Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:10 am
attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:40 am
There is no 'jumping to a conclusion' on my part. I am stating that an ontological study, consideration, analysis of the metaphysical can eventually lead one to an avenue where empirical evidence is drawn, in the case of your debate - God.
Point is, it is impossible to link 'what is ontological' to 'what is empirical'.
When one is anchored on the empirical of definite experience and knowledge [Justified True Beliefs] and speculate therefrom one can always track back to one's grounding.
But to start from ontology one has no grounds to track back [jumping the gun].
I disagree. Ontology is akin to imagination, such that a man thought hey there could be a mechanical method of transport where my horse is no longer required. This man then conceived of the idea of steam to power such a machine, using empirical evidence of the affect that boiling water has to cause pressure within a contained space, hey presto, we have a train.
I'm certain (sorry to resort to this chap again) that Einstein had far reaching metaphysical inquiry to formulate his theories, and of course, eventually most of them were empirically proven.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:57 amattofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:40 amVeritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:57 amI hold the philosophical beliefs [as with a ton of other philosophers*], what is ontological cannot exists in reality and is definitely non empirical.
* are you familiar with their arguments?
I agree, that which is ontological, is not empirical, but to suggest that that which is ontological, after great study and investigation, cannot result in empirical evidence is irrational.
Ever since the idea of God emerged thousands of years ago, there has been no proofs God has any empirical reality nor linkage. The arguments against the idea of God is increasing with time. The early arguments for god were very stupid and every new argument for god can be easily topple. The trend is there are more non-theists.
Just because I cannot prove this 3rd parties existence to others- the one referred to as 'God', does not mean that I had no empirical evidence provided personally to me. (21yrs worth in fact).
I agree, early arguments for God were generally pathetic, and these days, yes people are turning to atheism in droves, since what was proposed back then was so ridiculous it has permitted the likes of Dawkins, a fucking biologist to further their doubt, rejecting any in depth thought of the nature of reality, the field of phycisists.
Personally, I think the more we discover at the sub-atomic level about its complexity, theories of multiple dimensions\universes, the more I think people should wise up, and reconsider their switch to atheism.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:57 amattofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:40 amI've never formally studied philosophy, I've occasionally read some material where I have found an interest, but those 'tons' of philosophers that you mentioned I doubt would hold much sway with the likes of Einstein.
Albert Einstein, Remarks on Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knowledge, Ideas and Opinions, 1954
By his clear critique Hume did not only advance philosophy in a decisive way but also - though through no fault of his - created a danger for philosophy in that, following his critique, a fateful 'fear of metaphysics' arose which has come to be a malady of contemporary empiricist philosophising; this malady is the counterpart to that earlier philosophising in the clouds, which thought it could neglect and dispense with what was given by the senses. ... It finally turns out that one can, after all, not get along without metaphysics.
No doubt Einstein was great but he was limited.
Einstein could not penetrate and he resisted the truths of the more advanced Quantum Mechanics.
Einstein's critique of Hume is very narrow and limited to his relatively 'narrow' perspective of Physics. Thus Einstein's critique of the giants of Philosophy cannot be credible.
Einstein had a 'narrow' perspective of physics! Really? Just because the extremely small perplexed the shit out of him you have drawn that conclusion.
So here are your true colours. You have spent your vocational education on Philosophy, where lets face it, these days has little to offer by way of employment, even within the sciences. So you are left with the few opportunities to make a living - perhaps resorting to the fields of psychology\psychiatry, pondering still over those you call 'the giants of philosophy' no doubt the atheist ilk.
But hey, you get to profess what you have studied upon this very forum, but have you truly given (in this case) the concept of a 'God' in any form a serious analysis, or have you erred to the thoughts of your favourite atheist philosophers, supporting your own belief, that reality has no 'being' behind its construct?
That you comprehend the sub-atomic matter so well, that you still feel justified in deploring theism because its so easy to attack those concepts formulated aeons ago, concepts we both agree are generally ridiculous.