Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 7:14 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 3:46 pm The views expressed in the video vindicate my view that it cannot be said with certainty that the universe had a beginning, or will eventually come to an end.

No, the views in the video are not empirical. They're hypotheses awaiting empirical confirmation.

Yes, and why are they awaiting confirmation? Because the question is still wide open.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:Therefore, to say that I do not know how the universe began, or if it even had a beginning, and I don't know if it will eventually end, is perfectly reasonable.

Then your argument is only, "As long as somebody can invent a theory other than that the universe began, I'm free to ignore empirical data." But you're free to do that anyway, so it's not much of an achievement, of course.

There is no empirical data that points to a definite conclusion, therefore, the only sensible course is to treat the matter as pending.

IC wrote:

Harbal wrote:

IC wrote:"It is appointed unto a man once to die, and after this, the Judgment," says the Word. That remains how it goes.

Yes, I know we all die.

Then weigh a certainty against a mere theoretical hypothesis, and consider the right investment of your belief.

I don't invest belief in mumbo-jumbo.

What about this mumbo jumbo tho?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 08, 2024 12:15 am What about this mumbo jumbo tho?

Very interesting; particularly the quick trip round Venus.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 2:32 am The 'Universe', when defined as all-there-is, totality, or everything, at any given moment is made up of, exits as, or is either, one of four things.

1. One infinitely compressed solitary singular piece of matter, which is infinite in size.

2. One infinitely compressed solitary singular piece of matter, within a distance of infinite size of nothing around it.

3. Pieces of matter with distances between and around them.

4. Absolutely nothing, of infinite size

Actual, simultaneous infinity is absurd, because there is no absolute simultaneity even of non-infinite.
Therefore, three out of four are eliminated.
There is no void between pieces of matter, matter is continuous (for example, an electromagnetic field), so the fourth one is eliminated as well.

By the way, the assumption about “Heat death of the universe” has not been scientifically proven, and apparently cannot be proven in principle, for example, Hans Adolf Buchdahl writes of
“the entirely unjustifiable assumption that the universe can be treated as a closed thermodynamic system".


But what is fundamental to us is that matter obeys the Law of Nature.

Both theists and atheists agree on this.

The founder of systematic science, Aristotle, also used the concept of God.

The concept of God connects man with the concept of the sacred.
The concept of the sacred is important for both theists and atheists (“sacred duty”).
My idea of God is the One Law of the Universe.

And this idea is completely scientific and does not need “miracles” - violations of the Law of Nature.


*** , understanding how the 'moral compass' works and where it comes from or exits, exactly, also.***

I have already mentioned my moral compass - to follow my conscience.

In my opinion, everyone who uses conscience will agree with this moral compass.

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 7:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 7:14 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 3:46 pm The views expressed in the video vindicate my view that it cannot be said with certainty that the universe had a beginning, or will eventually come to an end.

No, the views in the video are not empirical. They're hypotheses awaiting empirical confirmation.

Yes, and why are they awaiting confirmation? Because the question is still wide open.

If all it takes to meet the bar of your epistemic demands is for somebody to invent an idea with no empirical facts behind it, then I suggest you might want to raise your bar.

But whatever you please, I guess.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:11 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 7:33 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 7:14 pm
No, the views in the video are not empirical. They're hypotheses awaiting empirical confirmation.

Yes, and why are they awaiting confirmation? Because the question is still wide open.

If all it takes to meet the bar of your epistemic demands is for somebody to invent an idea with no empirical facts behind it, then I suggest you might want to raise your bar.

But whatever you please, I guess.

What an odd thing to say when you are the one with the low bar, and up till now have been accusing me of having the bar set too high. You have definite beliefs about the origin and the fate of the universe, whereas I don't feel able to commit to any particular theory, so I really don't understand how that makes me the one with the low bar.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 1:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:11 am

Harbal wrote: ↑Sun Apr 07, 2024 7:33 pm
Yes, and why are they awaiting confirmation? Because the question is still wide open.

If all it takes to meet the bar of your epistemic demands is for somebody to invent an idea with no empirical facts behind it, then I suggest you might want to raise your bar.

But whatever you please, I guess.

...you are the one with the low bar, and up till now have been accusing me of having the bar set too high.

That's one "accusation" I haven't made at all. What I have pointed out, though, is that you have NO bar for the discovery of the existence of God...in fact, as you have said, you can't even imagine what sort of test or evidence might ever convince you of God's existence.

That's up to you. But it has nothing to do with having a "high" bar. It's not having any bar at all.

But why does Atheism get such a free ride with you? Can the existence of even some unsupported, unempirical theory be sufficient to keep you convinced that you can't decide? Now, THAT'S what we mean by a "low" bar!

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:21 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 1:35 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:11 am
If all it takes to meet the bar of your epistemic demands is for somebody to invent an idea with no empirical facts behind it, then I suggest you might want to raise your bar.

But whatever you please, I guess.

...you are the one with the low bar, and up till now have been accusing me of having the bar set too high.

That's one "accusation" I haven't made at all. What I have pointed out, though, is that you have NO bar for the discovery of the existence of God...in fact, as you have said, you can't even imagine what sort of test or evidence might ever convince you of God's existence.

But neither can you imagine what sort of evidence might ever convince me of God's existence, either. The sorts of things that seem to convince you of God's existence are only convincing if you are already convinced in the first place.

But why does Atheism get such a free ride with you? Can the existence of even some unsupported, unempirical theory be sufficient to keep you convinced that you can't decide? Now, THAT'S what we mean by a "low" bar!

"Atheism", whatever you actually mean by that, gets no kind of ride with me at all. I am just a none religious person, because there is nothing about religion that attracts me. Religion is just a way of making sense of existence metaphysically, and I do not seem to have that particular need; just ask Alexis Jacobi, and he will readily confirm that.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:21 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 1:35 pm
...you are the one with the low bar, and up till now have been accusing me of having the bar set too high.

That's one "accusation" I haven't made at all. What I have pointed out, though, is that you have NO bar for the discovery of the existence of God...in fact, as you have said, you can't even imagine what sort of test or evidence might ever convince you of God's existence.

But neither can you imagine what sort of evidence might ever convince me of God's existence, either.

That's only because there is no sort of evidence you'll accept. It's YOU that it has to convince...I'm already convinced. I can't make it up for you. And you don't even have a bar that can be met.

Says Harbal: "Religion is just a way of making sense of existence metaphysically, and I do not seem to have that particular need; just ask Alexis Jacobi, and he will readily confirm that."

Notice of Confirmation

Statement: Harbal has not a metaphysical bone in his body.

[As a matter of fact I am unsure if he has any bones at all.]

Why is the argument -- the supposition, the belief in -- heat-death so vital to the conversation? If there is a heat-death (etc.) what is the meaning of it? Why is this being debated here? Who is *for* it and who is *against* it and why?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 3:01 pm Statement: Harbal has not a metaphysical bone in his body.

I'm not sure I have any "metaphysical" bones either. As far as I'm aware, they're all physical ones. I'm not sure if metaphysical bones will support as much weight as physical ones.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 3:06 pm Why is the argument -- the supposition, the belief in -- heat-death so vital to the conversation? If there is a heat-death (etc.) what is the meaning of it? Why is this being debated here? Who is *for* it and who is *against* it and why?

I don't know. All I said was that I do not feel able to have any firm opinions about the origin and fate of the universe, which I didn't think was a particularly controversial or unreasonable position, but IC seems to consider outrageous, for some reason.

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 3:20 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 3:06 pm Why is the argument -- the supposition, the belief in -- heat-death so vital to the conversation? If there is a heat-death (etc.) what is the meaning of it? Why is this being debated here? Who is *for* it and who is *against* it and why?

I don't know. All I said was that I do not feel able to have any firm opinions about the origin and fate of the universe, which I didn't think was a particularly controversial or unreasonable position, but IC seems to consider outrageous, for some reason.

It's the same way with agnosticism. Apparently, I'm going to go to hell for not making the right assumptions about what I don't know.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:53 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:49 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2024 2:21 pm
That's one "accusation" I haven't made at all. What I have pointed out, though, is that you have NO bar for the discovery of the existence of God...in fact, as you have said, you can't even imagine what sort of test or evidence might ever convince you of God's existence.

But neither can you imagine what sort of evidence might ever convince me of God's existence, either.

That's only because there is no sort of evidence you'll accept. It's YOU that it has to convince...I'm already convinced. I can't make it up for you. And you don't even have a bar that can be met.

But I don't have any reason to think about it. If someone wants to present me with some "evidence", I'll consider it, but otherwise, I'm just not interested enough in the subject to give it any attention.