Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:05 pmIt is one way of explaining it, but you aren't going to like the implications. The apple is always moving. Even when it isn't falling.

Aren't I lucky then, that there are plenty of other underdetermined theories about gravity that I can pick from?

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:32 pm Aren't I lucky then, that there are plenty of other underdetermined theories about gravity that I can pick from?

You aren't picking from the underdetermined ones. You picked the false one.

So back to the question: Is it possible that you claim to be using theory X when you are actually really using theory Y?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:33 pm

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:32 pmAren't I lucky then, that there are plenty of other underdetermined theories about gravity that I can pick from?

You aren't picking from the underdetermined ones. You picked the false one.

That's just the silly pantomime nonsense that Immanuel Can tries. I have not picked a theory of gravity, it is only you that thinks so for whatever aesthetic reasons tickle you. You too are arguing with your own strawman. If you ever resolve your differences with your imaginary friend, perhaps we can have a discussion about what is actually said.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:43 pm That's just the silly pantomime nonsense that Immanuel Can tries. I have not picked a theory of gravity, it is only you that thinks so for whatever aesthetic reasons tickle you. You too are arguing with your own strawman.

You are making claims about motion and acceleration consistent with the false theory's semantics.

You are USING the words the way Newton would use them to speak about the things being observed.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 1:43 pm If you ever resolve your differences with your imaginary friend, perhaps we can have a discussion about what is actually said.

I don't have an imaginary friend, but I thought we already covered this? If I did - he would be of precisely the same kind of nature as your gravity.

Underdetermined.

Of course I am neither a theist, nor a philosopher - so I don't believe in God or Gravity. But then again - I believe that I don't have any beliefs.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 9:40 am I know...

Well, you say you "know" a great deal that I can't see any reason to believe you "know" at all...most importantly, you claim to have insights about people's hidden motivations for decision-making, that I can't see any way you "know" are true.

But there it is.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:02 pmWell, you say you "know" a great deal that I can't see any reason to believe you "know" at all.

Do you think I am wrong to say that I know apples fall to the ground?

Skepdick wrote:

Gravity transcends narratives too.

Is there then no explanation for gravity? I thought that net diagram thing that bends more with a heavy item was the explanation.I cannot find a good illustration of what i saw on television. I think it is called gravitational field. Maybe calling a force a field does not explain the force.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:25 pm Skepdick wrote:

Gravity transcends narratives too.

Is there then no explanation for gravity? I thought that net diagram thing that bends more with a heavy item was the explanation.I cannot find a good illustration of what i saw on television. I think it is called gravitational field. Maybe calling a force a field does not explain the force.

You can talk about it as much as you like and fill a book. But the book will still fall off the table whatever is IN the book.
And you can talk about theism and its benefits as much as you like but its still a lie.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:24 am Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a Supreme Being or deities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

It is very common knowledge that most theists will defend their theism like there is no tomorrow and some theists will even kill those who are perceived as a threat their belief in a God.

So what are the great benefits of theism to a theist or a group of theists that justify and drive some theists to the extreme of injuring and killing other humans?

Theists are mostly just born into the beliefs around them. I do not think they consider "theism" as having specific benefits, since most of them are not free to consider a life without theism.
I imagine most considerations concerning NOT believing are mostly dire since the majority around them are beleivers, and the conequences of being heretical can be fatal, or ostracism in various ways.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 7:21 pm You can talk about it as much as you like and fill a book. But the book will still fall off the table whatever is IN the book.
And you can talk about theism and its benefits as much as you like but its still a lie.

And that's how you spot an intellectual fraud.

He cherry-picks his experiments to agree with his biases. Not even an ounce of charity to opposing view-points.

If books falling off tables is the test for gravity, then reality existing every time you open your eyes is the test for God.

Ironically. If you are on the space station books don't actually fall off the table. But reality is still there.

So one could totally argue that the evidence for God is much stronger and way more universal than the evidence for gravity.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:25 pmIs there then no explanation for gravity? I thought that net diagram thing that bends more with a heavy item was the explanation.I cannot find a good illustration of what i saw on television. I think it is called gravitational field. Maybe calling a force a field does not explain the force.

If you google images of General Relativity, you'll find a version of the illustration you saw. The maths of General Relativity is extremely accurate and so is a better 'law' of physics than Newton's law. Physicists don't generally care what names are given to things so there is no consensus in what a law is, but generally it tells you what something does to our best approximation. The same indifference applies to 'theory', but generally a theory will include some element that can't be measured. So for instance the theory of evolution is that over generations living creatures adapt to exploit ecological opportunities better, rather than that they are designed for a particular purpose. Newton's law of universal gravitation is a law because it doesn't include anything that can't be measured; it is literally just an equation. Einstein's equations are more accurate, but the theory part is the 'fabric of spacetime' that the net diagram thing that bends represents.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:25 pm Is there then no explanation for gravity?

There are. Multiple.

In so far as all scientific theories go, they all have ...problems.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:25 pm I thought that net diagram thing that bends more with a heavy item was the explanation.I cannot find a good illustration of what i saw on television. I think it is called gravitational field. Maybe calling a force a field does not explain the force.

Yeah, it's meant to represent a geodesic, but it actually gives you the wrong intuition.

The bowling ball on the trampoline "bends" the trampoline BECAUSE the bowling ball has mass and it's pulling the trampoline surface towards Earth. It's sort of cheating by mixing up the cause and effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_r ... nalogy.svg

Because spacetime is curved the notion of "straight line" becomes blurry - like a "straight line" on the surface of a sphere.

But look... I am explaining the ontological assumptions of General Relativity to you. The key part of all this is that there's no way to determine whether there is such a thing as "spacetime" and whether it is actually curved.

It's just the mathematical model we use to reason about the phenomena we are observing. It's an abstractions which allows us to make accurate predictions.

It works really really well (except when it doesn't - at quantum scale), but whether it's "true" - that's not a question for science.

tillingborn wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:17 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 6:02 pmWell, you say you "know" a great deal that I can't see any reason to believe you "know" at all.

Do you think I am wrong to say that I know apples fall to the ground?

"Apples" are not rational creatures. And "falling to the ground" is not an aesthetic exercise.

I think your claim to know why people do what they do is unwarranted.

But you knew that. You were just doing the old "twist" routine.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:09 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:24 am Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a Supreme Being or deities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

It is very common knowledge that most theists will defend their theism like there is no tomorrow and some theists will even kill those who are perceived as a threat their belief in a God.

So what are the great benefits of theism to a theist or a group of theists that justify and drive some theists to the extreme of injuring and killing other humans?

Theists are mostly just born into the beliefs around them. I do not think they consider "theism" as having specific benefits, since most of them are not free to consider a life without theism.
I imagine most considerations concerning NOT believing are mostly dire since the majority around them are beleivers, and the conequences of being heretical can be fatal, or ostracism in various ways.

It is true the majority of people are born into a family of a theistic-religion.

It is noted there are various benefits associated with a religion, i.e. social, etc.

I believe there is a very fundamental psychological benefit associated with being a theist-proper, i.e. when one is conscious enough to believe in a God that is a real agent that is all powerful.

This is when God the supposedly all powerful is believed as a consonance [security blanket. psychological crutch] to deal with the inherent existential dissonance. This is the soteriological and psychological aspects of theism which are most critical over all other benefits.

Understanding this psychological aspect of theism is most critical to humanity because it is this inherent forces that drive SOME evil prone theists to commit very significant terrible violent and evil acts upon non-believers and others.
In addition, theists especially those from Islam, Christianity & some others are very resistant to the greater advances of humanity.

It is because humanity did not zoom into the details of this critical aspect of theism that terrible violent and evils has been committed by theists in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Buddhism and some religions do address the existential dissonance directly, thus there are no room in Buddhism holy texts* that motivate Buddhists to commit terrible evil and violent acts in the name of the Buddha or Buddhism.
*there are mentioned of violence in their text but of no significance at all.

note: just in case, all types of evil must be addressed, this thread is confined to evil committed by theists.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:51 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Feb 11, 2021 8:09 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:24 am Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a Supreme Being or deities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

It is very common knowledge that most theists will defend their theism like there is no tomorrow and some theists will even kill those who are perceived as a threat their belief in a God.

So what are the great benefits of theism to a theist or a group of theists that justify and drive some theists to the extreme of injuring and killing other humans?

Theists are mostly just born into the beliefs around them. I do not think they consider "theism" as having specific benefits, since most of them are not free to consider a life without theism.
I imagine most considerations concerning NOT believing are mostly dire since the majority around them are beleivers, and the conequences of being heretical can be fatal, or ostracism in various ways.

It is true the majority of people are born into a family of a theistic-religion.

It is noted there are various benefits associated with a religion, i.e. social, etc.

But that is a negative benefit as I said.

I believe there is a very fundamental psychological benefit associated with being a theist-proper, i.e. when one is conscious enough to believe in a God that is a real agent that is all powerful.

Disagree.
Having the threat of punishment; thinking that you need to continually appease god; begging for forgiveness are not positive psychologically.
It is no con-incidence that real social and economic progress are historically associated with periods of sketicism, agnosticism and atheism.

This is when God the supposedly all powerful is believed as a consonance [security blanket. psychological crutch] to deal with the inherent existential dissonance. This is the soteriological and psychological aspects of theism which are most critical over all other benefits.

A slave might feel secure.
But it is no way to live

Understanding this psychological aspect of theism is most critical to humanity because it is this inherent forces that drive SOME evil prone theists to commit very significant terrible violent and evil acts upon non-believers and others.

no shit?

In addition, theists especially those from Islam, Christianity & some others are very resistant to the greater advances of humanity.

It is because humanity did not zoom into the details of this critical aspect of theism that terrible violent and evils has been committed by theists in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Buddhism and some religions do address the existential dissonance directly, thus there are no room in Buddhism holy texts* that motivate Buddhists to commit terrible evil and violent acts in the name of the Buddha or Buddhism.
*there are mentioned of violence in their text but of no significance at all.

note: just in case, all types of evil must be addressed, this thread is confined to evil committed by theists.