G
grannymh
Guest
“Nothing is unstable.” English grammar would consider “nothing” a what
“Particles pop in and out of existence on a regular basis.” Nothings have lots of names and descriptions.
- Status
“Particles pop in and out of existence on a regular basis.” Nothings have lots of names and descriptions.
J
JDaniel
Guest
Soule:
What I always find intriguing is people who can define things without knowing what the words, that he is using, actually mean. Nothing is unstable. So, Nothing, which is, I guess, a proper noun for something, is that which is unstable. Therefore, it’s not nothing, rather, it’s something called Nothing, or Something, and, whatever it is, it’s unstable. Whew!
Then, they define them as virtual particles. Too much time with computer games, it seems to me. Winning an argument by a plethora of confusion.
God bless,
jd
G
grannymh
Guest
To each his own.
In my humble opinion, someone connected with the show knew Rev.Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D., President of Magis Center of Reason and Faith. In my humble observatrion, Larry King was steering the open conversation away from metaphysics so that the book’s speculations could stand.
magisreasonfaith.org/blog/?p=39
magisreasonfaith.org/index.htm
T
The_Exodus
Guest
Are you talking about his pointing out the arguing from a particular to a universal fallacy? Or his point that, even if current physics proved the universe could create itself (which is a metaphysical impossibility, but, nevertheless, for humor’s sake) does not *prove *anything about God’s existence?
Plus, Fr. Spitzer didn’t even get to talk about the vast amount of physical data he has researched and brought together.
No one is doubting that Hawking is a smart physicist. But he is an amatuer philosopher. He thinks, for example, that the first cause argument is fallacious because he says God would then have to have a cause. The argument is that every effect must have a cause. The universe coming into being is an effect. Therefore, the existence of the universe must have a cause. Not every cause has to have a cause. Anything which undergoes change, undergoes change by some prior agent. The universes beginning, which changed from not existing to existing, must have a cause. It is impossible that this change be due to itself, since it would have to exist prior to its coming into being, in order to create itself.
Im simply dismayed that such people are looked upon as “the brightest minds” when they have no training whatsoever in philosophy. It leads to absurdities such as “nothing is x” whereas x can mean a number of given properties. Metaphysical nothingness cannot have properties, or else, as common sense tells even the most unlearned layman, it is something. So long as there is something, there are effects of previous causes - whether they be temporally prior or not.
All I’m saying is, if all the scientists went back and read Aristotle, we’d be in a much better situation.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
The Exodus
*All I’m saying is, if all the scientists went back and read Aristotle, we’d be in a much better situation. *
I see you and raise you a quote by Chesterton that we could all go back to.
**“It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense.” **
*All I’m saying is, if all the scientists went back and read Aristotle, we’d be in a much better situation. *
I see you and raise you a quote by Chesterton that we could all go back to.
**“It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense.” **
T
The_Exodus
Guest
Haha! Indeed!The Exodus
*All I’m saying is, if all the scientists went back and read Aristotle, we’d be in a much better situation. *
I see you and raise you a quote by Chesterton that we could all go back to.
**“It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense.” **
But more seriously, as much as I hate to admit it, I do side with the universal skeptics and existentialists in some respect. If there is no God, they are at least smart enough to see the ramifications of this: i.e. there is no reason for anything, and meaning and truth are sheer illusions. From Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Gods: “I’m afriad we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” He said this because he knew what must follow if there is no reason for our being: there is no sense to anything at all, even language.
G
grannymh
Guest
Yes. I am looking for more information about the particular to a universal fallacy. Eventually, I would like to use it in a defense for the reality of two sole parents of the human species, lovingly known as Adam and Eve. But I am finding it hard to document this fallacy.
Out of respect for the ban in this forum, I have moved my beginning thoughts to
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=478146
In my humble opinion, saying that God is not needed is a direct attack against Catholicism. Additionally, the physical universe is not the best proof for the existence of God; human nature is.
I have filed your post 24 with my off-line project: Natural Science and Catholicism, Conflict over Adam and Eve.
Blessings,
granny
The search for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.
T
The_Exodus
Guest
I would be delighted to help you in any way possible in your endeavors. I am a Classicist; that is, an Aristotlean realist through and through and follow the teaching of Saint Thomas most closely, until around the 1600s, when, in my opinion, Molina best kept alive the mystery of the faith concerning predestination and free will.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
InGodWe
*Fr. Spitzer’s intelligence is nowhere near on the same level as Mr. Hawking.Not many people are on the same level as Hawking.What a waste of time even having Spitzer on the show when there is no way he could even comprehend Hawking’s most basic ideas and thoughts! *
If that is true, why did Larry King invite him on the show, and why would he accept?
*Fr. Spitzer’s intelligence is nowhere near on the same level as Mr. Hawking.Not many people are on the same level as Hawking.What a waste of time even having Spitzer on the show when there is no way he could even comprehend Hawking’s most basic ideas and thoughts! *
If that is true, why did Larry King invite him on the show, and why would he accept?
J
JDaniel
Guest
Exodus:
He also knew that the future perfect tense would be ludicrous without something beyond life and the finite universe. The futurum exactum is that which extends us and all we ever do, or have done, into God’s eternal future. One cannot seriously say, “Well, what we did here today, we can take with us into the future, or until I die;” precisely because it survives us. A meeting of men, wooden chairs and desks, papers, wall pictures/paintings, dust, etc., survives all the men and insects that were in that room. A million years from now, God still knows.
God bless,
jd
G
grannymh
Guest
First of all, I started to doubt if Larry King actually knew who Rev. Spitzer was. The confident composure of Rev. Spitzer impressed me especially in light of a couple of inane (in my opinion) comments from King. Check out the Magis Center of Reason and Faith magisreasonfaith.org/
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
That depends on what you mean by nothing. Empirical science by definition measures physical states or beings, a state or a being is “something” that is real. A state is not un-real or nothing. If it was nothing at all, it could not possibly be measured. Thus when a competent scientist says that nothing is unstable, such a person can only be talking about a fluctuating vacuum, which is something. You cannot give physical attributes to that which is non-existent. As far as things coming in and out of existence, at most this statement can only mean that a thing did not come from a “physical something”. But that is not a proof in itself that it came from nothing at all. You can only come to this conclusion if you presuppose a universal naturalism, which isn’t science.
Something is being ignored here; and that is the “context” in which something is being stated and the “epistemology” that is necessary when making inferences in regards to things or possibilities lying outside the scope of physical definitions or the empirical method. To say that something came from nothing at all, unless this is only giving reference to the absence of a “physical cause”, we are no-longer talking science. We talking about an irrational philosophy based upon a faulty understanding of what science is actually telling us.
A
Anselm33
Guest
:thumbsup:You nailed it!
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I have just watched the show, and the word nothing is spoken of in a fallacious manner. It really is semantics on drugs. It was quite literally and mostly a meaningless conversation.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I think Deepak points out, at 33.41 of the interview, something significant without the full realisation of its significance (or be perhaps he does realise).
As soon as we do away with this confusion of using words like nothing and replace them with the word “nothing physical”, Stephen Hawkins book can actually be used as a philosophical argument against reductionist positivist materialism and atheism in general.
Thank you Stephan Hawking’s for showing us what we have already known for hundreds of years.
As soon as we do away with this confusion of using words like nothing and replace them with the word “nothing physical”, Stephen Hawkins book can actually be used as a philosophical argument against reductionist positivist materialism and atheism in general.
- According to a correct rendering of Stephen hawking’s ideas, all of physical reality came from “nothing physical.”
- Out of absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing.
- Therefore physical reality comes from something non-physical.
Thank you Stephan Hawking’s for showing us what we have already known for hundreds of years.
B
Biedrik
Guest
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Thank you Stephan Hawking’s for showing us what we have already known for hundreds of years.
Correction. Thousands of years!
Correction. Thousands of years!
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
If so, what he said is nothing original—Democritus beat him to it by about 3000 years.
O
OrdinaryMelkite
Guest
Personally, I agree with you. And I also agree that Fr. Spitzer did not get enough airtime to expand his views. I also thought the “logical fallacy” argument that he pointed out to Leonard was spot on. It WAS going from particulars to universals.
Chopra made a couple of good points but mainly stuck with his usual pantheistic spiel and book-promoting.
G
grannymh
Guest
A transcript of the show is avaible on this website. Link is upper left corner.
magisreasonfaith.org/
magisreasonfaith.org/
- Status