Lost your password? Questions? Email admin @ theologyweb.com
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Shuny, you DO know this is in philosophy, not Nat Sci, right? The question has to do with whether reason and cause are the same thing - Hume is actually pretty on point - unlike your objection here.
Yes, but it is a comparison of the philosophical/theological and the scientific perspective of 'nothing.' You actually brought up the scientific view 'What is the nature of the beginning of a singularity?. The comparison between the scientific view of reasons, cause and effect chain of events and outcomes is a real issue here. Yes, the scientific perspective is rooted in the Philosophy of science.
Nonsense, this is as true today as it was in his day:
We cannot justify our assumptions about the future based on past experience unless there is a law that the future will always resemble the past. No such law exists. We can deny the relationship without contradiction and we cannot justify it with experience.
Nonsense,yes what is reality does not change, but the philosophical and scientific views change over the years,
. . . Hume does not represent the contemporary scientific view of reason, causes, and the nature of chains of cause and effect outcomes..
Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-06-2019, 07:19 AM.
OOhh Lookie! A copy Cat trying to hide his mistake!
No mistake, Still waiting for a coherent response. Science definitely does not propose 'the singularity that our universe appeared out of nothing.' Some philosophers do support this alternative to the theist claims. This is actually a philosophical question in science how reasons, cause and effect outcomes, and the nature of beginnings in terms of our beginnings.
Does this section also exclude theological alternatives in answer to these questions?
Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-06-2019, 08:03 PM.
No mistake, Still waiting for a coherent response. Science definitely does not propose 'the singularity that our universe appeared out of nothing.' Some philosophers do support this alternative to the theist claims. This is actually a philosophical question in science how reasons, cause and effect outcomes, and the nature of beginnings in terms of our beginnings.
Does this section also exclude theological alternatives in answer to these questions?
This is from a philosophical article on the origins of our physical existence.
*emphasis mine
NPR...
And any problem magically goes away if we put the word 'quantum' in front of it... Except maybe Quantum of Solace...
So, where did this 'quantum nothing' come from? Oh, that's right - no where. Since we don't have an answer or any potential for one, we'll just start after the actual origin and run from there. Goal post shifting for the win!
It is a fallacy to 'curse the source' and not address the substance of the reference and the philosophers cited. The source is accurate as far as how the scientists and philosophers consider what the Quantum Nothing is.
And any problem magically goes away if we put the word 'quantum' in front of it... Except maybe Quantum of Solace...
So, where did this 'quantum nothing' come from? Oh, that's right - no where. Since we don't have an answer or any potential for one, we'll just start after the actual origin and run from there. Goal post shifting for the win!
We don't have an answer for where God came from either except for the assertion of belief that God is eternal. We do not have answer or any potential for one other than belief.
From the scientific view the Quantum Nothing has no known beginning, simply has been falsified to exist underlying all of our macro physical existence, and whether the Quantum World from which our universe began is eternal or temporal cannot be falsified. It is a view based on the philosophy of science. Some philosophers believe that the Quantum World is boundless, but again there is no way to falsify whether our physical existence has a beginning or not.
These represent a philosophy based on science, and one based on a theological belief. 'Arguing from ignorance' based on unknowns cannot justify one over the other.
Last edited by shunyadragon; 08-07-2019, 08:36 AM.
What I was asking was whether or not reasons and rationality are subject to the laws of causality, minus indeterminacy. It's related to the free will question. If the reasons that motivate my actions are all the effects of prior physical events, and if they become causes, like extremely complex billiard ball causation, then what sense does free will make? Even if you allow for indeterminacy of various kinds, that still doesn't allow for free will which would have to include purposeful action done for reasons but that are not necessitated by the past.
What I was asking was whether or not reasons and rationality are subject to the laws of causality, minus indeterminacy. It's related to the free will question. If the reasons that motivate my actions are all the effects of prior physical events, and if they become causes, like extremely complex billiard ball causation, then what sense does free will make? Even if you allow for indeterminacy of various kinds, that still doesn't allow for free will which would have to include purposeful action done for reasons but that are not necessitated by the past.
Okay - my short answer is no. But let me think about how you're framing this so I can give you an answer that addresses it properly.
Comment