New or Used

Sorry if this is off topic, BUT for some reason, this thread reminds me of the Beatles song:
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.

There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say, but you can learn
How to play the game
It's easy.
Nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do, but you can learn
How to be you in time
It's easy.

All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love. Love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love. Love is all you need.

There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where
You're meant to be
It's easy.

All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love. Love is all you need.
All you need is love. (All together now).
All you need is love. (Everybody).
All you need is love, love. Love is all you need.
Love is all you need.
Love is all you need

(Yesterday)
(Oh yeah)
(She love you, yeah, yeah, yeah)
(She love you, yeah, yeah, yeah)
(Oh, yesterday)
 
Craz - I think you are spot on. Throw in some Elvis gospel and we can have a regular hootenanny. Hootenanny = archaic U.S. southern slang for party!
 
Who, what, where, when?
LOL. Calm down, Wil! Anyone would think science was sacred!

The idea of the limits of science, or a variation of it, comes up from time to time. New Scientist has shown that religion will outlive science, and currently The End of Science by John Horgan, a senior writer at Scientific American, has posed the question, not with regard to 'has science discovered everything there is to discover', but rather whether science is indeed 'the royal road to the truth' as the western world assumes it to be.

Science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without ever having examined its advantages and its limits. And as the accepting and rejecting of ideologies should be left to the individual it follows that the separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution. Such a separation may be our only chance to achieve a humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realized. (Paul Feyerabend Against Method)

My comment was a response to your own:
Debating the unknown is mental masturbation.... Contemplating the unknown.... admirable past time ...
All science proceeds from the unknown. I know your 'stream-of-consciousness' mode of posting tends to these kind of ill-conceived statements, but it's worth pointing out that if we did not know you better, your comment endorses the worst form of fundamentalism, the 'what I don't know' becomes the fixed limit of anyone's and everyone's knowledge.

And your comment is flawed. Science has done a great deal to solve the problems of the world. It's greed that continues them, not science.

+++

The very question raised here is no better answered than by Aristotle, and Aristotle had some interesting arguments to make, such as his critique of the idea of 'infinite regress' (and the 'who made god' question is just bad science).

if only religions...
Oh Wil ... if you were going to offer a philosophical viewpoint, then it might be relevant, but that's not where you're coming from. You're about to offer a highly subjective opinion, and set up a false and worn-out dichotomy.

You and Nick just can't let go of the past, and want to fix us all in prejudices we resolved centuries ago.

It's the old Buddhist tale and the monk who carried the woman over the river. When are you two going to put her down, and move on.
 
I usually enjoy your post but this reply misses the mark. In my opinion.
OK.

Although it is true that ignorant people have made such remarks about science they too have made similar remarks about theology. I personally think neither can possibly be accurate.
Quite – I was rather hoping this thread would not get dragged off into the false dichotomy of 'science v religion' espoused by some of the correspondents here.

There are countless disagreements over the meaning of infinity and eternity.
OK.

I contend that eternity is recurrent time with endless duration and infinity is recurrent space with endless vastness. Time/Space/Turtles. Works for me!
OK. But can I ask this – is this not talking time and space as physical properties? I ask because metaphysics is taken up with the a priori idea that there's more to the cosmos than the materiality ... that space and time are effects.

I would say the issue for metaphysics is 'being' as such, and that time and space, and our perceptions of it, are subsequent ...

You rehearse two ideas: of infinite regress, or creatio ex nihilo, and I suppose it's no great leap to say I'm with Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas on that one – :D – but the question you devolve from it ... I wonder ...?

Seems the question becomes ... the primacy of sensory experience ... (v) ... an absolute leap of faith?
I wonder if this either or is not itself a false dichotomy?

Faith is not merely a deficiency of knowledge. There is an element of certitude, but then is that what you meant by a 'leap in the dark'?

Faith is not a deficiency of knowledge per se, that is ignorance. Faith is often founded on fact, as it were, and then goes on to prove the object of faith. The problem here, as my citation from Feyerabend above, is that science has become something of an ideology – scientism – and as such is self-affirming in such a way as to close out any other way, a de facto religion.

(A nephew of mine is a research chemist, and I once overheard him say "Of course I don't believe in God, I'm a scientist!" with the absolute self-belief the young tend to have. There are so many fundamental flaws, assumptions and ideologies (indeed, idolatries) wrapped up in that statement, I'm afraid I just smiled and walked away... )

I'm arguing, in short, for metaphysics, that's founded on the experiential, but asks the question outside 'the experiential box', what is it to be? Hence my mention of Aristotle and his Metaphysics.

There, it seems to me, is a reasoned, rational and logical approach to the question that is not dependent upon an a priori leap of faith, but rather a thesis built from the ground up?
 
Craz - I think you are spot on. Throw in some Elvis gospel and we can have a regular hootenanny. Hootenanny = archaic U.S. southern slang for party!

Sounds great to me. I am familiar with Elvis gospel and know Hootenanny . Let's have some doo-wop as well.:)
 
Oh Wil ... if you were going to offer a philosophical viewpoint, then it might be relevant, but that's not where you're coming from. You're about to offer a highly subjective opinion, and set up a false and worn-out dichotomy.

You and Nick just can't let go of the past, and want to fix us all in prejudices we resolved centuries ago.

It's the old Buddhist tale and the monk who carried the woman over the river. When are you two going to put her down, and move on.
I love that story....and think it quite appropriate....

And also enjoy how you tell me what I think and what I am going to say...

Cause I surely don't know...and you make it so much easier.

But Nick...the natural division between scientists and religion is just because one is constantly edging the other out.

Not the theologians typically...or the hierarchy...but the masses that believe the simple side of religion...7 days...6,000 years...they don't like change...

anyone who doesn't like change has an issue on this planet....maybe the next game field will be easier for them.
 
Congratulations Thomas. I don't think I have ever read a more misleading retort. Your verbose disassembly of my post reveals no hidden agenda on my part. My words stand on their own. Thanks for participating though.

[I read your post again. Maybe I misunderstood. Edgy]:confused:
 
Last edited:
Seems the question becomes -- challenging the primacy of sensory experience what sort of data is certain and why. Is it the way of gathering facts about the world, say seeing -- is that more dependable than others -- say, an absolute leap of faith? Edgy.

Just reminding myself what the actual discussion is. Also, hoping that we can avoid the distraction of science versus religion - a dead end road.

What gets to me about these discussions is that people almost always miss the point of science and the point of religion. Science will never have all the answers. Those answers it does find will have to do with the physical reality we reside in. And it always will.

Religion looks to find answers to those things outside the purview of science. The metaphysical. The Gods. Afterlife. Reincarnation. Everything to do with why we are here and where will we go.

Science tries to answer the how we are here and what might we achieve moving forward.

They are entirely separate disciplines. And they always will be. At best the two run along parallel lines, side by side. They cross paths from time to time. True. But join. No.

Soooo. To answer the OP's question. It is not a matter of choosing which one to follow in attempting to determine what data is more certain. For me, at least, it is that both have something to offer in answering that question. Different things to offer as far as answers, to be sure. The wise person dips into both.
 
Seems the question becomes -- challenging the primacy of sensory experience what sort of data is certain and why. Is it the way of gathering facts about the world, say seeing -- is that more dependable than others -- say, an absolute leap of faith? Edgy.

Just reminding myself what the actual discussion is. Also, hoping that we can avoid the distraction of science versus religion - a dead end road.
I really hope so.

What gets to me about these discussions is that people almost always miss the point of science and the point of religion.
Good start.

Science will never have all the answers. Those answers it does find will have to do with the physical reality we reside in. And it always will.
Yep.

Religion looks to find answers to those things outside the purview of science. The metaphysical. The Gods. Afterlife. Reincarnation. Everything to do with why we are here and where will we go.
Yep.

Science tries to answer the how we are here and what might we achieve moving forward.
Yep.

They are entirely separate disciplines. And they always will be. At best the two run along parallel lines, side by side. They cross paths from time to time. True. But join. No.
I would agree except for the 'side by side' bit, if we're talking metaphysics a la Aristotle, and not theology (being a secular/philosophy thread. I wouldn't bring in religion or theology here).

I'm using 'metaphysics' in its secular sense, the discussion of first causes.

Aquinas says it right from the outset:
However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections. (Aquinas, ST Q1 a8.)

Soooo ... It is not a matter of choosing which one to follow in attempting to determine what data is more certain. For me, at least, it is that both have something to offer in answering that question. Different things to offer as far as answers, to be sure. The wise person dips into both.
Which is why I was suggesting metaphysics, as it seems to me that metaphysics will and must have something to say about nature as well as theology.

I would say that some sciences do not cross the meta horizon, where others naturally do – cosmology being such a science at the moment – and that's when we start getting 'headline-grabbing' claims that don't stand up to too much critical attention. (And that is where I agree with 'science as an ideology' per Feyerabend).

All I was suggesting is that metaphysics is the middle ground between the either/or of the question ...

I wonder if this is to do with the supposed analytic v continental philosophy dispute?
 
Oh God, I hope so, and if so, my bad.

It seems I'm pissing everyone off at the moment.

My fault! In my defense I just read the book "Aristotle and an Aardvark" which is all about doublespeak, misleading facts and the 'art' of twisting peoples words. Nice little book but enough to make anyone a little paranoid. While we will never agree on everything I will promise this: I will read your post twice before commenting. :)
 
My fault!
No probs. I think an online discussion forum is about the worst medium to hold a discussion ... everybody thinks their comments are self-evident, everyone thinks they know what the other person is thinking.

While we will never agree on everything I will promise this: I will read your post twice before commenting. :)
Is all that one can ask ...

As for 'turtles all the way', I'm with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, but that's another thread, I would think. :)
 
Oh Good Gods Above and Below! Thomas you cannot be serious. Kalam? Foundation for the term Kalamity? Another of our regular posters (postees??) bangs on with this rubbish. Kalam is one of the worst abusers of the concept of logic as a defense of an argument. He simply strings non sequiters together with no foundation for any of his statements.

Okay I am ranting. lol. Give me a moment......

Okay I'm back and zen again.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause; (No. Not necessarily).
2. The universe began to exist; (No. Not necessarily).
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause. (No. Not necessarily).

This argument is a classical case of failed logic every step of the way. It is a triumph of logical fallacies every step of the way.

1. is the fallacy called Appeal to probability which is a statement that takes something for granted because it would probably be the case (or might be the case).

2. is the fallacy called Argument from ignorance which assumes that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

3. is the fallacy called Fallacy of exclusive premises which is a categorical syllogism that is invalid because both of its premises are negative.

I mean Really. Anyone can play this game.

1. Every thought has a foundation in knowledge.
2. Thoughts exist.
Therefor:
3. Knowledge is the cause.

See. Easy. Can anyone prove me wrong? Nope. Does that mean my logical statement is correct. Certainly not!
 
Okay -- what have you done with Thomas? From metaphysics to KCA! hehe!

I can get into metaphysics with you but I do have difficulty with Kalam.

As an afterthought. You used the term self-evident in an earlier post. I do agree that inflection is most often impossible in a discussion forum, thus misunderstandings occur.

As to defining God, metaphysics, KCA, etc...I can only define God for me. But I do feel God is self-evident! Any doubt or disagreement comes in the wager regarding which God.
 
I think an online discussion forum is about the worst medium to hold a discussion ... everybody thinks their comments are self-evident, everyone thinks they know what the other person is thinking.
yes it is an issue, but where else in quazi real time can the layman of any belief system discuss any belief system with folks from various corners of the globe.... Asia, Europe, Aussies and coast to coast stateside...

It ain't the best, egos get bruised, heads get bumped, panties get bunched, but we move forward...and learn...
 
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause; (No. Not necessarily).
When you say 'not necessarily', are you inferring Hume's argument of causality, or the idea of things popping into existence in the Quantum realm?

If Hume, I would say that's not a given that he's refuting 'cause and effect' per se.

If Quantum Physics, I would say the 'nothing' is not the metaphysician's nothing, but actually something, the Quantum Vacuum – is it not the necessary medium for an apparently spontaneous event to occur? (Energy, and all that jazz?)

I'm taking my argument from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

So I quite like their revised Kalam:
1: If something has a finite past, its existence has a cause.
2: The universe has a finite past.
3: Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
4: Since space-time originated with the universe and therefore similarly has a finite past, the cause of the universe's existence must transcend space-time (must have existed aspatially and, when there was no universe, atemporally).
5: If the cause of the universe's existence transcends space-time, no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe.
6: If no scientific explanation can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (personal meaning 'in terms of the intentional action of a rational agent' – not – I cannot stress this enough – the God of faith).

+++

If I've got this wrong – I'm not a scientist nor a philosopher – please don't lose your rag! :eek: It's just that it seems logical enough.

The arguments against an actual infinite (universe), for example, seem more credible than the arguments against a finite universe ... but that's me.

But failing that, I would argue, and I think you agree, that we might both hold to opposing views, but those views are not infallible ... so must, should, and can co-exist.
 
In the world of positive integers.... there is a finite beginning. 1 and an infinite ending.

Our thought caused 1?

Or did 1 always exist?

Is it possible that a finite beginning always existed?

....whee he slides down the rabbit hole....

That what was before it was zero (nothing)?

....and then off the deep end....

That what was before that was negative?
 
5: If the cause of the universe's existence transcends space-time, no scientific explanation (in terms of physical laws) can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe.
6: If no scientific explanation can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be personal (personal meaning 'in terms of the intentional action of a rational agent' – not – I cannot stress this enough – the God of faith).

I liked this, it points to Platos allegory of the Cave I think, we can't really understand infinity in the same way we can't understand more then three dimensions. It outside our experience and might possibly always be outside our experience.
 
Back
Top