Page 19 of 34 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 331

Thread: Deism

  1. #181
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,840

    Re: Deism

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    To believe anything William Lane Craig has to say is to admit a profound ignorance of science.

    Evolution is such an obvious fact of biology that one would have to intellionally fill their head with nonscience to the point of crowding out any facts or credible notions.

    hey Gonzo.....do you even remotely look anywhere like your handsome, slow cousin?


    https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...g&action=click


    I say "slow," because with 200 million years to enable him - he still looks so prehistoric!
    I mean, how much time does he needs?


    Anyone who can't recognize the chasm that separates humans from all beasts.....must've not evolved "up there,"
    you know.
    Last edited by tosca1; 05-19-17 at 02:56 PM.

  2. #182
    Guru ataraxia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,206

    Re: Deism

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    Your thoughtful posts on this topic are greatly appreciated, ataraxia.

    Just a couple of points on which I'm still not clear. Does Godel answer Plato? In PM Whitehead and Russell are about a formal axiomatic system, and they are answered by Godel. But Plato -- I don't know what to call it -- is about structuralism, no? Metaphysics.

    Anyway, I would express the point I've been struggling to make in this thread this way: there is mathematics as a tool, and this is the invention of man -- and this is what Godel showed the limits of. But there is the mathematical reality of the cosmos (my Platonism) which mathematics the human tool measures and reveals. The latter is the mathematics I've been talking about in my posts.

    At any rate, here are two short articles which, I believe, support the distinction I'm trying to draw here.

    Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and Platonic Metaphysics
    Aleksandar Mikovic
    Lusofona University, Lisbon


    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1509/1509.02674.pdf


    ELLOPOS
    Kurt Goedel, a Mathematician in the School of Plato

    Kurt Goedel, a Mathematician in the School of Plato | Ellopos Blog

    Yes. Of course the debate continues. But if Mathematics is going to be equated to empirical science, that already is antithetical to the way Plato saw it: as a fundamentally BETTER and completely different way to understand reality. This was one of the points of contention between Plato, the rationalist, and his star pupil, Aristotle, the empiricist.

    But if you want to "sully" mathematics by equating it to the nitty gritty messiness and inherent uncertainty of science, then you are going to get into the messy uncertainties of observation, and ever-evolving and changing theories, etc... exactly what Plato was trying to bypass. The truths of mathematics and logic were supposed to be more elevated than that. Because remember: science is not about what reality IS, it is about how we try to understand it: and that is always subject to error, and misunderstanding, revision, etc...

    So in the same way that stars may exist even if humans don't, it may turn out as we learn more that they don't really exist. It's theoretically possible that, like Descartes' demon or the movie Matrix, we may wake up and realize that everything we have been thinking we were seeing was just brain inputs put into our head by some alien experimenters, and that nothing that we knew, including stars, really ever existed. Reality could be very, very different than what we have been thinking. Hey, it could happen.

    This is the kind of thinking behind modern philosophies of science like postmodernism and neopragmatism. I am not a big fan of the former, but the latter is interesting. Basically, the idea is that we may never have access to ultimate truth, the truth behind appearances. We are always confined to our senses and experiences, and those are always subject to change and revision. We can never claim ULTIMATE truths. But there are better and worse ways of trying to see things, and trying to model them. They may always be contingent, never ultimate or absolute, but that does not keep us from trying to do better in trying to understand them as best we can. Science is not about Ultimate Reality, it is more about how well the method of science has been used to support the claims being made. How well that correlates to actual reality will always remain an open question. We can never step outside our skins, and brains, and eyes, and obtain the ultimate "God's eye view" of reality to make that judgment.

    So this is a long, long way and a far more humble position from Plato's ideal forms, Plotinus' mysticism, or the claims of Ultimate Truth in the Judeo-Christian tradition. These were telling us that there IS a way to rise above the contingencies and uncertainties of our knowledge and obtain that elevated God's eye view: whether through the cold, elegant logic of mathematics, or through the mind's eye, or through religious faith, etc.... These new philosophies tell us that we can never step outside Plato's cave. It's a noble ambition, but we humans seem to be confined forever to being within the cave, try as we might. We just have to do the best we can inside that cave. (Are you familiar with the allegory of Plato's cave from The Republic?)
    Last edited by ataraxia; 05-19-17 at 03:08 PM.

  3. #183
    Guru ataraxia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,206

    Re: Deism

    Quote Originally Posted by tosca1 View Post
    hey Gonzo.....do you even remotely look anywhere like your handsome, slow cousin?


    https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...g&action=click


    I say "slow," because with 200 million years to enable him - he still looks so prehistoric!
    I mean, how much time does he needs?


    Anyone who can't recognize the chasm that separates humans from all beasts.....must've not evolved "up there,"
    you know.
    Even among humans, the differences can be striking. These differences fool only uneducated laypersons. These guys here are, believe it or not, from exactly the same species, Homo sapiens:

    pygmy2.jpg
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by ataraxia; 05-19-17 at 03:07 PM.

  4. #184
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,840

    Re: Deism

    Quote Originally Posted by ataraxia View Post
    Even among humans, the differences can be striking. These differences fool only uneducated laypersons. These guys here are, believe it or not, from exactly the same species, Homo sapiens:

    pygmy2.jpg


    That's not the chasm that I meant!
    Is that all the difference you've got with a beast? Physical differences? Are you serious?
    Last edited by tosca1; 05-19-17 at 03:14 PM.

  5. #185
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:26 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,059

    Re: Deism

    Quote Originally Posted by tosca1 View Post
    Evolution is real.

    It's MACRO evolution, that's pure myth! It's a fairy tale titled, "The Frog Prince."



    I couldn't help but wonder if macro-evolution was inspired by Mythological creatures like.....


    The Sphinx - a creature with the body of a lion and the head of a person.

    The Satyr - half man and half goat
    https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...g&action=click


    The Minotaur - half human and half bull!

    Centaur - half man and half horse



    AAAARGH! From land animals to sea creatures and birds! I didn't know there's so many of them! Here:




    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...s_in_mythology


    This morbid obsession of tying man to beast - hahahaha
    Quote Originally Posted by tosca1 View Post
    hey Gonzo.....do you even remotely look anywhere like your handsome, slow cousin?


    https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...g&action=click


    I say "slow," because with 200 million years to enable him - he still looks so prehistoric!
    I mean, how much time does he needs?


    Anyone who can't recognize the chasm that separates humans from all beasts.....must've not evolved "up there,"
    you know.
    redneck-retriever-if-we-was-descended-from-wolves-then-why-is-there-still-wolves.jpg
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  6. #186
    Professor Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    on the head of a pin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:08 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,681

    Re: Deism

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    This is what I mean.
    If the cosmos is mathematical in nature, then the mathematical nature of the cosmos needs to be accounted for, and this account is not provided by the material reality of the cosmos.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    In other words, you're saying that mathematics doesn't provide it's own "why".

    So what? Inventing a story to explain the "why" with absolute nonsense and a total disregard for the "how" is not better.

    I live in the world of "how", and at no point do I get to say, "Well, it was obviously magic", because that is ridiculous.
    The premise behind all of your dismissive posts in this thread emerges at last, GR: What GR is not interested in does not exist.
    That is a winning argument, I dare say.
    When one closes one's eyes, there is precious little to see.
    QED, to be sure.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg</a>

  7. #187
    Guru ataraxia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,206

    Re: Deism

    Quote Originally Posted by tosca1 View Post


    That's not the chasm that I meant!
    Is that all the difference you've got with a beast? Physical differences? Are you serious?
    Yeah sure. You are a little different from your siblings. Even a little more from your neighbors. Even a little more from people in a neighboring country. Even a little more from people in a different continent. But we all still have about 97% DNA sequence homology to a chimp. But only 93% with a macaque monkey. But we primates tend to be much more similar to each other than to an alligator.

    It's all on a spectrum. There are no distinct cut-offs.

  8. #188
    Professor Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    on the head of a pin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:08 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,681

    Re: Deism

    Quote Originally Posted by ataraxia View Post
    Yes. Of course the debate continues. But if Mathematics is going to be equated to empirical science, that already is antithetical to the way Plato saw it: as a fundamentally BETTER and completely different way to understand reality. This was one of the points of contention between Plato, the rationalist, and his star pupil, Aristotle, the empiricist.
    Didn't Whitehead call all of philosophy "a series of footnotes to Plato"?

    Quote Originally Posted by ataraxia View Post
    But if you want to "sully" mathematics by equating it to the nitty gritty messiness and inherent uncertainty of science, then you are going to get into the messy uncertainties of observation, and ever-evolving and changing theories, etc... exactly what Plato was trying to bypass. The truths of mathematics and logic were supposed to be more elevated than that. Because remember: science is not about what reality IS, it is about how we try to understand it: and that is always subject to error, and misunderstanding, revision, etc...

    So in the same way that stars may exist even if humans don't, it may turn out as we learn more that they don't really exist. It's theoretically possible that, like Descartes' demon or the movie Matrix, we may wake up and realize that everything we have been thinking we were seeing was just brain inputs put into our head by some alien experimenters, and that nothing that we knew, including stars, really ever existed. Reality could be very, very different than what we have been thinking. Hey, it could happen.
    And I believe Russell in Problems of Philosophy acknowledged that solipsism is irrefutable, although it must be rejected.

    Quote Originally Posted by ataraxia View Post
    This is the kind of thinking behind modern philosophies of science like postmodernism and neopragmatism. I am not a big fan of the former, but the latter is interesting. Basically, the idea is that we may never have access to ultimate truth, the truth behind appearances. We are always confined to our senses and experiences, and those are always subject to change and revision. We can never claim ULTIMATE truths. But there are better and worse ways of trying to see things, and trying to model them. They may always be contingent, never ultimate or absolute, but that does not keep us from trying to do better in trying to understand them as best we can. Science is not about Ultimate Reality, it is more about how well the method of science has been used to support the claims being made. How well that correlates to actual reality will always remain an open question. We can never step outside our skins, and brains, and eyes, and obtain the ultimate "God's eye view" of reality to make that judgment.
    Rorty?

    Quote Originally Posted by ataraxia View Post
    So this is a long, long way and a far more humble position from Plato's ideal forms, Plotinus' mysticism, or the claims of Ultimate Truth in the Judeo-Christian tradition. These were telling us that there IS a way to rise above the contingencies and uncertainties of our knowledge and obtain that elevated God's eye view: whether through the cold, elegant logic of mathematics, or through the mind's eye, or through religious faith, etc.... These new philosophies tell us that we can never step outside Plato's cave. It's a noble ambition, but we humans seem to be confined forever to being within the cave, try as we might. We just have to do the best we can inside that cave. (Are you familiar with the allegory of Plato's cave from The Republic?)
    The first and still the greatest heuristic in the Western Canon.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg</a>

  9. #189
    better late than pregnant
    Gonzo Rodeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:26 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    4,059

    Re: Deism

    Quote Originally Posted by Angel View Post
    The premise behind all of your dismissive posts in this thread emerges at last, GR: What GR is not interested in does not exist.
    That is a winning argument, I dare say.
    When one closes one's eyes, there is precious little to see.
    QED, to be sure.
    You keep suggesting that mathematics is somehow deficient since it doesn't explain "why", and all I am saying is that it doesn't have to.

    Further, if the "why" you happen to prefer relies on magic, then you might as well invent any old "why" you want, because one piece of fiction is about as true as any other. Your fairy tales are no more valid or legit or worthy of respect than anyone elses.
    "Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness."
    ~Orwell, Politics and the English Language

  10. #190
    Professor Angel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    on the head of a pin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:08 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,681

    Re: Deism

    Quote Originally Posted by Gonzo Rodeo View Post
    You keep suggesting that mathematics is somehow deficient since it doesn't explain "why", and all I am saying is that it doesn't have to.

    Further, if the "why" you happen to prefer relies on magic, then you might as well invent any old "why" you want, because one piece of fiction is about as true as any other. Your fairy tales are no more valid or legit or worthy of respect than anyone elses.
    No, not quite what I've been saying, GR.
    Nothing whatsoever about math's deficiency.
    The deficiency of science, yes.
    The deficiency of matter, perhaos.
    What I've been saying is that matter does not account for the mathematical nature of reality.

    I'll say it again, lest you misunderstand me again:matter does not account for the mathematical nature of reality.

    I then infer to a Mathematician, capital M.

    That's the whole argument which you have persistently either misconstrued or ignored and dismissed.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://i.imgur.com/u68aMie.jpg</a>

Page 19 of 34 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •