Philosophy Now Forum

henry quirk wrote:NB,

Again, if god gives a damn about my opinion (on him/her/it), it seems he/she/it would openly, blatantly, proclaim 'I AM HERE'.

George Burns, knocking on my door, would work.

Anything less ain't gonna work (for me).

Lol!

henry quirk wrote:Does god (omnipotent, omniscient, universe creator) exist?

I don't know (agnostic).


Do I believe god exists?

No (atheistic).


Do I care that god may, or may not, exist?

No (apatheistic).


If god (any god) exists and give enough of a shit to inform me of his or her or its presence, then I'll take note...till then: I got more important things to occupy my head with.

Damn! Once again I find myself in complete agreement with your words, as they reflect my position well. Wish I'd said it as well.

Although for a while I called myself a militant-agnostic, 'I don't know if a 'God' or 'Gods' exist but if they do, Fuck 'Em!'.

I usually describe myself as 'indifferent'.


#

"Fuck 'Em!"

Yep.

NielsBohr wrote:I meant forever in the past. Isn't it clear ? -There is no catch, in the case your are afraid. It is only for some metaphysical understanding.

-Try to think otherwise than as things "we know". Here again, not to invite you to believe, if you won't. This idea about "exact" sciences themselves (physics).

I quote you my grandmother, philosopher when she had time, and we took a lot of time in discussing together when she lived:

To each answer, scientists find 10 questions.

This was most probably told by scientists themselves, on the more or less farer times ago, when they were modest.

Anyway even not told by a known scientist, this is a reality.

I personally read Oppenheimer (on my avatar), who made a concession: Physics are not all.

I think we can be faithful in these personalities who made our modern science.

The phenomenon, above, induct that our knowledge relatively decrease much more than it increase absolutely.

I think we can distill a teaching from this, one of them if you let me, could be this:
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13594

Scientists realized that they were joining with - not only philosophy as they were doing since the ancient Greecs times - but realized also that they were joining religions. At least oriental spiritualities. (Frijof Capra quotes Bohr and Oppenheimer about this).

It was on these times where the most brilliant scientists were also the most modest. Obviously, on our epoch, the laicity of our teaching institutions imply necessarily their atheism. No logical implication, and here is the problem, it is only an empirical one.

Are you using Google Translate? Are you referring to Infinite Universe theory? I think it's clear OUR Universe has not lasted 'forever'.

what's being referred to here is a type of agnostic atheism. You're not full an atheist but you wont believe until you see proof, you therefore are in a grey area.

Blaggard wrote:what's being referred to here is a type of agnostic atheism. You're not full an atheist but you wont believe until you see proof, you therefore are in a grey area.

Damned annoying fence-sitters. I wonder if they are 'agnostic atheists' about unicorns and fairies.

NielsBohr wrote:-I become very interested in your last answer; I think to have understood, now. Actually, you was answering that atheism was the belief that "no proof of God is pertinent".

Okay, but this is not sufficient, because I think exactly as you, although I am a believer.

It is plenty. I don't know what sort of evidence you accept as support for your god hypothesis. Whatever it is, you either are unable to share it, or it isn't very good evidence. Let me give you an example: if you believe in a geocentric universe, the fact that you can plot the movement of the heavenly bodies using Ptolemy's mathematical model is evidence that supports your belief. Every time you look at the sky and all the planets are where Ptolemy says they will be, you have more evidence that your hypothesis is true.
If that is too crude, consider Einstein's General Relativity. It posits a 4 dimensional substance called spacetime, that is warped by the presence of matter. The maths is based on the idea that because of the warping, what looks like a straight line, actually isn't. If you think of a map of Switzerland, it is flat. As a resident, you are no doubt aware that Switzerland itself is not flat and what looks like a ten kilometre walk, is much further, because the landscape of Switzerland is warped. GR is basically the idea that matter (or energy) similarly warps spacetime, not just up and down, but left and right, back and forward. The predictions based on this model are fantastically accurate, at least within the solar system. If from that fact you infer that there is some stuff called space-time, you are making a metaphysical claim; it doesn't follow front he fact that the mathematical model is accurate, that the mathematical model is true, you could as well claim that gravity is caused by angels pushing things together.
The god hypothesis doesn't even make any unique empirically verifiable claims, it is the meaningless assertion that everything that exists is evidence of gods existence. Or Allah, or Shiva, or Zeus, or Tiamat, or Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Take your pick; any story that cannot be proven wrong could be true. Vegetariantaxidermy made essentially the same point, but more succinctly.

NielsBohr wrote:First of all about that, you cannot "contradict a fact", even with an evidence, for the simple reason that a fact is static, a fact has no meaning in itself.

Depends on the fact. There are mathematical and logical facts, 2+2=4, all bachelors are unmarried, that are true even if there are no examples. They are called a priori or analytic in Kantian terms. People have tried to show that the existence of god is of this nature, notably Anselm and Descartes; they failed.
Then there are empirical facts (a posterior/synthetic); these reduce ultimately to sensations, as Descartes argued. It is a fact that sensations exist, it is self refuting to deny it. Everything that we believe about those sensations is theory laden; it is not worth losing any sleep over, but it is nonetheless true.

NielsBohr wrote:-Finally, let me ask you a question:
Don't you have even faith in people you live with, as parents or a friend ?

Bit of an odd question. Anything that could be described as 'faith' in people is of a different order to any faith you have in god. I can show you people; where is your god?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Are you using Google Translate? Are you referring to Infinite Universe theory? I think it's clear OUR Universe has not lasted 'forever'.

-Oh no, Google translate has become better for a pretty while ago, I mean... better than me!

-Excuse-me VT,

I should use the term eternal. But the context about the past was very clear, I think.

-I am not aware about Infinite Universe theory, but some questions went to me, knowing:
If we can conceive mentally a universe which is born, and maybe lasting forever,
why does it seem to be so difficult to imagine a universe eternal in the past, and then ending ?

Nevertheless, this above was not my question, and I am happy about your answer considering that our universe has not last eternally - I makes me an easier work...

My next question is:
Do you think about Big Bang theory, understanding here that our universe had a born ?

uwot wrote:

NielsBohr wrote:First of all about that, you cannot "contradict a fact", even with an evidence, for the simple reason that a fact is static, a fact has no meaning in itself.

Depends on the fact. There are mathematical and logical facts, 2+2=4, all bachelors are unmarried, that are true even if there are no examples. They are called a priori or analytic in Kantian terms. People have tried to show that the existence of god is of this nature, notably Anselm and Descartes; they failed.
Then there are empirical facts (a posterior/synthetic); these reduce ultimately to sensations, as Descartes argued. It is a fact that sensations exist, it is self refuting to deny it. Everything that we believe about those sensations is theory laden; it is not worth losing any sleep over, but it is nonetheless true.

NielsBohr wrote:-Finally, let me ask you a question:
Don't you have even faith in people you live with, as parents or a friend ?

Bit of an odd question. Anything that could be described as 'faith' in people is of a different order to any faith you have in god. I can show you people; where is your god?

Uwot,

I engage a certain work to answer you, as your answers are very well developed.

-Let me omit your first part, because we'll re-find it in the third.

About a "logical fact", if you try to write to a population using "2" for our number 2, but not "4" for our four - or moreover for some population really existing on the Earth, who know computing only until 3 (they say a lot over that) -
even with these basic example, you'll see that "2+2 = 4" is not true anymore...

I think a fact cannot be mathematical, because it is question - not only of signs - but also of a calculation rule, what is everything except a "fact"!
A calculation rule invoke a human acceptation which is not from the reality itself.

and 2 what,
4 what ?

Your calculation is not a "fact", understood as from the reality; you have plenty of example from the chemistry, where when you add one molecule to another, or for your example, 2 molecules to 2 other molecules, you do not obtain - respectively - 2 or 4 molecules.

Your calculation is therefore not a "fact".

-For your "general proposition", I am not sure at all of you understanding Kant. Or maybe am I not gone far enough in his critic of pure reason.

Most probably, I think you have inverted the two kinds of concepts, precisely because Kant did a "correction" of the most used acceptations of these terms.

From my reading, I remember that:

• Synthetic concepts are precisely, for Kant, inner ones, or again "theoretic", or "always true" to bring back your description, and
• Analytic concepts are from experiments.

Otherwise, I have a book in french about "informal logic", which seems to have been "invented" in USA among the 1920's.

But I don't really remember - I can re-find if you are interested what they said - but naturally, I believe that a general proposition as "It rains" (even if you example about bachelors was in a passive way) cannot for itself being considered as true, nor as false.

It most probably is a properly absurd proposition.
-----
About the third part,

I am not sure, and even quite sure of the opposite. Faith in God differ from faith in the truth of simple facts,
but I think that faith in people is of the same kind as faith in God - mainly because of the personified representation we have of him (in our religions).

So: I can show you people; where is your god?
-do you faith people only because you see them ?

Ontological question based on a priori assumption. That's not going to get to the heart of the matter, one might as well quote Anselm and be done with it.

If anyone does not know, either because he has not heard or because he does not believe, that there is one nature, supreme among all existing things, who alone is self-sufficient in his eternal happiness, who through his omnipotent goodness grants and brings it about that all other things exist or have any sort of well-being, and a great many other things that we must believe about God or his creation, I think he could at least convince himself of most of these things by reason alone, if he is even moderately intelligent

It's a mark of truthiness, that even following theologians and priests had trouble with this Aquinas et al.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Blaggard wrote:what's being referred to here is a type of agnostic atheism. You're not full an atheist but you wont believe until you see proof, you therefore are in a grey area.

Damned annoying fence-sitters. I wonder if they are 'agnostic atheists' about unicorns and fairies.

Those are more verified I've seen more books about myth than I have about God, oh no wait, they are the same thing...

And to add to what others have said, vis a vis Science: back then they were more ignorant we should perhaps revise the mark for scientists questions up to 1000 or perhaps a million depends what field they are in as they research. Scientist are only in the business of answering questions, that provide more questions in turn, they are not in the business of answering something truly, only religion claims such puissance.

"There are more questions than answers, and the more I find out the less I know."

Some wise guy, who wrote a song.

NielsBohr wrote:About a "logical fact", if you try to write to a population using "2" for our number 2, but not "4" for our four - or moreover for some population really existing on the Earth, who know computing only until 3 (they say a lot over that) -
even with these basic example, you'll see that "2+2 = 4" is not true anymore...

.. and .. makes .... regardless of what language or notation you use, it is not contingent on populations being able to count to 4.

NielsBohr wrote:-For your "general proposition", I am not sure at all of you understanding Kant. Or maybe am I not gone far enough in his critic of pure reason.

More likely, the latter.

NielsBohr wrote:So: I can show you people; where is your god?
-do you faith people only because you see them ?

I think what you call faith in this instance is closer to what I would call trust.
" the personified representation we have of him (in our religions)" is precisely the metaphysical belief that I compared to Ptolemaic cosmology and spacetime; the difference being that Ptolemy and Einstein can be used to make predictions that come true: they are good models. The god hypothesis may be true, but it is completely useless, except to people who seek an excuse for their idiotic behaviour.

uwot,

About Kant, you wrote right. The reason is not that I am gone not far enough, as Kant told about analytics and synthetics (for about 30 pages) - so the introduction, I don't think effectively that he change his opinion later, and so:

• what relates to inner concepts is analytic,
• what relates to outer, is synthetic.

Why the hell did I remember that the sense of Kant was different from the appellation of "analytics" as a domain of the mathematics ?

uwot wrote:The god hypothesis may be true, but it is completely useless, except to people who seek an excuse for their idiotic behaviour.

Wow, I am totally overtaken, because of the muscles that are in your head.
-You make a presupposition about mind being an analogy to a formalism!

(Understanding the impossibility of a formalism to prove its own hypothesis.)

So how can you understand demonstration, and don't accord any truth in premisses?

N.B.:
I had tragical problems in geometry when I was 15 years old. I did not understand how we could "admit an hypothesis as true" (what would make the later demonstration as useless). You should give your advice to geometry teachers.

NielsBohr wrote:Wow, I am totally overtaken, because of the muscles that are in your head.
-You make a presupposition about mind being an analogy to a formalism!

(Understanding the impossibility of a formalism to prove its own hypothesis.)

So how can you understand demonstration, and don't accord any truth in premisses?

Too much muscle, not enough brain. I'm afraid I can't make much sense of this.
On a general point about demonstrations and premises, I think it is generally true that in order to follow a logical or mathematical demonstration, you need to understand the premises. The same is not true of science, as, for example, Newton pointed out ( http://philosophynow.org/issues/88/Hypotheses_Non_Fingo ) it doesn't matter what you think causes gravity, you can study and measure the effect and attribute it to whatever you like without it making the slightest difference to what actually happens.