:14:27 GMT
I've also read Midgley's response to Dawkins' response. Dawkins tried to have it both ways in his book about original sin: The Selfish Gene, and Midgley called him on it. For that matter, so have other practicing naturalists and geneticists. Dawkins' notion that organisms are simply tools used by genes selfishly advancing their own agendas are too bizarre. Yes, he constantly says his language is metaphorical and can be cashed out; but he has never done so. + + + This is BS, there is a difference what the selfish gene does what it does and a social group does what it does which incidentally enhances the propagation of that gene, If you and all the other morons don't understand group genetics then at least stop commenting on it as you show yourselves to be idiots.  I don't care if Fodor is a pagan who loves to hug trees, if he is wrong then he is wrong. Anyone who thinks the theory of evolution was too teleological before this dimwit showed up is living in la la land. He doesn't understand the theory and has nothing to add to it. He either does a course in evolution and genetics or but out of a subject he knows naff all about. Just saying that the confusion in quantum mechanics should not in any way give you fairy tale believers any hope what so ever. Just so we are clear on that all will be fine. Again I don't care if the universe was caused or uncaused, whether quantum mechanics has any say on it one way or the other. There is no evidence for your magic man in the sky and it doesn't answer your prayers so just give it a rest will you. You are following the teaching of bronze/iron age goat herders who's book doesn't advance are understanding beyond anyone who had an IQ of 50. If you want to worship this idiot feel free to do so but don't mind us laughing at your gullibility and lack of critical thinking abilities. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Feb 8, 2011 3:21:17 GMT
You will have to forgive me I'm just a person who lives in reality, yes I have a biology degree but how does that equate with anything. One of my best friends has a biochemistry degree from Manchester university no less and yet he is a young earth creationist and is studying theology. Ken Ham wants to build a theme park to the extermination to all mankind and all land dwelling animals (that didn't make it to his ark) like this is a good thing. OK there is a god and it is very interested in what we get up to in the bedroom. Please spare me this f**kwitterey, I don't care if there was a first cause or any cause to the universe. Your god is an arsehole don't take my word for it just read your bible. I am not going to join your insane cult just so I can become sexist, racist, homophobic and hate the 'other.' Ignore our own critical thinking abilities and believe any fairy tales you want just don't pretend science led you to them conclusions or you will be shown to be delusional. A perfect, spot-on, irrefutable response to Al's post. Time to pack the forum up and dedicate it to Ayn Rand! I dislike Ayn Rand with a passion so where are you coming from? |
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Feb 8, 2011 8:47:40 GMT
You will have to forgive me I'm just a person who lives in reality, yes I have a biology degree but how does that equate with anything. One of my best friends has a biochemistry degree from Manchester university no less and yet he is a young earth creationist and is studying theology. Ken Ham wants to build a theme park to the extermination to all mankind and all land dwelling animals (that didn't make it to his ark) like this is a good thing. OK there is a god and it is very interested in what we get up to in the bedroom. Please spare me this f**kwitterey, I don't care if there was a first cause or any cause to the universe. Your god is an arsehole don't take my word for it just read your bible. I am not going to join your insane cult just so I can become sexist, racist, homophobic and hate the 'other.' Ignore our own critical thinking abilities and believe any fairy tales you want just don't pretend science led you to them conclusions or you will be shown to be delusional. A perfect, spot-on, irrefutable response to Al's post. Time to pack the forum up and dedicate it to Ayn Rand! Indeed, the cat out of the bag - again. Or another drunken brawl? As much as I ever did, more than I ever did, I believe in rational debate. But there was a rosy time of innocence when I believed in neoatheists debating rationally. |
|
