Is it Rational to Believe God Exists?

[Peter_Plato]

Not sure what you’re saying there, although I largely agree with what followed.

If philosophy is all encompassing then we must allow all philosophies, including those shunned by analytic Westerners. Poets, artists, peasants, romantics also have a love of wisdom, and no one else can dictate to them what is and isn’t reality, what is and isn’t philosophy.

The parallel to this statement is that if science is all encompassing, then we must allow all sciences, including those shunned by the academic sciences. Alchemists, astrologers, occultists, thaumaturgists, phrenologists also have a love of science and no one else can dictate to them what is and what isn’t reality, what is and what isn’t science.

It gets a little peculiar when we follow your thinking trail into the rabbit hole where it invariably seems to end up.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I see. So Michelangelo could not paint truth, since truth can only exist as a logical proof? Bach could not compose truth, since truth can only exist as a reasoned argument?

A sunset contains truth for those with eyes to see. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Another twist.

You said we “must allow all philosophies” without discrimination merely because they all claim to represent truth.

First off, it is not clear that music or art are “philosophies” although it might be said that art or music can represent ideas in their own unique mediums. That is quite different from saying they “are philosophies.” There may be a philosophy represented by a piece of art or music, but that philosophy would stand or fall “as a philosophy” by whether it accurately depicts the truth or not.

I find that your attempts to draw implications from the statements of others are frequently muddled and haphazard. You make gigantic leaps from “If a…” to “then x” with not even a passing glance or reference to “b, c, d, …”

There is an old saying that, “You can’t get there from here,” which you might keep in the forefront of your consciousness. It could help curtail your wild forays in search of Millinocket.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What a magical world, where scripture is carved in stone with an unchanging True Meaning.

Only trouble is, if the True Meaning is available to Catholics, it’s available to everyone else simply by dint of www.vatican.va.

Oh, and if scripture only has one True Meaning, it cannot be alive, and God no longer speaks.

Oh, and if that True Meaning has been deciphered for all time, you just put the Church out of a job.

Well done that man.

You can’t get there…

…it’s available to everyone else simply by dint of www.vatican.va.

from here…

if the True Meaning is available to Catholics…

You can’t get there…

…it cannot be alive, and God no longer speaks.

from here…

… if scripture only has one True Meaning…

You can’t get there…

…you just put the Church out of a job.

from here…

…if that True Meaning has been deciphered for all time…

 

[inocente]

The parallel to this statement is that if science is all encompassing, then we must allow all sciences, including those shunned by the academic sciences. Alchemists, astrologers, occultists, thaumaturgists, phrenologists also have a love of science and no one else can dictate to them what is and what isn’t reality, what is and what isn’t science.

It gets a little peculiar when we follow your thinking trail into the rabbit hole where it invariably seems to end up.

You didn’t respond to my post #833 regarding the celestial spheres and other cosmologies prevalent until Galileo, where heaven is most definitely a place in space and time, and not the strange timeless nowhere that some appear to imagine is more believable.

And now, at a stroke of your pen, you discard thousands of years of debate on the major problem of metaphysics, the nature of reality, by demoting every philosopher you don’t like to the ranks of alchemists, astrologers, and occultists.

Problem solved, reality for a nun battling with ebola in East Africa is now, apparently, the same as for a high stakes gambler in Las Vegas. No doubt you’ll shortly regale me on your incredible breakthrough.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You didn’t respond to my post #833 regarding the celestial spheres and other cosmologies prevalent until Galileo, where heaven is most definitely a place in space and time, and not the strange timeless nowhere that some appear to imagine is more believable.

And now, at a stroke of your pen, you discard thousands of years of debate on the major problem of metaphysics, the nature of reality, by demoting every philosopher you don’t like to the ranks of alchemists, astrologers, and occultists.

Problem solved, reality for a nun battling with ebola in East Africa is now, apparently, the same as for a high stakes gambler in Las Vegas. No doubt you’ll shortly regale me on your incredible breakthrough.

What in heavens are you talking about?

You’ve completely lost me.

 

[inocente]

Another twist.

You said we “must allow all philosophies” without discrimination merely because they all claim to represent truth.

First off, it is not clear that music or art are “philosophies” although it might be said that art or music can represent ideas in their own unique mediums. That is quite different from saying they “are philosophies.” There may be a philosophy represented by a piece of art or music, but that philosophy would stand or fall “as a philosophy” by whether it accurately depicts the truth or not.

I find that your attempts to draw implications from the statements of others are frequently muddled and haphazard. You make gigantic leaps from “If a…” to “then x” with not even a passing glance or reference to “b, c, d, …”

There is an old saying that, “You can’t get there from here,” which you might keep in the forefront of your consciousness. It could help curtail your wild forays in search of Millinocket.

Not sure how you got there from here. Pick any subject and you’ll find 40 different views from different philosophers. What makes those 40 different papers all truth, unlike, apparently, Beethoven’s Ninth or Picasso’s Guernica?

I prescribe 40 days in the wilderness as a sure way to a different reality.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You didn’t respond to my post #833 regarding the celestial spheres and other cosmologies prevalent until Galileo, where heaven is most definitely a place in space and time, and not the strange timeless nowhere that some appear to imagine is more believable.

There was a question in #833?

I thought it was all rhetorical posturing. Forgive me

 

[inocente]

You can’t get there…

from here…

You can’t get there…

from here…

You can’t get there…

from here…

To quote you, “What in heavens are you talking about? You’ve completely lost me.”

What in heavens are you talking about?

You’ve completely lost me.

There has never been any agreement amongst philosophers on the nature of reality, so it is invalid to make comparisons with science.

PS: you still didn’t respond to my post #833. I’m off for the day now.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Oh, and if that True Meaning has been deciphered for all time, you just put the Church out of a job.

Well done that man.

The Church will never be out of a job when there are people like you to convert.

Is truth ever divided against itself?

In the Protestant world that’s an apparently endless pursuit.

 

[Peter_Plato]

To quote you, “What in heavens are you talking about? You’ve completely lost me.”

There has never been any agreement amongst philosophers on the nature of reality, so it is invalid to make comparisons with science.

So there has always been agreement amongst scientists on the nature of physical reality?

The progress of science is what, then, simply facade? Scientists have it secretly all figured out and there is no debate, contention or dissension in the ranks. Ultimately, scientists are all of one mind about everything scientific? :ehh:

The truth of it is that scientists still hotly debate an endless number of topics precisely because the truth about those topics is not fully understood in much the same way that philosophers debate a plethora of topics for exactly the same reason.

We appear to be back down the rabbit hole in Millinocket.

 

[Tomdstone]

So there has always been agreement amongst scientists on the nature of physical reality?

I thought that it was philosophers, not scientists, who were supposed to tell us about the nature of reality. Scientists create models of reality and then try to confirm these models with experimental or observational data.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I thought that it was philosophers, not scientists, who were supposed to tell us about the nature of reality. Scientists create models of reality and then try to confirm these models with experimental or observational data.

Peter Plato has said, and I agree, that there is as much disagreement among scientists as there is disagreement among philosophers. So if philosophy is dead, isn’t science also dead?

In some areas of philosophy, there is universal agreement. In other areas wide disagreement.

In some areas of science there is universal agreement. In other areas wide disagreement.

Even the ground rules for scientific thinking were the product of philosophers thinking abstractly about how to study the material world. Two Englishmen, Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton, were among those who bridged the leap from philosophy into modern science. But they never tried to burn their bridges behind them.

Both were also religious men, and they never tried to burn the religious bridge behind them either.

“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy brings about man’s mind to religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” Francis Bacon, Author of Novum Organum, the first British manual for describing the scientific method.

“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

And let’s not forget old Albert

“I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.” Albert Einstein

 

[Tomdstone]

In some areas of science there is universal agreement. In other areas wide disagreement.

Examples?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Examples?

Evolution, there is universal agreement among scientists that it happened.

There is not universal agreement as to how it began (natural selection vs intelligent design).

Einstein versus Newton.

Einstein vs Quantum Physics

Freud vs Jung

Big Bang/Big Crunch vs Multiverse

Well, I can’t do ALL your homework for you, can I?

Finish the list and you go to the head of your class.

 

[Tomdstone]

Evolution, there is universal agreement among scientists that it happened.

There is not universal agreement as to how it began (natural selection vs intelligent design).

Einstein versus Newton.

Einstein vs Quantum Physics

Freud vs Jung

Big Bang/Big Crunch vs Multiverse

Well, I can’t do ALL your homework for you, can I?

Finish the list and you go to the head of your class.

With reference to Einstein vs. Quantum mechanics, I don’t think that there is disagreement as to the fact that the mathematical/physical model described by QM does give excellent results. There are differences of opinion as to why or how it manages to do so. But this seems to me to be a philosophical question, a question for those expert in the philosophy of science, rather than for scientists themselves.

 

[Tomdstone]

Einstein versus Newton.

This was a question of one model of gravity replacing another. Newtonian mechanics explains a lot, but Einstein’s model explains even more.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This was a question of one model of gravity replacing another. Newtonian mechanics explains a lot, but Einstein’s model explains even more.

Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics. So he did not accept that quantum mechanics explained more than relativity.

 

[Aloysium]

Science is based on facts not truth.
Facts have to do with what can be demonstrated/proven and with interpretations.
In a way it is a popularity contest, in that people agree as to it makes sense. There are always other understandings. That the universe emerged from a Big Bang is not universally accepted.
On the cutting edge of research, where people are looking to make a name for themselves, there is not, as would be expected given that innovation and discoveries are being sought, as much agreement.

 

[Tomdstone]

Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics. So he did not accept that quantum mechanics explained more than relativity.

I don’t see why you would need QM to explain gravity, since the effects of gravity are consequential for objects larger than on the atomic scale.
Also, Einstein said that QM was a very worthy subject and yielded many good results, so he did not reject it entirely. For example, he wrote:
“Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One’s secrets.”
Einstein thought that the quantum wave function did not provide a complete description of the system, but a statistical summary of the properties of many systems, which is the ensemble interpretation of quantum mechanics. This seems to me to be a philosophical, rather than a scientific question. He wrote:
"Within the framework of statistical quantum theory there is no such thing as a complete description of the individual system. More cautiously it might be put as follows: The attempt to conceive the quantum-theoretical description as the complete description of the individual systems leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which become immediately unnecessary if one accepts the interpretation that the description refers to ensembles of systems and not to individual systems…

Assuming the success of efforts to accomplish a complete physical description, the statistical quantum theory would, within the framework of future physics, take an approximately analogous position to the statistical mechanics within the framework of classical mechanics. I am rather firmly convinced that the development of theoretical physics will be of this type; but the path will be lengthy and difficult."
"

 

[Aloysium]

Medicine is a science that reflects the complexity of life.
Clearly there is much disagreement in every area.
Look at psychiatry: What year is this? I wonder what are the diagnostic criteria, agreed to at the latest meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.
I suppose if one is looking for agreement and simplicity, one will look in the direction of mathematics and physics, as the science to which it is nearest.
As to real life, it is a totally different matter (pun intended).