Stephen Hawking gives up on God!

[Metacrock]

I didn't say science explains X therefore Y. I said I personally value empirical evidence and the scientific method over philosophy in reaching scientific conclusions; and where neither can offer proof for a particular proposition, trying to invent proof (that's speculative) is a futile exercise, particularly where it can't be tested. I'm not inventing a new idea, I'm relying on simple logic. If you claim absence of evidence can prove something that's an argument from ignorance. If you use your unproven conclusion as a premise to prove other more specific claims that's a circular argument. Simple. If I were to say science disproves god I'd obviously be guilty of the same argument from ignorance, but I don't say that.

Belief in God or not belief in God neither is a scientific question no conclusion about it can be scientific.

I'm not that little

;-)

Nope, it's a term scientists use because it's a reality that can skew results if it's not excluded in a systematic way.

making blanket denunciations of whole disciplines because you cant' control them is not systemic.

"I don't like philosophy because it 'snot science." that is not systematic anything. except prejudice I guess.

You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about the "evils" of philosophy.

so? what difference does it make if you express it as an evil, or a "unscientific" or whatever, it's a prejudice, it's based upon the fact that you cant' control philosophy but you have a delusion that scinece backs your view, it does not, and so it's a error in judgment and a silly position. Its' anti-intellectual. Scientism!

I disagree, and I think I have more than adequate reasons for preferring evidence over unproven stories.

O yes, so describing human thought as "unproven story" that's not prejudice it it? NAWWWWW that's just "confirmation bias." Of course not! you said you like that so you couldn't do it yourself!

Holy Irony batman, the guy who doesn't want "confirmation bias. wants to excludes all forms of knowledge that don't' fit the delusion that they back his ideology.

I could see where you might arrive at this conclusion,

duh

but really I can show the flaws in Aquinas' arguments by using the same "thinking" method he used to arrive at his conclusions. He tried to formulate deductive proofs. He began by assuming human intuition (or the various ancient mathematical devices he had to work with) could prove an infinite regress is impossible (and this assumption permeates through almost every single cosmological argument out there).

totally irrelevant. Are they flaws that prevent God form existing? are they flaws in all of philosophy? If Aquinas has a flaw does that mean Heidegger is not good?

I asked if you read Heidegger, I said nothing about Aquinas nothing I believe is based upon Aquinas. Why are you even talking about him?

He reached back to the Greeks (particularly Aristotle) and regurgitated his arguments, which are outdated at this point and for the most part are simply not true (or at least remain unproven and cannot be shown to be necessary).

Assuming that's true, which it 's not (foolish) but even so, so what? I never mentioned him. acting like a flaw in Aquinas excuses you from all philosophy is just super silly.

How much would like to wager on this?

your soul.;-)

I'm not sure how many Aquinas threads I've either started or participated in here on Tweb, but there's been a bunch (you can look them up if you'd like). Similarly I can make quick work of Kalam, the multiple variations of ID arguments, etc. IMO those arguments are so bad it's not much of an intellectual challenge to rip them apart.

I throw darts at my picture of Reagan which is pasted to my dart board. so what? What does this have to do with anything I said?

I am not an ID nothing I said is based upon Id. or Kalam.

None of this refutes anything I said (or is even relevant to the point). The point is he tried to fit reality into a preexisting theological framework (so it's a contrived argument). His cosmological arguments purely rely on Aristotle's metaphysics, which themselves rely on a certain set of scientific assumptions.

you are trying to fit reality into a pre-existing anti-religious framework. he had a lot more justification for his pre existing frame work than you do. That has nothing to do with Heidegger. very very disappointing tehre I was thinking you could follow an argument.

this is nothing but straw man city.

That's sort of interesting, but it doesn't help prove anything? How many people from different religious traditions claim to have mystical or transcendent experiences? I can tell you this exists within all faith traditions (including traditions that stop short of making claims pertaining to a god or what infinity may or may not look like).

do you want to be a thinker o rnot? you are going to have to give up this knee jerk tendency tothink you knkow everying and bursh stuff off just beasue you don't understand it the firs time. you rae missing huge portions of thoguht here by your cavlier silly little prejudices anti-intellectual attitude.

atheism is the death of modern thought that is the proof. instead of listening to the arguments and following a line of reasoning you go off half cocked on a little straw man hunt against an enemy I never brought up. Do you think any mention of philosophy is automatically all philosophy?



science can't reach any conclusion without philosophy. scinece will die the movement it tries to stupid philosophy from proceeding.

If you thought philosophy backed atheism you would be reading it. the only reason you think this is becasue you thing philosophy is some form of reasonable that lends itself to God arguemnts you have to snuff it to destroy God arguments.

[Metacrock]

Right, and I actually agree with this statement. The problem is metaphysics doesn't offer anything of value in this regard either, except a bunch of contrived arguments from ignorance. It doesn't even accomplish what it sets out to do (provide deductive proofs); and it never has.

so ignorant. Anti- intellectual. First of all you just made a metaphysical statement. you are doing metaphysics every time you say "I don't believe in God" you are doing metaphysics. to try to destroy a type of tought because it doesn't lend credence to your little ideology,is selfish, anti-intellectual, and fascist.

Yes, the atheist hatred of human thought is fascistic. It' s nothing short of thought control. Totalizing oppressive control of what people are allowed to think.

It doesn't matter that science began because humans started asking metaphysical questions. What matters is that science has evolved to the point where it's able to provide real solutions for problems, whereas metaphysics is still stuck in a time warp. The simple reason is science is the evolved form of metaphysics, whereas metaphysics is the evolutionary monkey.

No it's not. Science cannot answer any questions of epistemology or metaphysics. that's why you really hate thought, not because it doesn't give answers but becasue it doesn't back the answers you want.


To say that philosophy or metaphysics doesn't I've answer is to do metaphysics. so you just disproved your own argument.

Better stated philosophy "was" the only way of thinking, now it's evolved into a way of thinking that actually can answer questions and solve problems; and we call that way science.

no it can't you can't answer a single metaphysical question without respondent to metaphysical thinking, but you will disguise it scientific thinking. Science itself is metaphysics.

More accurately science wouldn't exist without philosophy, but now it can only be productive by excluding philosophy (except logic, which has itself moved beyond philosophy in many respects).

and also by protecting blood and soil, right?

Using analogy to describe things isn't moving beyond the empirical data (to the contrary). It's using one set of empirical data to provide an illustration for another. It is also an intuitive tool used to identify similarity (and it can be very useful insofar as it can provide a basis for experimentation to see if the similarity is caused by the same thing).

that's nothing ore than mind control. But it will be the death of your little silly movement. No fascist mover has ever succeeded without destroying itself as soon the people it tried to control realized what it was doing.

what kind of logic? It used to be important but it's not how. If it built scinece it must have been good. Not good now, why? because it doesn't back what I want. I want to be important I want to be the kind and I want to screw and don't want big mean God saying aI can't I'm kill big mean God controlling what people can believe in.

This is just rhetorical hyperbole. Atheism doesn't try and do anything in this regard (or anything else for that matter). Atheism just doesn't believe the claims made by theists ... that's it.

the future belongs to us!

We don't even make conclusive statements regarding whether or not a creator of some sort might exist. We admit that we don't know (and we acknowledge that all religion has in its toolbox to make its case is the intrisic reliability of the various holy books it derives its so called truths from).

All you've given me so far is a series of slogans and platitudes that don't prove a thing.

the leaves of the Linden are leafy and green

[Metacrock]

I don't really think you are a Nazi and I think you just haven't thought through the consequences of trying shut down whole disciplines becuase you don't enjoy doing them. I hate math but I don't advocate shutting down the math department.

You are hardly the fist person to think of disagreeing wit a philosopher. That's sort of what philosophy wants you to do. Nor are you the first to think he saw flaws in Aquinas.

finding flaws in the works of philosophers is just how the game is played.

[YourMaster]

so ignorant. Anti- intellectual. First of all you just made a metaphysical statement. you are doing metaphysics every time you say "I don't believe in God" you are doing metaphysics. to try to destroy a type of tought because it doesn't lend credence to your little ideology,is selfish, anti-intellectual, and fascist.

Yes, the atheist hatred of human thought is fascistic. It' s nothing short of thought control. Totalizing oppressive control of what people are allowed to think.

Here we go (down the windy path of theistic absolutism). I'm always amused by the series of false dichotomies you guys use to describe the human experience. When I say science evolved from metaphysics that doesn't mean it hasn't retained concepts that have merit and utility.

To say that philosophy or metaphysics doesn't I've answer is to do metaphysics. so you just disproved your own argument.

Nope, it only shows you don't understand my argument.

no it can't you can't answer a single metaphysical question without respondent to metaphysical thinking, but you will disguise it scientific thinking. Science itself is metaphysics.

There's absolutely no value in this statement. You haven't even constructed a logical argument, much less proven anything. You've only made a bare assertion without any basis.

that's nothing ore than mind control. But it will be the death of your little silly movement. No fascist mover has ever succeeded without destroying itself as soon the people it tried to control realized what it was doing.

I only typed in a response here because this statement is so crazy that I hope you'll take a minute to reconsider your thinking in this regard (other than that I'll let it speak for itself).

what kind of logic? It used to be important but it's not how. If it built scinece it must have been good. Not good now, why? because it doesn't back what I want. I want to be important I want to be the kind and I want to screw and don't want big mean God saying aI can't I'm kill big mean God controlling what people can believe in.

I'll try to respond to what I think you're saying (honestly you're not speaking very clearly). Nonetheless, I think your argument can be reduced to deductive form as follows:

1) X formed Y
2) I say Y is important,
3) Therefore, it is illogical for me to say X is no longer important.

I would qualify premise one a little more (I think it would be more proper to say X "helped" form Y versus inferring X was the only cause of Y, nonetheless I'll grant the first premise). The second premise is also true (I do say Y is important). So the conclusion is valid.

The problem is you failed to understand the context of my statements, and the nuance involved (although I'm willing to grant that I didn't elaborate where perhaps I should have). Not all aspects of X were instrumental in forming Y. Only a subset of X was involved. Therefore, only that subset remains relevant to Y. Indeed X and Y diverged. While Y incorporates some aspects of X, Y has branched off into a distinct thing. We could also frame it inversely by saying that X refused to adopt the innovations of Y (and refused to concede that some of those innovations have proven many aspects of X wrong). Because X has refused to adopt these innovations, and because it continues to base itself on faulty presumptions, everything that flows from it is dubious (and beyond the subset of X that's incorporated into Y, X no longer offers any value for Y, indeed in many respects it's contrary to the method developed by Y).

the future belongs to us!

Emotive statement (we all make them ... I'm no different, but still dude)??? If you have a crystal ball that can make grand predictions, then PM me some stock market tips?

[Metacrock]

Here we go (down the windy path of theistic absolutism). I'm always amused by the series of false dichotomies you guys use to describe the human experience. When I say science evolved from metaphysics that doesn't mean it hasn't retained concepts that have merit and utility.

that's just back peddling. what you really mean is "it has some concepts that are wroth keeping, as long I control them. As long as they are labeled 'scinece' becasue "science3" supposedly helps your side more than mine that way it's "good ideas" are at your disposal and not mine.

when you say "the winding" what you mean is I'm wise to your game. atheism is pr for a cult. it's nothing but self induced brain washing. I'm wise to the brain wash I was an atheist at one time.

you know you are going to get an tenacious because I'm not going to let science destroy everything that makes life good just so some arrogant group of twits (no offense) can feel special with their little science degrees.

Nope, it only shows you don't understand my argument.

you know I do. You know i see through your ruse. You tried to impose a huge argument based upon criticisms you never made of a philosopher I never mentioned. that's a huge stack of demerits.

NO SOUP For YOU! ;-)

[/B]

There's absolutely no value in this statement. You haven't even constructed a logical argument, much less proven anything. You've only made a bare assertion without any basis.

that's what makes your tirade all the more absurd. i haven't even made an argument yet and you are arguing against it. here's the statement:


"no it can't you can't answer a single metaphysical question without respondent to metaphysical thinking, but you will disguise it scientific thinking. Science itself is metaphysics."

there's no value in the observation that our arguments against metaphysics are wrong a propri becuase they have to employ metaphysics to be made, that's so invaluable you have to mock and ridicule it. it only undermines everything you said, I can see why you would dis value it sure.

I only typed in a response here because this statement is so absurd and crazy really that I hope you'll take a minute to reconsider your thinking in this regard (other than that I'll let it speak for itself).

So pointing out that your abhorrence of metaphysics requires the employment of metaphysics is absurd and crazy, why would that be? Of course I'm sure since you are so well read you do know that major philosophers have pointed this out going back to Wiltshire, and Gilson right? yes that's really crazy. Herbert Butterfield, Basil Wyllie, A.E. Brutt o yea it's really stupid if A.E. Burtt said it.

I'll try to respond to what I think you're saying (honestly you're not speaking very clearly). Nonetheless, I think your argument can be reduced to deductive form as follows:

1) X formed Y
2) I say Y is important,
3) Therefore, it is illogical for me to say X is no longer important.

I would qualify premise one a little more (I think it would be more proper to say X "helped" form Y versus inferring X was the only cause of Y, nonetheless I'll grant the first premise). The second premise is also true (I do say Y is important). So the conclusion is valid.

actually I said two separate things.

(1) criticisms of metaphysics are not in the domain of scinece. it not science's job to comment on thinking disciplines that comes under the heading of philosophy. So science is transgressing it's domain to do that. you must enter the world of metaphysics to comment on metaphysics even to say its' not good.

to say "metaphysics is false" is a metaphysical statement.

that's one argument. I think "observation" would be more appropriate

(2) Science is a form of metaphysics.

you reduced that to Metaphysics is some primitive form of scinece that helped science get started, as though tis' some kind of scientific training wheels, then it has to be discarded once science is going.

I didn't even say metaphysics helped scinece. I said scinece is a from of metaphysics.

But it still can't take over metaphysics as though it's the only form because it has a domain that's not the realm of philosophy. it's more like in becoming scinece, natural philosophy lost its wings and became a ground keeper rather than an angel. silly analogy but what the heck.

Science limits it's to explaining the physical workings of the world. it is not about God it's not to transgress the world of theology or philosophy.

The problem is you failed to understand the context of my statements, and the nuance involved (although I'm willing to grant that I didn't elaborate where perhaps I should have). Not all aspects of X were instrumental in forming Y. Only a subset of X was involved. Therefore, only that subset remains relevant to Y. Indeed X and Y diverged. While Y incorporates some aspects of X, Y has branched off into a distinct thing. We could also frame it inversely by saying that X refused to adopt the innovations of Y (and refused to concede that some of those innovations have proven many aspects of X wrong). Because X has refused to adopt these innovations, and because it continues to base itself on faulty presumptions, everything that flows from it is dubious (and beyond the subset of X that's incorporated into Y, X no longer offers any value for Y, indeed in many respects it's contrary to the method developed by Y).

your argument is a bait and switch. you are removing the actual suggestion I made (say "argument" in an informal sense) and replaced it with your own idea. Now you are trying to correct what you represent as my view because it's not enough like the view you replaced it with.

Metaphysics is not thinking about realms beyond our understanding. Thinking about such realms is a metaphysics but that's not the definition of metaphysics. Whiltshire defines it as "Thought about Thought about the world."

In a Heideggerian sense, which is the one I am really speaking in, metaphysics is grouping sense data into preconceived categories for the purposes of controlling how we think about the world. pretty ironic hu? using Heidgger and complaining about Nazis. Well I can also use Marcuse who had a very similar notion.

Emotive statement (we all make them ... I'm no different, but still dude)??? If you have a crystal ball that can make grand predictions, then PM me some stock market tips?

you are blind to what you are doing. what you are doing is trying control what people are to think. That's what atheist is really about.

have you read Orwell? Scientism is Orwellian

[YourMaster]

that's just back peddling. what you really mean is "it has some concepts that are wroth keeping, as long I control them. As long as they are labeled 'scinece' becasue "science3" supposedly helps your side more than mine that way it's "good ideas" are at your disposal and not mine.

when you say "the winding" what you mean is I'm wise to your game. atheism is pr for a cult. it's nothing but self induced brain washing. I'm wise to the brain wash I was an atheist at one time.

you know you are going to get an tenacious because I'm not going to let science destroy everything that makes life good just so some arrogant group of twits (no offense) can feel special with their little science degrees.

I initially assumed you weren't a native English speaker, but I just looked at your profile. Apparently I was wrong (your profile states that you're a PhD candidate, live in Dallas, TX, and you're not exactly a kid). Maybe you have a disability of some sort (if so my apologies), but if not is there any way you could put a little more care into your typing and grammar?

I'm not trying to nit pick, but your posts are very difficult to read.

you know I do. You know i see through your ruse. You tried to impose a huge argument based upon criticisms you never made of a philosopher I never mentioned. that's a huge stack of demerits.

NO SOUP For YOU! ;-)

[/b]

Ummm, okay?

there's no value in the observation that our arguments against metaphysics are wrong a propri becuase they have to employ metaphysics to be made, that's so invaluable you have to mock and ridicule it. it only undermines everything you said, I can see why you would dis value it sure.

With all due respect Meta ... you're not doing theism many favors here?

your argument is a bait and switch. you are removing the actual suggestion I made (say "argument" in an informal sense) and replaced it with your own idea. Now you are trying to correct what you represent as my view because it's not enough like the view you replaced it with.

Metaphysics is not thinking about realms beyond our understanding. Thinking about such realms is a metaphysics but that's not the definition of metaphysics. Whiltshire defines it as "Thought about Thought about the world."

In a Heideggerian sense, which is the one I am really speaking in, metaphysics is grouping sense data into preconceived categories for the purposes of controlling how we think about the world. pretty ironic hu? using Heidgger and complaining about Nazis. Well I can also use Marcuse who had a very similar notion.

you are blind to what you are doing. what you are doing is trying control what people are to think. That's what atheist is really about.

have you read Orwell? Scientism is Orwellian

Of course that's my real agenda ... deny the human race their liberty and force them to read my books (and of course donate to the YM pleasure fund).

Anyway ... great talking to you dude, I feel enlightened.

[Metacrock]

Do you know what grammar is? you use the wrod but you don't know it's meaning.

I do not put the subject and the object in the wrong place, my tenses are in agreement the number and person is in agreement. I don't say "I ant got no X" I don't say "are you guy going to the store?"

My grammar is good. Maybe I don't put into it the sort of care I do with a seminar paper, don't look now but this antn no seminar, got it? this is not a peer reviewed venue understand me?

How stupid can you get? some guy calling himself "sabaduouga" can come on here and go " me no like Christians" that's perfectly fine.He's brilliant. A scholar talking about the greatest thinking in human history making a few little typos and dyslexic letter reversals is totally discreted for a mistake most of these guys would be doing well come up to making.

crazy! I ran an academic journal and presented papers conferences, you are not even well red in philosophy.

[Metacrock]

I initially assumed you weren't a native English speaker, but I just looked at your profile. Apparently I was wrong (your profile states that you're a PhD candidate, live in Dallas, TX, and you're not exactly a kid). Maybe you have a disability of some sort (if so my apologies), but if not is there any way you could put a little more care into your typing and grammar?

I'm not trying to nit pick, but your posts are very difficult to read.

you are clutching at straws like the average atheist. You have no counter argument so you attack my personality.



Ummm, okay?

[/B]

\With all due respect Meta ... you're not doing theism many favors here?

by saying things you don't understand? Trying to brow beat a position becuase you answer it honestly is not an option. If you don't know who Heidegger was and you can't answer a position just say so. I wont put you down for a lack of knowledge,. I will put you down for pretending like my knowledge is not good because it's something you don't know.

You can't make philosophy go away because you are not into it. I know what thoughts are major in human history and what one's are not. I am Ph.D. Candidate in history of ideas. showing me that you are alarmed by things you have not read before is not the way o win an argument with me.

Of course that's my real agenda ... deny the human race their liberty and force them to read my books (and of course donate to the YM pleasure fund).

Anyway ... great talking to you dude, I feel enlightened.

It is. You really need to think about it because you have been hood winked by a mind control game. Atheism = mind control. They are not thinkers they are certainly free thinkers.

A free thinker does not take the position that a whole discipline of the academy is stupid becasue it doesn't back up his world view. That is not free thinking.

If atheism was really about free thinking they wouldn't try to destroy religious ideas. A real free thinker would encourage thinking of all kinds. They fact that they are crusading agaisnt so many kinds of thinking, essentially any kind that's not scientism, is a dead give away.

[Metacrock]

The irony is I began by asking if you read Heidegger and you give me a lecture on why metaphysics is bad. That turned out to be a sham because you don't even understand what metaphysics is.

The real irony is that Heidegger is against metaphysics. The only problem is you are a metaphysician! Right, the atheist game of scietistic control of thinking is nothing more than a form of metaphysics; in the Heideggerian scheme of things.

Not all philosophers agree with him of course. But for H. metaphysics is the grouping of sense data under pre conceived categories for the purposes of supporting a given world view. That's what you are doing as a naturalist.

The Heideggerian alternative to metaphysics is phenomenology.

I'm sorry that you are not aware of any of this. that doesn't make it wired or strange or crazy it just means you are not well red. calling it names wont beat the argument.

[showmeproof]

Metacrock, what properties do you attribute to a ground of being? Can the ground of being think, express itself through various modes of communication, can the ground of being be jealous, angry, sad, happy, infer other's intentions, recall memories, desire others to perform certain behavioral tasks, or desire them to refrain from other behavioral tasks?

If so, why do you think that such a myriad of properties could be a ground of being? I've heard WLC attempt to assert that there are only two 'necessary' beings; one being a mind, and another numbers. However, the assertion that a mind is a 'necessary' being is completely off the mark scientifically speaking. The mind, including the properties listed above, are performed by neural networks and are therefore dependent upon something; they cannot be
'necessary' nor 'properly-basic', nor a 'ground of being'.

So what has your ground of being done, and what can it do? If it is merely ground of being it seems that it can have no will or intention.

[YourMaster]

you are clutching at straws like the average atheist. You have no counter argument so you attack my personality.

I have no counter argument? Oy!

by saying things you don't understand? Trying to brow beat a position becuase you answer it honestly is not an option. If you don't know who Heidegger was and you can't answer a position just say so. I wont put you down for a lack of knowledge,. I will put you down for pretending like my knowledge is not good because it's something you don't know.

Interestingly you magically started typing somewhat coherently

You can't make philosophy go away because you are not into it. I know what thoughts are major in human history and what one's are not. I am Ph.D. Candidate in history of ideas. showing me that you are alarmed by things you have not read before is not the way o win an argument with me.

Darn ... I can't make philosophy go away (awwww man ....). Nevertheless, let's see if I can find any substance here. I'll answer Heidegger's question for him. It doesn't matter so much that philosophers forgot to ask what "being" means ... because it's just another question they can't answer (since philosophy doesn't seem to be in the business of answering questions).

It is. You really need to think about it because you have been hood winked by a mind control game. Atheism = mind control. They are not thinkers they are certainly free thinkers.

Wow .... now that sounds like a well informed, enlightened, and brilliant response that must have taken an immense amount of thought (in the tradition of philosophy).

A free thinker does not take the position that a whole discipline of the academy is stupid becasue it doesn't back up his world view. That is not free thinking.

You're right he doesn't; but he does take that position if it is indeed stupid

Nonetheless, I don't dismiss all philosophy outright (being critical and dismissive are two different things). Moreover, it's not as if there aren't plenty of atheist philosophers to choose from (so I certainly don't need to dismiss philosophy in order to validate a skeptical world view). Indeed I would say many skeptics are profoundly influenced by philosophy.

I just don't think philosophy has produced anything of any real value since David Hume. A philosopher who tries to quantify human motivation has about as much value to me as a political commercial. When there's so much data and emerging science in areas like neurobiology, sociobiology, human psychology, emergence, evolution (and biology more generally speaking), physics, etc. that actually can and will provide real answers, why should I care about some dead guy's guesswork (regardless of how well informed it was)? I'm not saying it doesn't have literary value, and I'd also say philosophy has value insofar as it asks questions that compel us to find answers (I just haven't heard philosophy actually come up with an answer to any of its own questions).

In this respect philosophy is just bad (and lazy) science. Some guy dreams up an explanation for all human motivation. Being is care or some simplistic maxim like that. He doesn't bother to do a study and actually prove his theory. No evidence, just an opinion, and usually not even a good opinion. In the rare event that a philosophical opinion actually correlates with reality, we'd have to say it was a lucky guess (because their evidence is usually confined to historical and anecdotal evidence). To clarify, I'm not saying historical evidence is always bad in this regard. However, it's limitations should be understood; and before we extrapolate from historical evidence a bright line rule that describes something as complex as human motivation, we should look to science for answers and verification.

This wouldn't really be much of problem if philosophers simply stopped short of trying to answer the questions they ask without any evidence. However, they often don't (and many people are persuaded on the basis of unproven and speculative philosophy). When a philosopher makes an argument that lends itself to proof (e.g. deductive proof) I certainly wouldn't deny its value (and as long as the premises he uses in his arguments don't amount to guesswork).

If atheism was really about free thinking they wouldn't try to destroy religious ideas. A real free thinker would encourage thinking of all kinds. They fact that they are crusading agaisnt so many kinds of thinking, essentially any kind that's not scientism, is a dead give away.

I don't hear many skeptics publically rallying against philosophy. This is my personal opinion (and not one shared by all or perhaps even most of my peers in the skeptical community).

It's fine to ask why are we here. However, an intellectually honest philosopher should say:

A) We don't know,
B) We must account for the possibility that sufficient reason doesn't require purpose,
C) Indeed there could be no purpose, and
D) Science, not philosophy, is likely our only real hope for finding answers to these sort of questions (if there are answers to be found).

Furthermore, I take issue with philosophers who try and twist science to fit their world view, without any empirical evidence (usually relying on circular arguments or arguments from ignorance). This was fine before the scientific age (when we didn't have the information we have today); but these days, in many cases, it simply amounts to a misrepresentation of science (and manipulation).

[Metacrock]

Metacrock, what properties do you attribute to a ground of being? Can the ground of being think, express itself through various modes of communication, can the ground of being be jealous, angry, sad, happy, infer other's intentions, recall memories, desire others to perform certain behavioral tasks, or desire them to refrain from other behavioral tasks?

Good questions. I am of the opinion that God is above petty emotions. So when the Bible says he's bilious that's a literary device so we can relate. The ground of being can well be the center of consciousness. I can't prove that but looking at a lot of evidence panpsychism. I'm drifting toward ideas like theistic proto panpyschism, but I realize we are far from proving that. So would be careful trying to make too many analogues between human personality and the divine consciousness. But I think it si the ground of the personal, the ground of consciousness, but that doesn't mean it's prefectly analogous to our understanding of consciousness.

If so, why do you think that such a myriad of properties could be a ground of being?

It only takes one really. I agree with the view point of Bishop George Berkeley, also with Vedanta (the Hindu sect?). That is, I think mind is the basis of reality. Rather than energy or matter (which is a form of energy) mind is a more fundamental form of energy and thus is the basis of reality. That one quality, mind or consciousness in some form is all that's needed to house all of those different properties which would be effects of consciousness.

I've heard WLC attempt to assert that there are only two 'necessary' beings; one being a mind, and another numbers. However, the assertion that a mind is a 'necessary' being is completely off the mark scientifically speaking. The mind, including the properties listed above, are performed by neural networks and are therefore dependent upon something; they cannot be
'necessary' nor 'properly-basic', nor a 'ground of being'.

you are confusing mind with brain. Brain is just the house that mind lives in. I'm assuming that brains are not the only the of mind, that only applies to biological organisms. The argument is consciousness is not reducible to brain function but is a basic property of nature.

here's a video of Chalmers, pklease click on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyS4VFh3xOU

So what has your ground of being done, and what can it do? If it is merely ground of being it seems that it can have no will or intention.

what does it have to do? It's the basis of reality.

[Metacrock]

I have no counter argument? Oy!



Interestingly you magically started typing somewhat coherently



Darn ... I can't make philosophy go away (awwww man ....). Nevertheless, let's see if I can find any substance here. I'll answer Heidegger's question for him. It doesn't matter so much that philosophers forgot to ask what "being" means ... because it's just another question they can't answer (since philosophy doesn't seem to be in the business of answering questions).

I can answer it I know what it means. You got that argument from HRG on carm didn't' you? I've been kicking his ass on this for years. There is absolutely no problem with that. Go read Tillich Systematic Theo VII.

Wow .... now that sounds like a well informed, enlightened, and brilliant response that must have taken an immense amount of thought (in the tradition of philosophy).

thanks. do you want to see the link to Chalmers singing Zombie blues?

You're right he doesn't; but he does take that position if it is indeed stupid

Nonetheless, I don't dismiss all philosophy outright (being critical and dismissive are two different things). Moreover, it's not as if there aren't plenty of atheist philosophers to choose from (so I certainly don't need to dismiss philosophy in order to validate a skeptical world view). Indeed I would say many skeptics are profoundly influenced by philosophy.

I was going to say that next. I was an atheist. when I was an atheist I hated other atheists who said philosophy is no good.

I just don't think philosophy has produced anything of any real value since David Hume.

never read Kant hu? Hume liked Berkeley did you know that? That's really immensely silly position. But then who have you read? That's kind of crucial, if all you have rad is Hume (I'm sure it's not but then who?).

A philosopher who tries to quantify human motivation has about as much value to me as a political commercial.

why must we quantify motivation? why would you think a philosopher's job is to quantify anything?

When there's so much data and emerging science in areas like neurobiology, sociobiology, human psychology, emergence, evolution (and biology more generally speaking), physics, etc. that actually can and will provide real answers, why should I care about some dead guy's guesswork (regardless of how well informed it was)? I'm not saying it doesn't have literary value, and I'd also say philosophy has value insofar as it asks questions that compel us to find answers (I just haven't heard philosophy actually come up with an answer to any of its own questions).

you are a reductionist. you don't value any form of knowledge that the ones' that back you as the most important thing in the universe, which the bull honky you bough into to become an atheist. the crap they brain washed you with, your own ego.

you have no basis for asserting such silly positions but you are doing it anyway because you imagined that any position is automatically privileged. its' not.

your position is metaphysics becasue you are seeking to control reality. look at your choices, you only knowledge that allows control.
That makes you a metaphsyicisian.

In this respect philosophy is just bad (and lazy) science.

No it's not. you only value scinece, so you wont seek to understand other position. science is stupid. science is putting your head in the ground and refusing to think. scinece is "make me king, If I can't control I want to play!"


I don't' care. I don't' care about your selfish little ego. i am in life to learn about life, I don't give a damn about phony little quantization crap.

Some guy dreams up an explanation for all human motivation. Being is care or some simplistic maxim like that. He doesn't bother to do a study and actually prove his theory. No evidence, just an opinion, and usually not even a good opinion. In the rare event that a philosophical opinion actually correlates with reality, we'd have to say it was a lucky guess (because their evidence is usually confined to historical and anecdotal evidence). To clarify, I'm not saying historical evidence is always bad in this regard. However, it's limitations should be understood; and before we extrapolate from historical evidence a bright line rule that describes something as complex as human motivation, we should look to science for answers and verification.

do you realize that all you are doing here is regaling us with a list of your likes and dislikes? These are not arguments, they are values, and pretty P.poor ones. You can't pretend to be value free on the one hand then turn around privilege your values on the other.

This wouldn't really be much of problem if philosophers simply stopped short of trying to answer the questions they ask without any evidence. However, they often don't (and many people are persuaded on the basis of unproven and speculative philosophy). When a philosopher makes an argument that lends itself to proof (e.g. deductive proof) I certainly wouldn't deny its value (and as long as the premises he uses in his arguments don't amount to guesswork).

you don't understand it. they don't try to answer anything that's not it. you can't answer the questions. Science is useless. any attempt you make to answer epistemological moral or metaphysical questions you have to go beyond scenic and use philosophy, but you will try to sneak it in as scinece.

you are really being hypocritical. you are just rejecting answers that don't private your ideology and your truth regime.

I don't hear many skeptics publically rallying against philosophy. This is my personal opinion (and not one shared by all or perhaps even most of my peers in the skeptical community).

they sure do. on every message board most atheists do. go over to carm and ask who likes philosophy.

It's fine to ask why are we here. However, an intellectually honest philosopher should say:

A) We don't know,
B) We must account for the possibility that sufficient reason doesn't require purpose,
C) Indeed there could be no purpose, and
D) Science, not philosophy, is likely our only real hope for finding answers to these sort of questions (if there are answers to be found).

Furthermore, I take issue with philosophers who try and twist science to fit their world view, without any empirical evidence (usually relying on circular arguments or arguments from ignorance). This was fine before the scientific age (when we didn't have the information we have today); but these days, in many cases, it simply amounts to a misrepresentation of science (and manipulation).

but you twist to fit your agenda. you sneak philosophy in the back disguised as scinece to support your agenda. The BS crap that reductionism tells us is nothing more than twisting scinece to support a philosophy.

Philosophers don't see tho answer such questions but they seek to know what it means that we can't answer or what we would need to answer them. To think that science is all we need to the exclusion of global knowledge is absurdly anti-thought and anti-human.

that's all atheism is good for. it is the thought of the fool to deny God.


you have not yet made a specific argument, all you did was tell us your likes and dislikes. Make an argument that pertains to the original issues in the thread.

too many atheists think they can score a cheap victory by ruling out huge portions of thought without specifically addressing ideas.

[YourMaster]

I can answer it I know what it means. You got that argument from HRG on carm didn't' you? I've been kicking his ass on this for years. There is absolutely no problem with that. Go read Tillich Systematic Theo VII.

I didn't even know what CARM is to be honest Meta (I just had to look it up).

I was going to say that next. I was an atheist. when I was an atheist I hated other atheists who said philosophy is no good.

At one time I had a greater appreciation for philosophy (that is until I studied science). I still have an appreciation for some philosophy, but it's much more limited now.

never read Kant hu? Hume liked Berkeley did you know that? That's really immensely silly position. But then who have you read? That's kind of crucial, if all you have rad is Hume (I'm sure it's not but then who?).

First, of course I've read Kant. Secondly, yes I'm aware of Berkeley's influence on Hume (and Hume, in his work on induction and causation, really finished the job). IMO Hume's philosophy embodies the scientific method (and I can't overstate the contribution I believe he made to not only science but human thinking in general).

why must we quantify motivation? why would you think a philosopher's job is to quantify anything?

I agree (this has sort of been my point). Philosophy cannot quantify motivation (and it would great if they stopped trying). The lesson from Hume is that we cannot understand something as complex as motivation unless we understand every single possible factor that can influence it. Indeed our starting point must be comprehensive statistical data. Even if we notice certain patterns, we can't take it for granted that they apply broadly (without understanding the entire potential sample size well enough to know we can do a statistical study and arrive at good data that falls within a quantifiable margin of error).

This was the brilliance of Hume. I'd even go further and say that he created perhaps fatal problems for philosophical rationalism and he narrowed the relevance of philosophy and metaphysics to formal logic. When I say relevance please understand the parameters of my statement. Philosophers can ask questions, and push us to find answers, but outside the rigor of scientific method they can't answer those questions. They can't do things like insert subjective inputs in a mathematical formula or deductive argument and expect to arrive at a conclusion that has any real merit.

you are a reductionist. you don't value any form of knowledge that the ones' that back you as the most important thing in the universe, which the bull honky you bough into to become an atheist. the crap they brain washed you with, your own ego.

Empty rhetoric.

you have no basis for asserting such silly positions but you are doing it anyway because you imagined that any position is automatically privileged. its' not.

You're the one who imagines your position is automatically privileged, not me. Science subjects itself to rigorous peer review, and theories are often debunked. It is designed to eliminate presumptions like automatic privilege and confirmation bias.

your position is metaphysics becasue you are seeking to control reality. look at your choices, you only knowledge that allows control.

That makes you a metaphsyicisian.

Again, a rhetorical statement that amounts to a shallow platitude. If you want to call my worldview a metaphysical one I really don't care. If you think that validates your approach, then fine (I disagree, but at the end of the day I really don't care that much if you agree with me or not).

No it's not. you only value scinece, so you wont seek to understand other position. science is stupid. science is putting your head in the ground and refusing to think. scinece is "make me king, If I can't control I want to play!"

With every word you sink yourself further into the abyss of obscurity.

I don't' care. I don't' care about your selfish little ego. i am in life to learn about life, I don't give a damn about phony little quantization crap.

Let's appeal to philosophy and examine the question of ego. Nietzsche said something along the lines of the man who humbles himself wishes to be exalted. In other words humility as a virtue is the ultimate expression of ego. Whether that's true or not (or is even quantifiable) is questionable, but religion gets no "humility" points from me. Indeed I can think of few things more arrogant than religion. What could be more egotistical than the idea the entire cosmos was built just for us.

you have not yet made a specific argument, all you did was tell us your likes and dislikes. Make an argument that pertains to the original issues in the thread.

too many atheists think they can score a cheap victory by ruling out huge portions of thought without specifically addressing ideas.

My arguments were made pages ago. Indeed even in my last post I made an argument. I said sufficient reason doesn't require purpose. If a raindrop kills a fly was there purpose in it? You might like to think there was a divine hand involved, but that's not a necessary assumption, and you can't prove it is (it's just one you prefer, I note without a drop of evidence).

You want to take issue with the idea that we should demand evidence for things for obvious reasons; without challenging that view religion would have no ground to stand on. They have nothing to substantiate their fantastic mythic stories. They have no more evidence than the Greeks had for Zeus, the Vikings had for Thor, etc. (which is zero). Your argument is really all that's left for you guys. Challenge the merit of the demand for evidence itself, or say obscure and unquantifiable things can count as evidence (which gives you writ to define whatever you want as evidence). The unprecedented degree of arrogance should be obvious to anyone, but the trick is that you guys disguise it as humility and call anyone who challenges you arrogant.

No wonder why Paul spent so much ink warning you people about evil intellectuals. What he proposed was so mind numbing that is was easily predictable intellectuals would attack it at every turn. It actually programs you to view intellectualism that doesn't correspond with and validate your worldview, as evil. This is the classic definition of indoctrination. It plays off of our propencity towards superstition, finding relationships between things without adequate evidence, it manipulates group dynamics, etc. It's an appeal to everything that's irrational about our species.

And yes .... this is called an argument.

[Jon_Day]

I greatly enjoyed that last space alien post.