Is The Big Bang Really Proof Of Gods Existence?

[mathematician]

Frankly, I’m not sure how a “multi-verse” theory could be used to explain the Big Bang.

The fact that the fundamental constants seem so incredibly fine tuned is highly suggestive, but it is not a proof which leaves atheists with no wriggle room. What is striking is that a multiverse is an hypothesis which was not so much as whispered about, until atheists needed an escape hatch. Even though he is not a theist, the physicist Paul Davies, for one, seems highly dubious about the multiverse hypothesis.

The point of the multiverse theory, in the eyes of atheists, is that if you have an infinite, or near infinite number of universes, sooner or later one of them is bound to “strike lucky”, with fundamental constants of just the right value, for the existence of something more that hydrogen and helium to be possible. That (supposedly) is the universe we live in.

 

[itinerant1]

I am not sure how you define “science” here. Do you mean “natural science”? It, too, is a division of the speculative sciences which in turn are a part of philosophy.

Also, how do you define "ontological causality?

“Then of what is he speaking?”

He should" according to whom?

In regard to methodological naturalism the history of science has shown that this approach is most productive and most objective. If individual religious beliefs, philosophical positions, and ideologies are left out of scientific investigations or ignored (to ignore is very different than to deny), then science because more objective. Clearly, the experiments and conclusions of one scientist can be verified by another regardless of their differing non-scientific beliefs. In fact, the natural sciences truly advanced when scientists began leaving final causes out of their explanations of natural phenomena. Final causes are now left to the philosopher. I am not aware of any prominent scientist today who disagrees with methodological naturalism as most appropriate.

Regarding St. Paul’s statement, he is referring to gnontes, which is an inceptive, speculative sort of knowledge about God. I might even characterize that kind knowledge as quasi-philosophical, but with some individuals it is more intuitive. This knowledge of God’s existence comes from reflection on nature, its order, design, beauty, or goodness. It is not something quantifiable or verified by scientific methodology.

Gnontes is not derived from philosophical demonstration such the Aristotelian demonstration for the existence of a First Cause. I’m sure St. Paul realized very few Gentiles were knowledgeable in Aristotelian philosophy or even the sciences of the day. So, he is speaking about a knowledge of God’s existence that is available to all, however imperfect that knowledge may be. That is why he says the Gentiles are without excuse. They would have plenty excuses if the knowledge of God he talked about was a scientific or strictly philosophical knowledge.

Philosophy and natural science: I cannot explain this well in less than a few pages but I will point out some highlights. Philosophy differs from the natural sciences in its formal object. This is a distinction worked out in the Church over a long period, and that insight allowed the particular sciences to develop on their own.

The categorization now differs a bit from that of Boethius. One of the distinctions is the recognition of a physics that is a part of philosophy and a physics that stands at the head of the natural sciences. Mathematics was categorized by Aristotle and Aquinas as under philosophy because of its degree of abstraction. Currently, mathematics can be considered midway between the natural sciences and philosophy, though there are variations in categorizing mathematics.

Both philosophy and the sciences have disciplines that are speculative or theoretical and practical. So the division between philo and science is not based upon speculative versus practical.

Within the subject matter common to the sciences and philosophy, we say that the aim of science is know what is universally observable about the nature of physical things, while the aim of philosophy is to know what is universally intelligible about their natures, that is, their substance (ousia) and their causes.

The formal object of philosophy is the noumenal or intelligible order, that is, things in the principles and causes of their being.

The formal object of the natural sciences is the phenomenal order, that is, sensible things in their operations and changes. The natural sciences are limited to studying the changing surface of things in nature. This study includes classification, systematization, correlation, quantification and so on.

I know there is much more to be said for a full explanation, but I have to get back to work now, and will finish up by making a brief comment about J.S. Bell. The conclusive character of quantum mechanics, in its dis-allowance of absolutely precise measurements of quantum interactions derived further experimental support from Bell’s theorem of inequality. However shored up this may be it does nothing to address the issue of whether a restriction on precise measurement entails an ontological incompleteness in the interactions measured.

That reminds me that you asked about ontology. In the interest of time I will provide a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Ontology.

 

[kk23wong]

Both “Big Bang” & “Evolution” are incomplete?

“Big Bang” is a theory illustrating the beginning of our universe. Everything based on assumption without scientific proofs. By the way, nobody can “observe” the origin after its formation for centuries. **Time is linear. **You can see a man cutting an apple with the time goes by. A timeline can do. Infinity is only a dot and an imagination. By the way, regenerations of the Earth are not infinite.

“Evolution” is incomplete. The failure to notice the Earth as a conscious living object has turned our scientists into the wrong directions.

Below is my latest findings.

1. Microorganisms are equivalent to “our body cells” in the Earth. Microorganisms evolved into animals. Thus, the evolution of animals is also the life cycles of the Earth. In the meantime, “animals” are offspring of the Earth. Hence, the evolution of animals is also the evolution of the planet. Activities of the animals are also the life cycles of the Earth.
2. Some of the microorganisms remain as the “body cells” of the Earth. They diversified into plants. The diversifications of plants are the “evolution” of the Earth herself*.
   (*From biological prospective, the Earth is our mother-in-common and a higher form of lives.)
3. Both the diversification of “plants” and the evolution of “animals” are the process of growth of the Earth.
4. The control experiments are the planets* nearby. (*They are being classified as planets according to our modern technology. They may not be the real case because of the rigidity of technology.) When their life cycles come to an end, no living organisms (including microorganisms) exist. The regeneration of a planet cannot be infinite.
5. The evolution of the planet (as stated above) and the activities of the offspring (included in her life cycles) marked the higher form of lives as the planets. The indivisibility in-between the planet and the animals (including humankind) physically is solid.
6. The life cycles of the planets will eventually come to an end. It satisfies the biological principles of aging. Although the existence of the planets are in a higher level, they cannot escape the fates from death.
7. My hypothesis “Planets are living objects” explained the absence of space arrivals and the absences of lives in the planets nearby. The planets are conscious living objects in a higher level. The end of their live cycles (over-exploitations of their resources and the unrecoverable damages by activities of offspring - animals) will be resulted in the EXTINCTION of all species inside*. (*Due to the distances and the time differences of the life periods of various planets, space migrations are impossible. Spaceships without sufficient supplies of resources cannot make their journeys to the another closest living planet. At the same time, these planets which still alive are conscious.) As a result, the Earth has no space visitors. The life cycles of nearby planets end.
8. Evolution is a natural process of both the Earth and the animals.

The definitions of living things are restricted to the consciousness of living things. The existence of the brain-like structure is the only way to define “living things”. “Plants” are similar to “Microorganisms” inside the Earth. Once the life cycles of a planet end, the microorganisms of a planet will be dead. Thus, it explains the absence of living organisms in other planets.

“Animals” evolved and diversified into different species. The Earth “grows” from simple forms to more complex forms of lives. Evolution of animals (her offspring) resulted in diversification of species. In the meanwhile, the diversification of plants (her living tissues) resulted in the evolution of the Earth.

The evolution from microorganisms into animals is solid. Microorganisms can also be “LIVING TISSUES” of the Earth. In another word, the Earth is a higher level of lives and she evolves through time.

The situations is similar to the animals inside. Both “reproductions” and “plants/microorganisms” are mixtures of “life cycles” of the Earth. Evolution is a process of the PLANET itself.

I am still working on it. Scientists have too many imagination. Please look at the sky through telescopes and think in the way that the Earth is a conscious living object. Space stations are coffins without enough supplies of resources. You are not going to migrate to other planets if their life cycles end.

Reason 1. Life cycles of the planets nearby have come to an end. The civilizations (which were there once) are not going to survive because of the differences in time of the life cycles of the planets. The evidences cannot be tracked because of the decays caused by time. The rapid development of civilizations (activities of the offspring -animals- of the planets) will definitely shortened the life span of the planets. That is similar to the situation on the Earth nowadays. Meanwhile, resources of these planets may have been used up by the civilizations. It does not necessarily means that there are no minerals, but it will be hard for search and explore.

Reason 2. The end of the life cycles marked the absence of living organisms. These living organisms are going to multiple and evolve if the environment is suitable. However, a closed environment like greenhouses will not recover the entire life cycles of a planet. Thus, the space migrations into other “dead” planets are not going to work. Several constraints come here: 1. Air pressure; 2. gravity; 3. Suitable environment and temperature for living organisms (from the Earth); 4. How to carry living organisms (from the Earth); 5. Recycle/Find alternate sources of resources. You cannot recover the life cycles of planets after they are dead. Living organisms are not likely to be “transplanted” into any “dead’ planet. I am not 100% sure for this.

Teru Wong

 

[MindOverMatter]

The Earth is a conscious living object.

There is no basis for thinking this. In terms of seeking divinity, you have sort of set your self off on the right path, but it is really short sighted to stop with the creative things themselves as being the divine cause. You, like the pagans, think that divinity lies in the created things because they work toward meaningful and purposeful ends. This is a plausible mistake to make.

Instead; why not consider the fact of evolution as having the transcendent implication that the ultimate reality and cause of all physical beings is a conscious and necessary entity whom creatively wills things to achieve a specific end in time? There has to be a creative root of all creativity, and this to me would more deserve the name “God” since it is the cause of potential natures.
kk23wong;5723047:

The God is a conscious Earth. She is in a higher form of lives and our mother-in-common biologically.

This is the so called Gai theory.

 

[Cecilianus]

(I will respond to your comments in several posts instead of in one or two because of time constraints and the fact anything other than brief posts are appropriate for effective discussion in a forum.)

Same here; I will also have to finish responding tonight since I’m short of time.

First, I take exception to your statement about science and philosophy. You seem to deny that science and philosophy are two different ways of knowing reality. However, to claim that science and philosophy have nothing to do with each other is to make a statement that is beyond the scope and competence of science and so must be proved or disproved by philosophy. By the way, are you familiar with the classic work The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science by E.A. Burtt?

I am not familiar with that work. I do dislike the bifurcation between science and philosophy. They spring from a single human faculty, reason, and until metaphysics moves on to immaterial reality they deal with a single object, the physical natural world. Science and philosophy should work together, and in fact it’s not possible to separate the two. (Even Aristotelian philosophy is based on the flawed science of its day, and as we’ve been discussing, quantum mechanics has drawn its inspiration from current philosophical movements.) However, scientific truths are not as tied down to the origin of their discovery as philosophical ones are. Newton’s mechanics is still true despite the fact that his views on astrology and metaphysics were false; same with Laplace’s even though his strict determinism is now known to be false.

Catholics believe that the truths of Revelation and the truths of science cannot contradict. This observation also holds for the truths of philosophy. The truths of philosophy do not contradict scientific truths or the truths of Revelation. This observation takes into account and is not contradicted the provisional nature of scientific statements. Since the truths of each science, whether those of sacra doctrina, philosophy, or the natural sciences do not contradict, they have an integral relation to each other.

Absolutely agreed, though we will disagree on which philosophical opinions constitute “the truths of philosophy”.

Since philosophy, understood strictly as the philosophia perennis, which alone deserves the name philosophy, is a higher discipline than positive science, acts as regulative guide to its conclusions.

Absolutely not. Unlike science, which has relative certainty and unanimity, neither of those exist in philosophy. There are as many philosophical opinions and differences of opinion as there are philosophers, despite general trends that we lump together to make schools. There is no certainty in philosophy; at least none that has ever been communicated. When philosophers can come to a consensus on anything, then it can be used as a guide.

The guidance is purely external and negative. To deny this relationship implies either a denial of the different ways of knowing reality or an artificial fracturing of human knowledge into unrelated categories in which the human mind becomes schizophrenic (according to the etymological sense of the term).

Heisenberg clearly believed that he had disproved the philosophical notion of causality. His claim is a matter of historical record and easily verified. You have yet to come to terms with Heisenberg’s claim. A number of philosophers and a few scientists in Heisenberg’s day correctly realized the problematic nature of Heisenberg’s claim, i.e. the claim leads to solipsism, insofar as human knowledge is concerned. One need not be very reflective to realize the fatal implications this has for the reliability of science.

And to a degree, he was right. There is no causality regarding certain factors that need to be determined (position or momentum), only probability. Causality at the macroscopic scale is the result (the effect) of probabilities adding up at the microscopic scale. He may have been wrong to deny the whole metaphysical concept of causality all together, but as I said above, scientific truths are very free from the historical path of discovery.

The fatal implications of Heisenberg’s claim to have conclusively disproved the ontological notion of causality is a classic illustration of Aristotle’s observation that a little error in the beginning amounts to a colossal one in the end.

What implications?

 

[Cecilianus]

I have yet to read any scientific description of an observation that demonstrates an effect that is greater than its cause. The very greatest effect in time is the Creation of the universe itself, yet it was not greater than its Cause.

It would be utterly miraculous if a material cause could generate an effect greater than itself. However, not even God can do what is inherently contradictory. For example, God cannot create a square circle, despite what some people seem to think. An effect greater than its cause is in the same category as square circles.

You’re begging the question. I provided you with one: the position of a small particle. You denied that the exact determination of the position could be uncaused because it’s a metaphysical principle that that would be impossible. You can’t say that you have yet to read a scientific observation of a phenomenon when you in principle dismiss all such scientific observations that you are presented with on the grounds that it’s metaphysically impossible.

 

[Cecilianus]

Despite what you have implied in another post, I am actually reading your posts. The problem is that there is hardly a point I can agree with, and to present my argument against every single item would get quite tedious. The point about pregnancy pertains to causality and fact, a point you have missed. A woman is never sort of pregnant. It’s an all or none situation, in contradistinction to quantum indeterminacy as an ontological principle, which I hold to be based on fallacious reasoning.

But it’s a false analogy, since you don’t have quantum indeterminacy at that large a scale.

There are implications for quantum indeterminacy at the macro level, at least according to a number of physicists or cosmologists who speculate about entire universes popping into existence out of nothing. Surely, you must know about this. And Planck, as well as others were concerned about solipsism as a consequence of quantum indeterminacy. So, the things that are absurd are in fact believed to be so by a number of physicists as a consequence of quantum indeterminacy. Check out Hawking’s cosmology. He uses the further logical implications quantum indeterminacy to dispose of God.

I am familiar with many-worlds hypotheses, but there is no way to test these and they are strictly philosophical attempts to explain quantum phenomena. Solipsism is also a problem we shall have to deal with in science now as well as philosophy, though it has not been proven as a conclusion of quantum mechanics - just a possibility.

I am quite familiar with Hawking’s cosmology. I do not believe that God is absolutely logically necessary to explain the world according to the data we have now, but I don’t believe there is any evidence for the alternatives (including his), and there are plenty of physical and metaphysical problems with them as well.

(I don’t remember what I argued way back when at the beginning of this thread, but I think my views have pretty much stayed the same.)

I must take exception to your absolutely bizarre and post-modern characterization of philosophy. Clearly, you do not know what philosophy is. Philosophy is not something one can learn at a modern American university or college, except in a very few cases.

Certaintly not at my college.

You said “Science differs from philosophy in that it actually gives us knowledge and has certainty to it.” To prove that statement you would have to argue philosophically. Once you begin to argue philosophically, you have refuted your own thesis.

But I’m arguing inductively, not deductively. You have been using “philosophy” to mean deductive reasoning that overrides what we actually see in the lab.

There are truths of philosophy that are known more certainly than scientific truths. That is one of many reasons why philosophy, philo + sophia is the love of wisdom. To the contrary, modern science claims to supplant philosophy. Beware hubris!

Modern science is my philosophy.

Would you mind naming some of these profound truths that are so certain? I can only think of tautologies and self-evident principles.

 

[Cecilianus]

Do you mean Bohr’s correspondence principle, i.e., that in the limit of macro-scale objects, quantum mechanics should approach Newtonian (classical) mechanics?

Yes - thanks Geremia.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Would you mind naming some of these profound truths that are so certain? I can only think of tautologies and self-evident principles.

Cecilianus, we have done battle before. Lets hope that this debate is more fruitful then the last.

Prove with science that other minds exist.

 

[itinerant1]

Modern science is my philosophy.

Without a proper and adequate recognition of the distinction between the natural sciences and the Philosophia Perennis we have no common ground for discussion.

Peace

 

[Cecilianus]

It is nothing personal.

The Earth is a conscious living object.

The God is a conscious Earth. She is in a higher form of lives and our mother-in-common biologically.

The rigidity of our technology stopped us from exploring our planet. The lack of understanding of the Earth blinded us.

The God is an imaginary image built by both the God and us. She would like to be glorified and her arrogant make us suffer.

The legends in our history are the manipulations of her power gifted by birth.

She is not the one we expected because she made many of us suffer.

Her concepts enforced on our world resulted in our arrogant and led us to the blink of extinctions. The regenerations of the Earth is not infinite. The situation will be similar to those planets nearby.

I am turning against her because our civilizations will be going too far because of the ingorance of the truth.

We are suffering by her manipulations of power. She is enforcing her will on her children.

I feel depressed and sorry to tell all of you the truth behind the world.

The God is actually a conscious Earth.
Lives have no secrets.
Souls are comfort. Lies must kill. Truth may save.

Unconditional love can only be granted by the God, but she is going too far.
She is lost in her lust for power. Thus, she makes her children suffer.

History will tell. Science can do.

Teru Wong

Teru, I would just like to point out a few general, overarching problems with what you are saying, largely because I’m not getting half of what you’re saying due to the linguistic barrier.

1. You still haven’t answered the question as to how you know all this, and on what authority you (who, as a HISTORY major, have no technical knowledge of science) can override the consensus of scientists who actually know the field under question.
2. You still haven’t answered the question as to where the Earth’s brain is, or what the physiological organ of consciousness in the Earth is.
3. There are several contradictions in what you just said, and I don’t know which of them you actually mean. Is God (Who is properly referred by the pronoun “He”, by the way, since He transcends the world and comes into it from without the way a man comes into a woman from without) the Earth or a figment of the Earth’s imagination? You said both. Are you for Earth/Goddess or against It/Her? You said both.
4. Let me get this straight: history (which you, if you graduated, have a degree in!) is a fabrication made by the power of the evil earth-goddess?

 

[Cecilianus]

Cecilianus, we have done battle before. Lets hope that this debate is more fruitful then the last.

Prove with science that other minds exist.

Developmental psychology will not only show you that other minds exist but actually tell us something we didn’t already know about them, namely how they develop and how the mind works as it is growing up.

Now prove with philosophy that any rational person should even question the obvious fact that other minds exist. I frankly don’t care about questions like that. It doesn’t teach me anything new about the world.

 

[Cecilianus]

Without a proper and adequate recognition of the distinction between the natural sciences and the Philosophia Perennis we have no common ground for discussion.

Peace

None whatsoever? We both possess reason, and we both possess the truths of Revelation. I do not accept the Philosophia Perennis, and neither do the vast majority of modern philosophers. You can’t talk with modern philosophers either?

When I make metaphysical claims about reality based on science, or epistemological claims about the truth of science, you say that I am doing philosophy and not science. I’m fine with that - I don’t care what you call it when it’s just plain truth. When I actually stand by what I said and treat science as my philosophy, you say that you can’t engage in discussion because I’m doing science and not talking philosophy at all. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Which is it - am I doing philosophy and calling it science, and thereby deluding myself by granting scientific authority to philosophical claims, or am I doing science and calling it philosophy, thereby lacking the ability to engage in philosophical discourse?

 

[Geremia]

1. Claiming physical matter eternal means declaring it God.

I was not claiming it is eternal.

1. By writing “we cannot scientifically research God” I meant exactly that. Of course physics proves *existence *of God. Moreover, a simple honest look around us proves it even without physics. However, ardent atheists demand not less than “catching” God Himself in a lab experiment.

Yes, I agree. Also, scientists do try “to catch” God Himself when they desecrate consecrated Hosts for experimentation.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Developmental psychology will not only show you that other minds exist but actually tell us something we didn’t already know about them, namely how they develop and how the mind works as it is growing up.

Just as i thought. This has not proven to me that you understand what i mean by asking you to prove empirically that other minds exist. The existence of developmental psychology is based on a philosophical or intuitive **belief ** that there are other minds outside of your own. This is not a scientific proof. The fact of other minds is accepted on other grounds that are unscientific. Thus it is simply flawed to think that empirical science should be the only standard for accepting something to be true. Such an idea is a distortion of the authority of scientific knowledge.

Now prove with philosophy that any rational person should even question the obvious fact that other minds exist.

Its absolutely reasonable on purely philosophical grounds to infer the existence of other minds. That we take it for granted does not change the fact that in principle we cannot prove that other minds exist with the scientific method.

I frankly don’t care about questions like that. It doesn’t teach me anything new about the world.

Perhaps its the fact that you don’t care that prevents you from learning the true value, validity, and place, of a philosophy that exists outside the scientific method.

 

[Cecilianus]

Just as i thought. This has not proven to me that you understand what i mean by asking you to prove empirically that other minds exist. The existence of developmental psychology is based on a philosophical or intuitive **belief ** that there are other minds outside of your own. This is not a scientific proof. The fact of other minds is accepted on other grounds that are unscientific. Thus it is simply flawed to think that empirical science should be the only standard for accepting something to be true. Such an idea is a distortion of the authority of scientific knowledge.

Its absolutely reasonable on purely philosophical grounds to infer the existence of other minds. That we take it for granted does not change the fact that in principle we cannot prove that other minds exist with the scientific method.

Perhaps its the fact that you don’t care that prevents you from learning the true value, validity, and place, of a philosophy that exists outside the scientific method.

Because it doesn’t TEACH US ANYTHING NEW about the world. Only a lunatic would even question whether he existed or whether other minds exist. I don’t waste my time with questions like that when there is a whole wealth of knowledge waiting to be discovered. You can’t put men on the moon when you’re still wondering whether you exist or not.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Because it doesn’t TEACH US ANYTHING NEW about the world. Only a lunatic would even question whether he existed or whether other minds exist. I don’t waste my time with questions like that when there is a whole wealth of knowledge waiting to be discovered. You can’t put men on the moon when you’re still wondering whether you exist or not.

You didn’t read a word i said did you? You know every little about science and philosophy.

 

[itinerant1]

1. Claiming physical matter eternal means declaring it God.

In theory, there is nothing logically or ontologically impossible about the universe being eternal, i.e. having no beginning in time, and yet still having been created, and dependent for its being on God. Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God assume an eternally existing universe. It is a very complex notion of an “eternal creation”. So, Aquinas’ demonstrations work whether one assumes the universe is eternal or finite. We can philosophically demonstrate a beginning to the universe, but only by Revelation do we know that the cosmos was created in time.

1. By writing “we cannot scientifically research God” I meant exactly that. Of course physics proves *existence *of God…

Granted that we cannot scientifically research God. But this will include His existence as well, since God’s essence is identical with his existence. God is Existence itself, as He said to Moses, “I Am Who Am”. Hence, it would appear to be a contradiction to also assert that physics can prove the existence of God.

Briefly explain why you think your statements are not in contradiction.

Next, what scientific demonstration would you cite from physics that appears to prove the existence of God.

 

[Geremia]

In regard to methodological naturalism the history of science has shown that this approach is most productive and most objective.

How do you define “productive?” And how is it the “most objective?”

If individual religious beliefs, philosophical positions, and ideologies are left out of scientific investigations or ignored (to ignore is very different than to deny), then science because more objective.

Or it could become more biased. I do not think it is very objective to look at reality through such a narrow lens as “methodological naturalism.” How could it be?

Clearly, the experiments and conclusions of one scientist can be verified by another regardless of their differing non-scientific beliefs.

Yes, but I do not think science progresses by verification but by falsification.

In fact, the natural sciences truly advanced when scientists began leaving final causes out of their explanations of natural phenomena. Final causes are now left to the philosopher.

As though they do not pertain to anything…

I am not aware of any prominent scientist today who disagrees with methodological naturalism as most appropriate.

Regarding St. Paul’s statement, he is referring to gnontes, which is an inceptive, speculative sort of knowledge about God. I might even characterize that kind knowledge as quasi-philosophical, but with some individuals it is more intuitive. This knowledge of God’s existence comes from reflection on nature, its order, design, beauty, or goodness. It is not something quantifiable or verified by scientific methodology.

Gnontes is not derived from philosophical demonstration such the Aristotelian demonstration for the existence of a First Cause. I’m sure St. Paul realized very few Gentiles were knowledgeable in Aristotelian philosophy or even the sciences of the day. So, he is speaking about a knowledge of God’s existence that is available to all, however imperfect that knowledge may be. That is why he says the Gentiles are without excuse. They would have plenty excuses if the knowledge of God he talked about was a scientific or strictly philosophical knowledge.

Why the division between philosophical and “scientific” (i.e., “phenomenologically naturalistic,” as you define it) knowledge? “Scientific” knowledge is a type of philosophical knowledge. Since truth cannot contradict truth, I do not see why there are ultimately different kinds of knowledge, as if they have two separate ends.

Philosophy and natural science: I cannot explain this well in less than a few pages but I will point out some highlights. Philosophy differs from the natural sciences in its formal object. This is a distinction worked out in the Church over a long period, and that insight allowed the particular sciences to develop on their own.

The categorization now differs a bit from that of Boethius. One of the distinctions is the recognition of a physics that is a part of philosophy and a physics that stands at the head of the natural sciences. Mathematics was categorized by Aristotle and Aquinas as under philosophy because of its degree of abstraction. Currently, mathematics can be considered midway between the natural sciences and philosophy, though there are variations in categorizing mathematics.

Why would one consider mathematics “midway between the natural sciences and philosophy?” It is only by hypothesis that physicists use mathematics to describe physical reality.

Both philosophy and the sciences have disciplines that are speculative or theoretical and practical. So the division between philo and science is not based upon speculative versus practical.

No, it appears to be based upon the false conception of philosophy being equal to metaphysics.

Within the subject matter common to the sciences and philosophy, we say that the aim of science is know what is universally observable about the nature of physical things, while the aim of philosophy is to know what is universally intelligible about their natures, that is, their substance (ousia) and their causes.

The formal object of philosophy is the noumenal or intelligible order, that is, things in the principles and causes of their being.

Yes, exactly, you are saying it is only metaphysics or ontology, which is wrong.

The formal object of the natural sciences is the phenomenal order, that is, sensible things in their operations and changes. The natural sciences are limited to studying the changing surface of things in nature. This study includes classification, systematization, correlation, quantification and so on.

I know there is much more to be said for a full explanation, but I have to get back to work now, and will finish up by making a brief comment about J.S. Bell. The conclusive character of quantum mechanics, in its dis-allowance of absolutely precise measurements of quantum interactions derived further experimental support from Bell’s theorem of inequality. However shored up this may be it does nothing to address the issue of whether a restriction on precise measurement entails an ontological incompleteness in the interactions measured.

Yes…

That reminds me that you asked about ontology. In the interest of time I will provide a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Ontology.

Instead of this division of the sciences,

PHILOSOPHY

1. 
   ]Speculative Philosophy
   1. 
      ]Physical Sciences]Mathematical Sciences
   1. ]Metaphysical Sciences
      
      *]Practical Philosophy
      1. 
         ]Art]Prudence,
         
         Wolff really inverts the order of the division of the sciences by identifying metaphysics (ontology) as philosophy itself and placing it first:
         
         METAPHYSICS
         1. 
            *]General Metaphysics (Ontology)
            *]Special Metaphysics
            1. 
               *]Metaphysics of Bodies
               *]Metaphysics of Spirits
               1. 
                  *]of Created Spirits
                  *]of Uncreated Spirits.
                  
                  Resulting from this is the now present separation of natural and philosophical sciences. Humans naturally start with imperfect sense knowledge and gradually build up to more perfect knowledge, not the other way around as Wolff would suggest. Even Rom. 1:20 says that in order to understand God you must start with His sensible creation first.

 

[Cecilianus]

You didn’t read a word i said did you? You know every little about science and philosophy.

Yes, I did read what you wrote. Feel free to enlighten me regarding philosophy rather than insulting me, please. I am tired of philosophers telling me I know nothing about philosophy and then refusing to clear my ignorance. I do sincerely want to learn. I can’t learn if no one is willing to enlighten me.

If I say anything about science which is wrong, then I trust that Geremia will correct me. While I may still be on the road towards my Ph.D., I certainly have a better knowledge of science than you do, since you haven’t even studied it (at an advanced level). So I’m not sure where you get off telling me that I know “very little about science”.

Regarding your last post, here is a modus tollens syllogism proving from modern science that other minds exist.

If other minds did not exist, then we could not make true statements describing their development in great detail.

But we do make true statements describing their development in great detail (in the science of developmental psychology).

Therefore, other minds exist.

Now that I have answered your question, can you please answer my original question and tell me something NEW and PROFOUND and INFORMATIVE that you can learn from philosophy?