• Philosophy Thread - deeeeeeep bro
    999 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38622936]I did, and I just read it again, and I can't find anywhere you address the weak anthropic principle. Where is it? [editline]28th November 2012[/editline] And I just read it again. It's definitely not in there. The closest you come is the Russian roulette game, but that isn't really the same. Also, frankly the essay is mostly describing other people's opinions. You do a little analysis and give your own opinion a little, but none of it is fleshed out enough to give a compelling argument. I don't know if there was a maximum length or what but this is not a very good refutation of any of the arguments you address.[/QUOTE] See cause I was supporting the Fine tuning argument, not the weak anthropic principle, and yes there was a 1400 +-100 word limit. This was an essay for a Philosophy of Religion class where we were expected to choose from a set of 5 arguments we can support or refute using mostly course covered philosophers, however you could make your own points if you were ready to stand on them. [editline]29th November 2012[/editline] That is to say when I said "I addressed that" I meant regarding the chance for chance
[QUOTE=Memnoth;38571555]Incorrect, this implies that you apply gravity as a force of physical mass attraction to support this claim. There's however nothing in quantum mechanics that provides evidence that gravity even exists. String theory however does support the idea of mass expansion. If every energy in the universe was expanding at the same rate, we would not notice it since we are a part of it. So since everything expands they would appear to move closer to eachother when in fact they are simply expanding to the point of collision. This means that objects in the universe was simply smaller at the time when "the universe started" rather than being popped out of nowhere. There was no beginning to the universe and there certainly wont be an end. Because this expansion defines gravity and therefore entropy will never be able to cause the dissipation of existence since entropy only applies in an isolated system. Also incorrect. There's no evidence to support the concept of singularity. If you're thinking about black holes as singularities, you're wrong. Black holes are created under so extreme pressures that the mass of the black hole reaches a form of higher density star that expands faster than the rest of the universe, though it doesn't seem to expand faster since it doesn't increase in size, that's because it receives gravitational pressure from the spatial energy that surrounds it, like a domino-effect from the energy in the rest of the universe. This domino-effect is actually light itself, that's why it doesn't have mass, and that's why a black star is perceived as a black hole. String theory is an incomplete theory. Einsteins theory on special and general relativity is an incomplete theory. My unified field theory is not incomplete. [editline]24th November 2012[/editline] I learned English by studying thesauruses and dictionaries, people will always view me as a pretentious talker simply for the fact that I am autistic. So arrogance thy name, is still you.[/QUOTE] Your unified field theory? And you are a pretentious talker. You think the Universe is so complicated that only the sharpest and special minds can comprehend it, like yours. You have just boggled your mind over this subject with some form of over enthusiasm, probably has something to do with autism. Truth is it's pretty simple. [b]Patience[/b] is simply the most important tool Universe uses in creating all of its celestial bodies, Suns, our planet and our extremely cohesive biology, our extremely diverse animal kingdom, and everything else. And you, my single dear individual human specimen, will be long-rotten before we learn more about the Universe. And when I say learning more, I don't necessarily mean learning something new.
[QUOTE=Gekkosan;38636363]Your unified field theory? And you are a pretentious talker. You think the Universe is so complicated that only the sharpest and special minds can comprehend it, like yours. You have just boggled your mind over this subject with some form of over enthusiasm, probably has something to do with autism. Truth is it's pretty simple. [b]Patience[/b] is simply the most important tool Universe uses in creating all of its celestial bodies, Suns, our planet and our extremely cohesive biology, our extremely diverse animal kingdom, and everything else. And you, my single dear individual human specimen, will be long-rotten before we learn more about the Universe. And when I say learning more, I don't necessarily mean learning something new.[/QUOTE] Ah so you're one of those people who subscribe to scientism.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38635455]See cause I was supporting the Fine tuning argument, not the weak anthropic principle,[/QUOTE] yes, which is why you need to refute it since it's pretty much the most reasonable counterargument and it addresses why divine intervention isn't necessary [QUOTE=Zenreon117;38637667]Ah so you're one of those people who subscribe to scientism.[/QUOTE] ...seriously
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38638471]yes, which is why you need to refute it since it's pretty much the most reasonable counterargument and it addresses why divine intervention isn't necessary ...seriously[/QUOTE] The problem is I do not need to refute it, The WAP basically states that the laws of the universe are only restricted in so much as it must have allowed for our evolution. More simply stated: If things were not the way they were, we would not be here to observe their status. This is really more of a mute point that begs the question when applied to the "Fine Tuning Argument" simply because all it does is assert the obvious that you cannot hear a tree fall in the forest if you are not there. Regardless, none of this even touches on my main point that I actually made myself in the essay regarding the nature of God. The point about how we go about applying preconceived notions of what God would be to things.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38640342]The problem is I do not need to refute it, The WAP basically states that the laws of the universe are only restricted in so much as it must have allowed for our evolution. More simply stated: If things were not the way they were, we would not be here to observe their status. This is really more of a mute point that begs the question when applied to the "Fine Tuning Argument" simply because all it does is assert the obvious that you cannot hear a tree fall in the forest if you are not there. Regardless, none of this even touches on my main point that I actually made myself in the essay regarding the nature of God. The point about how we go about applying preconceived notions of what God would be to things.[/QUOTE] Moot point, not mute. Anyway, I don't see how the WAP is the least bit moot. I think it refutes the fine-tuning argument quite handily by showing that the question is vacuous. "Why is the universe so well-made for life?" is answered by "It must be, because if life doesn't exist, the alternate question can't be asked." Nobody is necessary to fine-tune anything because the game is rigged from the start. Because the WAP refutes the fine-tuning idea, either your argument in support of fine-tuning must refute it in some way, or your argument does not imply fine-tuning strongly enough. Furthermore, I think your assertion about the idea of god containing so many preconceived notions contains a lot of preconceived notions itself, like the idea of god being expressed in probability. There's no real analysis to back that assertion up, and also the idea that even if god exists he must have fine-tuned the universe to support life is a very preconceived notion. It assert that god has to have some sort of bias in favor of life, and I don't see that that's the case. In fact I think the only semi-convincing idea of god is a deistic one, and that's only because it can't really be refuted, and nothing says he had to create life or cares about it in any real sense.
it's extremely sesquipedalian loquacious-y in here...
not really
okay maybe not extremely but it's still going on a lot lol.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;38641608]Moot point, not mute. Anyway, I don't see how the WAP is the least bit moot. I think it refutes the fine-tuning argument quite handily by showing that the question is vacuous. "Why is the universe so well-made for life?" is answered by "It must be, because if life doesn't exist, the alternate question can't be asked." Nobody is necessary to fine-tune anything because the game is rigged from the start. Because the WAP refutes the fine-tuning idea, either your argument in support of fine-tuning must refute it in some way, or your argument does not imply fine-tuning strongly enough. Furthermore, I think your assertion about the idea of god containing so many preconceived notions contains a lot of preconceived notions itself, like the idea of god being expressed in probability. There's no real analysis to back that assertion up, and also the idea that even if god exists he must have fine-tuned the universe to support life is a very preconceived notion. It assert that god has to have some sort of bias in favor of life, and I don't see that that's the case. In fact I think the only semi-convincing idea of god is a deistic one, and that's only because it can't really be refuted, and nothing says he had to create life or cares about it in any real sense.[/QUOTE] Thanks, I actually never used the word moot in my writing. I think you misunderstand my primary point about probability and God. I am not saying that this God of common thought has control of the numbers we know as probability and thus uses them like a tool. Rather that probability (I must elaborate further that I mean probability in the metaphysical sense of that which decides every next frame, the force that makes things true in the realist sense, not 1/6 chances or any other sort of percentage.) is what we should look at and instead label that God for a lack of a better definition. To rephrase my argument simply: I think therefore I am. Why am I? I am because God God meaning the original causation, the grounds for causality. You can say that "I am because I have brain" "I have brain because I evolved" "I evolved because microbial soup" "There was microbial soup because chemistry" "The was chemistry because big bang", but what caused the big bang? I am simply arguing that we should define the force or function, which caused our universe to be 1 and not 0, to be God.
Then don't you just fall into an infinite regress?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38642627]Thanks, I actually never used the word moot in my writing. I think you misunderstand my primary point about probability and God. I am not saying that this God of common thought has control of the numbers we know as probability and thus uses them like a tool. Rather that probability (I must elaborate further that I mean probability in the metaphysical sense of that which decides every next frame, the force that makes things true in the realist sense, not 1/6 chances or any other sort of percentage.) is what we should look at and instead label that God for a lack of a better definition. To rephrase my argument simply: I think therefore I am. Why am I? I am because God God meaning the original causation, the grounds for causality. You can say that "I am because I have brain" "I have brain because I evolved" "I evolved because microbial soup" "There was microbial soup because chemistry" "The was chemistry because big bang", but what caused the big bang? I am simply arguing that we should define the force or function, which caused our universe to be 1 and not 0, to be God.[/QUOTE] we are figuring out what caused the big bang
sometimes, i dream about running away with the girl of my dreams and the piper.
[QUOTE=Zarjk;38647716]sometimes, i dream about cheese.[/QUOTE] Fixed.
when this is all over, i'm gonna mate!
You and me both.
life is such a dream state when you die you wake up to another state and universe and place in time completely different from all of this
if god is willing to prevent evil, but not able to. then he is not omnipotent if god is not willing, but able to. then he is malevolent. if god is both willing and able. then why is there evil? if god is nether willing nor able. then why call him god?
A religious person would argue that God gave humans free will.
[QUOTE=kafurie;38837403]if god is willing to prevent evil, but not able to. then he is not omnipotent if god is not willing, but able to. then he is malevolent. if god is both willing and able. then why is there evil? if god is nether willing nor able. then why call him god?[/QUOTE] If good is God, then evil is not of God. Furthermore whatever evils we may attribute to this life, are but a blip in existence, unless you disbelieve in life after death. Personally a letter from St.Augustine made it perfectly clear to me that there is life after death. [quote="Letter from St.Augustine (AD 415) Letter # 159"]You remember it well; it is true that you saw these things in sleep, but I would have you know that even now you are seeing in sleep. Hearing this, Gennadius was persuaded of its truth, and in his reply declared that he believed it. Then his teacher went on to say: Where is your body now? He answered: In my bed. Do you know, said the youth, that the eyes in this body of yours are now bound and closed, and at rest, and that with these eyes you are seeing nothing? He answered: I know it. What, then, said the youth, are the eyes with which you see me? He, unable to discover what to answer to this, was silent. While he hesitated, the youth unfolded to him what he was endeavoring to teach him by these questions, and immediately said: As while you are asleep and lying on your bed these eyes of your body are now unemployed and doing nothing, and yet you have eyes with which you behold me, and enjoy this vision, so, after your death, while your bodily eyes shall be wholly inactive, there shall be in you a life by which you shall still live, and a faculty of perception by which you shall still perceive. Beware, therefore, after this of harbouring doubts as to whether the life of man shall continue after death. [/quote] If you were God, how long would you be content with creatures forced to worship you and be loyal to you? How long would it be before you try to actually get people to support you by their own machinations? By this illusive concept named free will. If God were to stay your hand every time you go to do something "bad". Then free will would not exist. Many Christians would stop at "It is part of God's plan" which is truthfully only a theodicy, however I would instead argue that God is "Omnibenevolent" NOT "Omnibeneficent". There is a difference. Omnibenevolence is the upholding of the greater good in the long schemes, Omnibeneficient is holding your hand and making sure no harm comes to anybody.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38847680][B]Personally a letter from St.Augustine made it perfectly clear to me that there is life after death. [/B] [/QUOTE] I have no problem with the rest of what you said as it's all very interesting personal beliefs, but tell me brother, how does this letter make it perfectly clear that there is life after death? It seems to me there is one huge flaw good ol' Augustine is completely disregarding; the fact that when you die, contrary to when you go to sleep, your nervous system shuts down, permanently, rendering you essentially thoughtless and emotionless. This flaw is not especially surprising considering neurobiology wasn't a big thing in 415 A.D., but in this modern day and age you should at least apply [B]some [/B]critical thinking before drawing up such radical beliefs based on a 1600 year old note. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying life after death is impossible. I'm just saying that note ain't much to go on.
[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;38695846]You and me both.[/QUOTE] wanna go halfsies on one?
[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;38848092]I have no problem with the rest of what you said as it's all very interesting personal beliefs, but tell me brother, how does this letter make it perfectly clear that there is life after death? It seems to me there is one huge flaw good ol' Augustine is completely disregarding; the fact that when you die, contrary to when you go to sleep, your nervous system shuts down, permanently, rendering you essentially thoughtless and emotionless. This flaw is not especially surprising considering neurobiology wasn't a big thing in 415 A.D., but in this modern day and age you should at least apply [B]some [/B]critical thinking before drawing up such radical beliefs based on a 1600 year old note. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying life after death is impossible. I'm just saying that note ain't much to go on.[/QUOTE] Don't get me wrong, this wasn't the first and last thing. Frankly it was just the former. I was raised a christian, I studied the occult and world religions, and everything pointed me back to God. If I have learned anything it's that there are basically two religions that encompass all others. One aspires to elevate Man to the level of God. And the Other puts man strictly under God. My experiences with Lucid Dreaming and Astral Projection are all I need. It goes past the flesh, the flesh is just a receiver. I would go on, but alas the average person will not want to hear anything I have to say, because the concept of Soul and spirituality is now a matter irrationality and contrary to scientism. [editline]15th December 2012[/editline] Also that was just an Excerpt from the full letter here: [url]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102159.htm[/url]
If the flesh is just a receiver, how come changing the fundamental parts of it through the use of drugs alters or even in some cases completely changes the message? How come it can be so extremely influenced by external stimuli? What is the message, or the soul, anyway? Please do explain your theories and beliefs further. This is a thread for philosophy, no opinions should be rejected and overlooked simply because people do not agree with them. That is very dangerous and only serves to breed ignorance. But on the other hand, never reviewing your own theories and only keeping them to yourself is also a dangerous behavior that breeds ignorance since it's easy to get entrenched into flawed views without any outside perspective. I am not afraid of the concept of a soul, and I do not inherently look negatively on spirituality, but I do believe you are seeing patterns that aren't there based on a subconscious, emotional longing/desire for the divine. This for example; [QUOTE]My experiences with Lucid Dreaming and Astral Projection are all I need.[/QUOTE] Is this all the evidence you need to make the conclusion of that there is a soul and that our consciousness isn't a product of the brain? Have you ever considered that if the opposite was true, lucid dreams and astral projections could both be explained as the result of neurochemical changes [B]very similar[/B] to those induced by certain drugs like DMT, which just so happens to be a proven fact? Do you see how your core argument, the very basis of it, is fundamentally flawed, putting into question the validity of the rest of your theory? [editline]16th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=NeoSeeker;38848407]wanna go halfsies on one?[/QUOTE] Sure thing!
[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;38848831]If the flesh is just a receiver, how come changing the fundamental parts of it through the use of drugs alters or even in some cases completely changes the message? How come it can be so extremely influenced by external stimuli? What is the message, or the soul, anyway? Please do explain your theories and beliefs further. This is a thread for philosophy, no opinions should be rejected and overlooked simply because people do not agree with them. That is very dangerous and only serves to breed ignorance. But on the other hand, never reviewing your own theories and only keeping them to yourself is also a dangerous behavior that breeds ignorance since it's easy to get entrenched into flawed views without any outside perspective. I am not afraid of the concept of a soul, and I do not inherently look negatively on spirituality, but I do believe you are seeing patterns that aren't there based on a subconscious, emotional longing/desire for the divine. This for example; Is this all the evidence you need to make the conclusion of that there is a soul and that our consciousness isn't a product of the brain? Have you ever considered that if the opposite was true, lucid dreams and astral projections could both be explained as the result of neurochemical changes [B]very similar[/B] to those induced by certain drugs like DMT, which just so happens to be a proven fact? Do you see how your core argument, the very basis of it, is fundamentally flawed, putting into question the validity of the rest of your theory? [editline]16th December 2012[/editline] Sure thing![/QUOTE] It is true that through electrical stimuli to the brain you can incite emotions in a person. But is that to say you are inciting emotion in the person, or the body? Furthermore what is inciting that stimuli when no-one is around with an electric poker? You must understand the difference between the cause, the purpose, and the symptoms. The cause: Supposedly the soul or Unknown. The symptoms: Brain Electrical activity. signals sent to the functions of the machine. As for the Trips, it is Being able to travel anywhere and remote view. It is difficult, and it has it's dangers. The Militaries of the USSR and US were studying it around the 70s in project stargate. (as dumb as that sounds). But it is something that most if not all have forgotten unfortunately, and unless you take it on yourself to try for yourself to see what I mean. There is not much I can tell you. Ultimately I can only leave you with a quote that speaks my reasons for trusting in this innate ability we have. [quote]"Only human beings have come to a point where they no longer know why they exist. They don't use their brains and they have forgotten the secret knowledge of their bodies, their senses, or their dreams. They don't use the knowledge that the spirit has put into every one of them; they are not even aware of this, and so they stumble along blindly on the road to nowhere - a paved highway that theythemselves bulldoze and make smooth so that they can get faster to the big empty hole which they find at the end, waiting to swallow them up. It is a quick comfortable superhighway, but I know where it leads to. I've seen it. I've been there in my vision and it makes me shudder to think about it." - The Lakota Shaman Lame Deer[/quote]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38848912]It is true that through electrical stimuli to the brain you can incite emotions in a person. But is that to say you are inciting emotion in the person, or the body? Furthermore what is inciting that stimuli when no-one is around with an electric poker? You must understand the difference between the cause, the purpose, and the symptoms. The cause: Supposedly the soul or Unknown. The symptoms: Brain Electrical activity. signals sent to the functions of the machine. As for the Trips, it is Being able to travel anywhere and remote view. It is difficult, and it has it's dangers. The Militaries of the USSR and US were studying it around the 70s in project stargate. (as dumb as that sounds). But it is something that most if not all have forgotten unfortunately, and unless you take it on yourself to try for yourself to see what I mean. There is not much I can tell you. Ultimately I can only leave you with a quote that speaks my reasons for trusting in this innate ability we have.[/QUOTE] its not forgotten theres videos of soldiers on acid on youtube, they tested it but it was deemed an ineffective weapon. Also the more we understand about the brain and life in general the more convinced I become that there is no life after death, and I hope that im right because I don't want there to be one.
[QUOTE=Stormcharger;38849250]its not forgotten theres videos of soldiers on acid on youtube, they tested it but it was deemed an ineffective weapon. Also the more we understand about the brain and life in general the more convinced I become that there is no life after death, and I hope that im right because I don't want there to be one.[/QUOTE] I meant the science of remote viewing, not the stupid Acid trials.
i realized that i actually find suicide scary, but natural death perfectly okay. in fact i look forward to it. i have no idea what this means.
Spirituality and physics are compatible. Reincarnation in terms of physics is entirely possible, nay inevitable. Mass is just energy condensed (give or take a lot of scientific theory) and we know that energy can never be created or destroyed, merely changed forms. So too, then, the mass that makes up your body, all the chemicals that cause every emotion, and the electrical charges surging through your heart and brain will forever more exist in the universe in form or another, and always has done. As it's been said before, we are made up of ancient star dust, and so too, perhaps, a star far off into the universe may come to form itself from mass or energy that could have once made up your entire being, recycled over eons through out the universe eventually ending up light years away. Not sure if something similar has been posted, I'm pretty baked and there were a lot of pages to look through. Also this is why when I die I want to be buried in a biodegradable coffin under a newly planted tree. That way I become a tree and everyone else gets a tree.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;38847680]If good is God, then evil is not of God.[/QUOTE] I don't see how it can be argued that God is the first cause for everything if things exist which are claimed to be outside of him. [editline]17th December 2012[/editline] And also free will is completely contradictory with the notion that God is omniscient. If he created things with full knowledge of what they would eventually do, your "good" and "bad" actions are predetermined. If it is possible for him to create things which can act without his prior knowledge, he is not omniscient. [editline]17th December 2012[/editline] Not that you've necessarily claimed that any of those things are true, but such contradictions essentially rule out the gods that I would say probably the majority of earth believe in.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.