Religion II

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

He evidently thinks empiricists should not exclude supernatural beings because their senses are not up to the task

Where is he saying we can indeed trust our senses at least partially? He is saying empiricists suffer from epistemological idealism"It is supposedly totally wrong as compared to epistemological realism, and maybe "religions realism"? .

We all can agree on certain accepted sensory observations of reality if we are honest contrary to it is only in our minds stuff of Dr. Bonnette

This is why when I was accused of being ONLY an imagination in my friends mind, I rather sarcastically told him to play in traffic.

Once again the correct modern view of this old philosophical debate r. Bonnette also ignores the experimental verification of casual events a way to check up how well our senses agree with other humans. Why if it is only in our minds, do so many minds agree?

Yes we understand our senses can not be in a 100 % one to one correlation with reality, but a repeated set of events and their results cam be observed and verified by many observers. This is a main part of the scientific method.

Although the supernatural is not verifiable in empiricism right now, neither is it applicable except when empirically WRONG claims are made by faith based scientists like boxcar

However my appreciation of what can be learned from science and appreciating for example the starry night sky, often invokes a feeling of awe. The hugeness and mystery shown by yes our senses and thoughts may be as powerful to many as "god revealed"

hcap:

Here is the link. http://strangenotions.com/naturalism...cal-nightmare/

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Do you understand what inductive reasoning is ?

Do you?

As rigorously defined by mathematician Giuseppe Peano:

If K is a set of statements which can be mapped one-to-one onto the set of natural numbers 1,2,3, ...

and (K[n] is true) implies (K[n + 1]) is true

and K[1] is true,

then every statement in the set K is true.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

To claim Aquinas is wrong, you need to prove the universe contains at least one necessary being, as defined above.

Why? Why do you get to set the standard for, and define the criteria for proof?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Why? Why do you get to set the standard for, and define the criteria for proof?

Once again.

Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it. Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings.

[emphasis added]

The claim you dispute is highlighted above in bold.

Objective proof requires refuting Aquinas' claim, by showing the existence of a necessary being, in the Universe.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Objective proof requires refuting Aquinas' claim, by showing the existence of a necessary being, in the Universe.

Define "being".

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Define "being".

You mean...you don't have a scientific definition? Haven't any of the high priests of scientism come up with one yet?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You mean...you don't have a scientific definition? Haven't any of the high priests of scientism come up with one yet?

Is he using a "scientific definition" when he makes his demand?

Since equivocation (the distortion of definitions) is a major weapon in the apologists arsenal, it is reasonable and prudent to demand that the apologist define his terms.

[Actor]

Judges 3:

• Now the sons of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord. So the Lord strengthened Eglon the king of Moab against Israel, because they had done evil in the sight of the Lord.
• And he gathered to himself the sons of Ammon and Amalek; and he went and defeated Israel, and they possessed the city of the palm trees.
• The sons of Israel served Eglon the king of Moab eighteen years.
• But when the sons of Israel cried to the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer for them, Ehud the son of Gera, the Benjamite, a left-handed man. And the sons of Israel sent tribute by him to Eglon the king of Moab.
• Ehud made himself a sword which had two edges, a cubit in length, and he bound it on his right thigh under his cloak.
• He presented the tribute to Eglon king of Moab. Now Eglon was morbidly obese.
• It came about when he had finished presenting the tribute, that he sent away the people who had carried the tribute.
• But he himself turned back from the idols which were at Gilgal, and said, “I have a secret message for you, O king.” And he said, “Keep silence.” And all who attended him left him.
• Ehud came to him while he was sitting alone in his cool roof chamber. And Ehud said, “I have a message from God for you.” And he arose from his seat.
• Ehud stretched out his left hand, took the sword from his right thigh and thrust it into his belly. (pronoun trouble.)
• The handle also went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for he did not draw the sword out of his belly; and his shit came out.
• Then Ehud went out into the vestibule and shut the doors of the roof chamber behind him, and locked them.
• When he had gone out, his servants came and looked, and behold, the doors of the roof chamber were locked; and they said, “He is taking a dump in the cool room.”
• They waited until they became anxious; but behold, he did not open the doors of the roof chamber. Therefore they took the key and opened them, and behold, their master had fallen to the floor dead.
• Now Ehud escaped while they were delaying, and he passed by the idols and escaped to Seirah.
• It came about when he had arrived, that he blew the trumpet in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel went down with him from the hill country, and he was in front of them.
• He said to them, “Pursue them, for the Lord has given your enemies the Moabites into your hands.” So they went down after him and seized the fords of the Jordan opposite Moab, and did not allow anyone to cross.
• They struck down at that time about ten thousand Moabites, all robust and valiant men; and no one escaped.
• So Moab was subdued that day under the hand of Israel. And the land was undisturbed for eighty years.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

The biggest complaint against Einstein's theories, prior to being proven, ...

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

... was the theories were based on inductive reasoning.

I'd really like to know where you got that idea. I can derive Einstein's results from basic principles and I do not have to use inductive reasoning.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Actor

I'd really like to know where you got that idea. I can derive Einstein's results from basic principles and I do not have to use inductive reasoning.

Walter Isaacson in his biography Einstein: His Life and Universe supports Showme on that idea.
That is why Einstein was not awarded the Nobel Prize for his "Theory of Relativity or Special Relativity in the 1920's. Instead he was given the 1921 prize for an earlier paper on the photoelectric effect.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Walter Isaacson in his biography Einstein: His Life and Universe supports Showme on that idea.
That is why Einstein was not awarded the Nobel Prize for his "Theory of Relativity or Special Relativity in the 1920's. Instead he was given the 1921 prize for an earlier paper on the photoelectric effect.

Einstein was never given the Nobel Prize for his Theory of Relativity because in the 1920s there was still some controversy over whether the measurements taken during the 1919 eclipse were accurate enough to be conclusive. Afraid of being made to look foolish, should future measurements disprove the theory, the Nobel committee reworded the award to cite the earlier paper and avoid mentioning Relativity.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And you have to admit your ancient Jewish forefathers were light years ahead of you! How did they come up with the concept of eternalness while never once even remotely hinting at the existence of nothing.

You justify attempted Christian extermination and extensive persecution of Jews excusing your vile racist founder of Protestantism Martin Luther.

You have no real understanding of your own Christianity let alone any understanding of Judaism. Nor Islam, Buddhism or any religion other than your knee jerk literal biblical nonsense.

Cosmology is not as important a topic in Judaism as that of an individuals understanding of god. However it is discussed in Kabbalah

Yesh and Ayin
or, Being and Nothingness

There is no more fundamental binarism than yesh and ayin, something and nothing. Yesh means, simply, everything that there is. Ayin is Nothing. God is both.

FYI: Yin yang

Kabbalists on Ayin-Yesh

David ben Abraham ha-Laban, a 14th-century kabbalist, says:

Nothingness (ayin) is more existent than all the being of the world. But since it is simple, and all simple things are complex compared with its simplicity it is called ayin

Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi says:

AYIN means No-Thing. AYIN is beyond Existence, separate from any-thing. AYIN is Absolute Nothing. AYIN is not above or below. Neither is AYIN still or in motion. There is nowhere where AYIN is, for AYIN is not. AYIN is soundless, but neither is it silence. Nor is AYIN a void - and yet out of the zero of AYIN'S no-thingness comes the one of EIN SOF

Parallels with Taoism

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

hcap:

Here is the link. http://strangenotions.com/naturalism...cal-nightmare/

Sorry I still don't understand what his point is and why you think the scientific method is flawed. The supernatural is not in it's purview except as I noted, a means of validating reality claims based on incorrect religious beliefs paraded as science. For instance on the macroscopic scale time running in reverse. Or an "evil gene" ....ala boxcar.

I think many of us take exception when theists try to present religious theories as science or "logical" demonstrations for their case.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Sorry I still don't understand what his point is and why you think the scientific method is flawed. The supernatural is not in it's purview except as I noted, a means of validating reality claims based on incorrect religious beliefs paraded as science. For instance on the macroscopic scale time running in reverse. Or an "evil gene" ....ala boxcar.

I think many of us take exception when theists try to present religious theories as science or "logical" demonstrations for their case.

Neither I nor the author think the scientific method is flawed. The article is about the flawed philosophy of empiricism. Read the intro paragraph.

Also, there is no attempt to claim religious beliefs as science in the article.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Define "being".

Priceless. You made all these claims and you don't even understand the concept.