Open Theism Vs Unmoved-Mover

[MindOverMatter]

Look - I’m a physics major; I’m close to having degrees in physics and math; I know what science covers and how it’s done. I don’t go to Wikipedia to learn about science.

That means nothing to me on a forum like this. I don’t know who you are. All i know is what i know to be fact. For all i know you could be lying in order to avoid giving an explanation of your fallacious reasoning about the scientific method, thinking that i would be dumb enough to believe you; and quite frankly you are going to fail your physics major if you do not agree with the basics of what is being said in this wikipedia. You need to get with that real quick. A professional would not get upset and emotional just because i showed them a definition. They would simply agree with the definition, because its the truth.

Scientists talks about a vacuum; yes. And i accept scientific theories in accordance with the true definition of the scientific method. Outside of it, you a talking about very poor philosophy in the disguised of science.

Your definition of the vacuum as not being “real”, but instead being some imaginary thing out of which particles arise, is a fallacy. No honest scientist teaches this as truth. Some scientists might speak about the idea, but that doesn’t make it science. And your definition blatantly fails the test of the scientific method.

 

[MindOverMatter]

They have their own “being” (in an analogous way); they don’t depend on objects or things for their existence. They don’t exist “because of being”; I don’t even know what that means.

I see your assertion, but i see no arguement to back it up. What do you mean by analogous to being? How do concepts exist by themselves outside peoples minds? I agree that logical concepts exist as truth, but truth is a function of existence. With out a foundation of existence, that which is, that which is most real, your assertion that concepts can exist is meaningless. What is a “mathematical being?”, and how is the word “being” applied to mathematics when you yourself claim to not know what that means? Are you purposely trying to be deceptive? Or do you have the common problem of confusing the conceptual realm with the realm of ontological being?

Answer this one question.

1. Can mathematical truth exist in “absolutely nothing”.

2. Let me put it another way. If there was absolutely nothing, would Mathematical truth exist.

 

[Cecilianus]

My answers are in bold.

Cecilianus;5535712:

Do you deny that science is concerned with only one aspect of reality - physical - whereas philosophy is concerned with reality as a whole? No.

Do you regard belief in the power of reason as a tautological principle? Yes.
Do you regard the belief that the universe is intelligible as a tautological principle? No, but nobody would be doing science if the universe were not intelligible. All scientists implicitly know that the universe is intelligible.

Are you saying that Aristotle made no contribution to science? Yes. Is your belief in the power of reason unverifiable speculation? No, because we have in fact rationally explained the universe through science, and our explanation works.

Is your belief that you exist unverifiable speculation? No, because someone who denies their own exist deserves psychiatric treatment more than refutation.
Why do you bother to discuss philosophical questions at all if they are merely unverifiable speculation? Surely it must be a colossal waste of time and energy!

**Because sometimes they can give real insight - which in Latin would be called speculatio or “seeing”. But there is no way to verify the insight, and if we can’t agree on fundamental principles, we aren’t going to get anywhere. Science is much more reliable.

Besides, a lot of guessing and unproven claims are in fact used in philosophy - such as the notion that God is the “prime mover”. I am still waiting for a rational proof for this step of the argument**

 

[Cecilianus]

That means nothing to me on a forum like this. I don’t know who you are. All i know is what i know to be fact. For all i know you could be lying in order to avoid giving an explanation of your fallacious reasoning about the scientific method, thinking that i would be dumb enough to believe you; and quite frankly you are going to fail your physics major if you do not agree with the basics of what is being said in this wikipedia. You need to get with that real quick. A professional would not get upset and emotional just because i showed them a definition. They would simply agree with the definition, because its the truth.

Scientists talks about a vacuum; yes. And i accept scientific theories in accordance with the true definition of the scientific method. Outside of it, you a talking about very poor philosophy in the disguised of science.

Your definition of the vacuum as not being “real”, but instead being some imaginary thing out of which particles arise, is a fallacy. No honest scientist teaches this as truth. Some scientists might speak about the idea, but that doesn’t make it science. And your definition blatantly fails the test of the scientific method.

If you agree that science talks about a vacuum, then what are we arguing about? Do you accept that it is in fact science? (If not, I really don’t know what to say. I might as well say that the Roman Empire is outside the province of historians. That’s so unspeakable arrogant and absurd that it’s not really possible to respond to.)

The vacuum is not imaginary, it is quite real - but, by definition, it is nothing. Or emptiness, or void, or whichever term you wish to use. People have been thinking about nothingness for centuries - I don’t understand what is so difficult about the concept. Fridugise of Tours wrote a treatise “De Nihilo et Tenebris” which I have been unable to find either in Latin or in translation, unfortunately. Everyone knows how big a role the “void” plays in Buddhism. Catholic theology likewise speaks of kenosis, which is probably a different concept than the Buddhist “void” (though for a philological argument otherwise, see Eugene Rose’s master’s thesis “Emptiness and Fullness in the Lao Tzu”, which is available online in PDF).

I am actually doing quite well in physics, and learning physics is a much better (but much more laborious) way of learning how science works rather than learning the philosophy of science. I didn’t do any more than skim through the article, but it seemed like a philosophy of science article rather than science itself. The original point of contention was between a “hypothesis” and a “theory”. Theories are in fact proven; the distinction between a “theory” and a “law” is a fiction found in some “creationist” elementary-school textbooks but not in practice. Scientists usually deal with models, anyway, and not “theories” and “hypotheses”. I don’t really understand the relevance of this to the discussion as a whole, however.

 

[Cecilianus]

I see your assertion, but i see no arguement to back it up. What do you mean by analogous to being? How do concepts exist by themselves outside peoples minds? I agree that logical concepts exist as truth, but truth is a function of existence. With out a foundation of existence, that which is, that which is most real, your assertion that concepts can exist is meaningless. What is a “mathematical being?”, and how is the word “being” applied to mathematics when you yourself claim to not know what that means? Are you purposely trying to be deceptive? Or do you have the common problem of confusing the conceptual realm with the realm of ontological being?

Answer this one question.

1. Can mathematical truth exist in “absolutely nothing”.

2. Let me put it another way. If there was absolutely nothing, would Mathematical truth exist.

Answer to the two questions you posed: (1) If I understand your question correctly, no, since numbers exist. (2) Yes; if the universe had not been created and there were no God, mathematics would be unchanged.

Short answer to the paragraph before you posed the two questions: I honestly don’t know. The reality of mathematical objects is a philosophical mystery.

Long answer to the same paragraph:

What do I mean by “analogous to being”? Well, numbers aren’t things or objects, but they aren’t unreal other. How they exist I don’t know; but I do know that the simplistic ways of handling the problem are false.

How do they exist outside my mind? I don’t know. Probably as necessary logical relations, nothing more - but that doesn’t really account for the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”, as some philosophers have called it. (I think I read about this in Fr. Dubay’s excellent book “The Evidential Power of Beauty”.)

What is a “mathematical being”? Good question. Probably just a logical relation. Logical relations do not cease to be true if the universe ceased to exist, because they are necessary, a priori truths.

I am not trying to be deceptive (to answer the next two questions), I just honestly can’t help but be vague when dealing with philosophical mysteries. I do know that numbers exist, and that they aren’t substance or things.

Distinguishing the conceptual realm from the ontological realm is a good place to start, but it doesn’t solve the problem as to how (in what manner) numbers exist. If you deny that numbers exist then I can only scratch my head in a different kind of wonder. Numbers and mathematics don’t depend on physical reality for their existence. You can still do arithmetic with numbers greater than the total number of atoms in the universe (which is about 10^84, I think).

 

[Cecilianus]

As a clarification, the “question” you asked seems to me to be two separate questions, with opposite answers.

It seems to me like you are trying to simplify “being” into just one kind of being - that which objects and things have. Numbers don’t have that kind of being, but it’s not true to say that they don’t exist or that they are just mental concepts.

 

[Cecilianus]

Finally (since I forgot to address this), my argument is simply my experience doing math. There are right and wrong answers in mathematics. There are numbers which you can’t count with - irrational numbers, negative numbers, complex numbers, etc. Nobody ever ate the square root of two apples. You can’t measure exactly the square root of two litres of water. But the diagonal of a unit square is exactly the square root of two. There is no room for opinion there. It is not just a mental concept that comes from us.

 

[onenow1]

Winner = I Am= omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent the UMM .

Peace and God bless all,onenow1opcorn:

 

[JDaniel]

I think that all the one track mind types who think that God is not capable of changing or choosing or acting anyway He wishes worship a very small God.

On the contrary, It is written, “I am the Lord, and I change not” (Malachi 3:6). - New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia

Perhaps you didn’t mean “changing” as mutability. If you did, then I must ask you, “Are you Catholic?” If you are, then please read: newadvent.org/summa/1009.htm

Now, with regard to free will, there is no doubt that God has free will in its ultimate form. and in its ultimate quantity. Obviously. But, God is timeless. When we think of “change”, we think of it in terms of occurring over time, i.e., God sees something, doesn’t like what He sees and so changes it. I understand that this could be done instantaneously, by God, but, even the thought process seems to impose a sequence. And, not a metaphysical sequence. A “change of mind” is essentially an “afterthought”.

God exercised/exercises His free will instantaneously with the creation of the universe and of all the souls He intended/intends to create. He does not do it as an afterthought. How would you respond?

jd

What seems to be logical and wise to men is foolishness to God.

Even children in high school know of mathematical equations that can be solved with more than one variable as the answer.

Are you going to tell me that God is incapable of doing the same thing with His will?

God is able to change the variables but still come up with the right answer to solve the equation.

The way God works His will changes in that sense–but does not change in the providential sense since the equation works out!

I’ll tell all of you people out there who fancy yourselves a great theologians this: don’t think that your finite limited view of logic is so perfect that it limits God!

God may limit God–people never limit God and people who think that they grasp whatever limits that God places on Himself or knows exactly how those limits works is as delusional as Job was!

Next: Hey, Dad - get off the phone, we’re talking here!"

jd

 

[JDaniel]

This is incorrect. Things come into existence from nothing all the time - “virtual particles” arise spontaneously out of the vacuum. (They are called “virtual” not because they lack reality but because they lack a cause.) They are predicted by quantum theory, necessary in quantum electrodynamics to preserve the correct charge of the electron, and verified experimentally in the form of Hawking radiation.

They are in no way any less virtual by your explanation than they are by virtue of being virtual. It is interesting that they are considered virtual as long as they come into being and immediately go out of being. If they linger a little too long, they are no longer considered virtual particles. Now, my question is, “Are these pre-matter-virtual particles adding matter to the universe?” If they are, it would seem that they are violating certain laws of physics. Or, are we witnessing energy changing into matter in another way - other than via “clumping”?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

And now for my own answer to the question posed originally:

I have never heard of “open-theism”, and naming an alternative to theism (monotheism) sounds simply wrong. What we must believe is the simple theism of the Saints and of Holy Scripture - which to my mind is completely incompatible with the “god of the philosophers”.

1. God is not “unchanging”. His Divine Nature is, but His nature is an abstract philosophical concept - reality of the mind only. He lets Himself be moved - changed - by prayer.
2. God is not the “prime mover”. We are not puppets incapable of doing anything until He pulls our strings. He created us free and independent. The “prime mover”, if we have to resort to using such a disgustingly Aristotelian term, of my own actions is my soul. (The reason why I hate using Aristotelian terminology is because it would implicitly require accepting Aristotelian physics. We have real science now.)
3. God is not “pure act”. He is perfectly capable of not creating or doing anything if He so chooses; He didn’t have to create the universe, and an incessantly dynamic god like that of process theology is just as wrong as the incessantly static god who is “unchanging”. Being is not the same as doing, and for clarity’s sake we should not call it “act”.
4. God is not the conclusion of a scientific proof. Science does not concern God; it “has no need of that hypothesis”. By science I mean real science, not the defunct Aristotelian system based upon faulty physics. (Aristotle’s idea of motion was incorrect, for example.)
5. God is not Being. I exist, and am not God; God exists, but He is not “existence”. I exist just as truly as God exists. I mean the same thing by the word “exist” in both cases - the pious attribution of “analogy” does no true reverence to Him since it is untrue. I have no concept of existence other than simply existing, so to say that existence is “analogous” in God is simply pious atheism. To say that God is Being is either pantheism (if we grant that we, too, exist) or monism (if we deny God the dignity of being able to create other beings). It is a denial of His creation.

You call yourself a “Catholic”, in your profile. Are you? Really? If you are, how do you reconcile that with your work to utterly debunk St. Thomas Aquinas with your degrading assertions and accusations? You sound like an atheist, with a modicum of ability to talk religiously. Sorry, that’s just my opinion.

Now, you may retort that you did not try to debunk Aquinas. And, I will return, "You were very cleaver to not associate his name with Aristotle’s, in your diatribe, but, in fact the two cannot be separated. So, that being the case, you were left with an easy-out-defense.

Anyway, you have outed yourself.

jd

 

[tonyrey]

Do you regard belief in the power of reason as a tautological principle? Yes.

Please explain why it is tautological.

All scientists implicitly know that the universe is intelligible.

implicitly know =believe.

Are you saying that Aristotle made no contribution to science? Yes.

Shortly before he died, Charles Darwin received a copy of Aristotle’s book on animal life, and thanked the friend who sent it to him with, “Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods, though in very different ways, but they were mere school-boys to old Aristotle.”

• Is your belief in the power of reason unverifiable speculation?* No, because we have in fact rationally explained the universe through science, and our explanation works.

Is your belief in the power of reason a scientific belief?

*Is your belief that you exist unverifiable speculation? *No, because someone who denies their own exist deserves psychiatric treatment more than refutation.

Is your belief that you exist a scientific belief?

Why do you bother to discuss philosophical questions at all if they are merely unverifiable speculation? Surely it must be a colossal waste of time and energy!
Because sometimes they can give real insight - which in Latin would be called speculatio or “seeing”.

You stated:
“Philosophy is not a judge of science. Philosophy is unverifiable speculation which nobody agrees on. Science is known to be true, and its truth is the standard by which philosophical theories have to be judged.”
If philosophy can give real insight that science cannot give it cannot be subordinate to science - which, as you have agreed, is restricted to physical reality. Nor can scientific truth be the standard by which philosophical theories have to be judged. Philosophy must be superior to science in many respects - and these respects are more important than scientific conclusions because they are concerned with theological, personal, spiritual and moral truths.

But there is no way to verify the insight, and if we can’t agree on fundamental principles, we aren’t going to get anywhere.

We can verify insight by personal experience, by its predictive power and by its results.

Science is much more reliable.

Do you rely on science to make the most important decisions in your life?

Besides, a lot of guessing and unproven claims are in fact used in philosophy - such as the notion that God is the “prime mover”. I am still waiting for a rational proof for this step of the argument.

How would you prove you exist? Scientifically? If so how?
Do you regard yourself as uniquely responsible for your decisions? If so how do you explain it scientifically?

 

[MindOverMatter]

Answer to the two questions you posed: (1) If I understand your question correctly, no, since numbers exist. (2) Yes; if the universe had not been created and there were no God, mathematics would be unchanged.

There is no truth in nothing, for nothing is nothing. If it were true that there was absolutely nothing, then it would not really be nothing since “truth” is something. And if there were no God, there would be nothing, since God by the Christian definition, is the root of all things; is the highest of the highest. God is absolute truth. If you believe otherwise you are saying that mathematics is a higher being then God, which you haven’t shown to be true, not to mention that it is heretical. You are just making assertions because you cannot imagine mathematical truth to be otherwise, which exposes your lack of conceptual ability.

Let me help you, one last time.

Without an absolute being to begin with, there can be no truth; it is meaningless to speak of truth with out that which exists absolutely. Mathematical truth follows from the law of non-contradiction. Thats why 2 + 2 = 4. The law of non-contradiction, that being cannot be and not be at the same time, is rooted in being itself. This is not just arbitrarily true. Mathematical truth is not true just because of its self, but because mathematics is “reflective” of that which we experience; which is “being”. We abstract mathematical truth from the order that we perceive in being, and from this order we have perceived the world of mathematics. Mathematics is the second order of abstraction, and is an abstraction from “order”. Its quite sad that you haven’t noticed this, and yet you claim to be good at math.

In order for mathematical truth to be true, it would have to be reflective of a reality that is objectively logical in itself. Mathematical truth is as such because it reflects the nature of existence which is being as opposed to non-being. It has no being by itself. Existence is that which is as opposed to that which is not. This is precisely why anything which has a beginning, although it may have its own created nature, it cannot and does not have its own independent being, but rather participates in that which is the reality of “Absolute-Being”. Otherwise it would be impossible for things to begin or have the potential to exist.

Short answer to the paragraph before you posed the two questions: I honestly don’t know. The reality of mathematical objects is a philosophical mystery.

I just solved it for you. Now have a nice day and leave me alone.

 

[Cecilianus]

They are in no way any less virtual by your explanation than they are by virtue of being virtual. It is interesting that they are considered virtual as long as they come into being and immediately go out of being. If they linger a little too long, they are no longer considered virtual particles. Now, my question is, “Are these pre-matter-virtual particles adding matter to the universe?” If they are, it would seem that they are violating certain laws of physics. Or, are we witnessing energy changing into matter in another way - other than via “clumping”?

jd

Are they adding matter to the universe? My understanding (which may be imperfect) is yes, for the incredibly brief period while they exist. Invariance (or conservation) of mass-energy is why they do not remain in existence; the fact that they exist briefly shows a deepening of our understanding of the invariance laws. Your point about them being “virtual” for that reason seems okay to me; but they are still real in the ordinary sense of the term, since they causally affect “real” particles. Interactions between fundamental particles are explained by the exchange of virtual particles, e.g. a photon (the exchange particle for an electromagnetic interaction). When the proton of a hydrogen nucleus attracts an electron, it releases a virtual photon - without losing any energy itself - which is then re-absorbed by the electron. Along the way that virtual photon may “clump” into a particle-antiparticle pair or basically do whatever it wants, but it has to turn back into a photon before it is reabsorbed.

So in answer to your second question, no; many exchange particles are massless anyway. The W and Z bosons have mass - ~90 GeV - while the graviton theoretically should be completely massless. What we have is energy being created and then redestroyed.

 

[Cecilianus]

You call yourself a “Catholic”, in your profile. Are you? Really? If you are, how do you reconcile that with your work to utterly debunk St. Thomas Aquinas with your degrading assertions and accusations? You sound like an atheist, with a modicum of ability to talk religiously. Sorry, that’s just my opinion.

Now, you may retort that you did not try to debunk Aquinas. And, I will return, "You were very cleaver to not associate his name with Aristotle’s, in your diatribe, but, in fact the two cannot be separated. So, that being the case, you were left with an easy-out-defense.

Anyway, you have outed yourself.

jd

I am practicing as a Catholic according to the laws of the Church, and trying my best to believe as one. Out of respect for his sanctity I didn’t mention Aquinas’ name, but I am not a Thomist and am both utterly confounded and nauseated as to why Catholics will not give him up when the physics he based is work on is found to be faulty. His synthesis was founded on the laudable (and true) belief that faith and reason are compatible, but his Aristotelian grounding was the contribution of reason, not faith, and when Reason has abandoned Aristotle, Catholics have no reason to cling to him for reasons of faith!

Theologically, I feel most comfortable with the theological aesthetics of Cardinal Hans Urs von Balthasar as well as the Greek and Oriental Fathers of the Church. I consider myself to be practicing in the Ukrainian rite, which was never influenced by scholastic theology but which still holds the fullness of the Catholic Faith. (I say “consider myself to be practicing” because during the eight months of the year in college when this rite is not available, I go to the Tridentine Mass instead.)

The philosophy I follow the closest is that of Martin Heidegger, and following him the Franciscan scholastics, especially Blessed John Duns Scotus. However, the only authority I accept in philosophy is that of modern science, since it is known to be true (in this regard alone, I am obviously parting very far from Heidegger!).

If I sound like an atheist, it is because I do not believe in a puppeteer God a la al-Ashari; nor do I understand any doctrine of a “prime mover” other than this (though Aquinas’ intention was obviously to preserve both God’s causality in all matters whatsoever and our freedom). We cannot speak of God “physically” moving our will before any action on our part, or speak of Him predestining us to Heaven against our will, and still consistently talk of human freedom. Nor is God the conclusion given by the science of physics (philosophical or otherwise) or any science which follows deductively from physics. Laplace was giving perfectly good science when he said that he had no need of that hypothesis. We do not need God as a hypothesis to explain how the world works, or even - within time - how it came into being. (Why the Big Bang should occur, however, is a different question.)

 

[Cecilianus]

My answers are in bold, again.

Please explain why it is tautological.

Because you can’t deny it without then giving a reason why you don’t believe in reason. (Perhaps logically you could - in which case it wouldn’t strictly speaking be tautological - but psychologically you can’t.)

implicitly know =believe.

No, implicitly know = so self evident you can’t deny it, and so obvious that you had probably never thought it out on that basic a level before.

Shortly before he died, Charles Darwin received a copy of Aristotle’s book on animal life, and thanked the friend who sent it to him with, “Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods, though in very different ways, but they were mere school-boys to old Aristotle.”

Interesting. But Aristotle still never said anything which is a part of the body of scientific knowledge today. You can live your whole life as a scientist without reading Aristotle, and it won’t hurt you.

Is your belief in the power of reason a scientific belief?

Pre-scientific, like mathematics, since it is necessary to do science.

Is your belief that you exist a scientific belief?

Yes.

You stated:
“Philosophy is not a judge of science. Philosophy is unverifiable speculation which nobody agrees on. Science is known to be true, and its truth is the standard by which philosophical theories have to be judged.”
If philosophy can give real insight that science cannot give it cannot be subordinate to science - which, as you have agreed, is restricted to physical reality. Nor can scientific truth be the standard by which philosophical theories have to be judged. Philosophy must be superior to science in many respects - and these respects are more important than scientific conclusions because they are concerned with theological, personal, spiritual and moral truths.

It is subordinated to science in the sense that insofar as it contradicts truths known by science it must be false. Although I can’t that philosophy couldn’t give any spiritual or theological truths, I have never been convinced by any theological or spiritual conclusions from philosophy - especially if you try to explain natural events by means of angels, as Thomists (such as Maritain) often do. I cannot see that as anything but a lame attempt to restore ancient Greek paganism.

We can verify insight by personal experience, by its predictive power and by its results.

Do you rely on science to make the most important decisions in your life?

Yes. I will probably work as a nuclear engineer, since science tells me - contra to popular hysteria - that nuclear power is a safe energy source. I feel safe undergoing an NMR scan because I am not paranoid at the word “nuclear”. (I happen to have a “nucleus” in every atom of my body.) I eat irradiated food because I know that it is safe. Etc. etc. etc.

How would you prove you exist? Scientifically? If so how?

(1) I need no proof that I exist, because to deny that I exist is lunacy. (2) Because my senses are in fact reliable unless I have a scientific explanation otherwise (e.g., a mirage), I know that I exist. (3) The presence of an observer changes events at the quantum level, as was shown in the Wade-Bell experiment (which is incredibly difficult conceptually to accept, for either myself or for the men who performed the experiment - we are all accustomed to thinking classically, not quantumly).
Do you regard yourself as uniquely responsible for your decisions? If so how do you explain it scientifically

Science cannot explain the mystery of free will. There is something related to how the brain works that I do not believe that science will ever be able to explain. (Neither will philosophy. It’s a mystery.)?

 

[tonyrey]

Because you can’t deny it without then giving a reason why you don’t believe in reason.
(Perhaps logically you could - in which case it wouldn’t strictly speaking be tautological - but psychologically you can’t.)

“metaphysically” is a better description because it is a self-refuting proposition about a non-physical aspect of reality:
“You are using reason to reach your conclusion that reason does not exist.”

No, implicitly know = so self evident you can’t deny it, and so obvious that you had probably never thought it out on that basic a level before.

Exactly. Science takes nothing for granted. If it is self-evident it is not a scientific conclusion. That basic level is not scientific but metaphysical.

Is your belief in the power of reason a scientific belief?
Pre-scientific, like mathematics, since it is necessary to do science.

In other words it is metascientific, i.e. metaphysical and not scientific.

Is your belief that you exist a scientific belief?
Yes.

Where do you locate “you”? How would you show scientifically that you (not your body) exist?

You stated:
“Philosophy is not a judge of science. Philosophy is unverifiable speculation which nobody agrees on. Science is known to be true, and its truth is the standard by which philosophical theories have to be judged.”

If philosophy can give real insight that science cannot give it cannot be subordinate to science - which, as you have agreed, is restricted to physical reality. Nor can scientific truth be the standard by which philosophical theories have to be judged. Philosophy must be superior to science in many respects - and these respects are more important than scientific conclusions because they are concerned with theological, personal, spiritual and moral truths.

Although I can’t (deny) that philosophy couldn’t give any spiritual or theological truths…

Do you accept any spiritual or theological truths? If so why?

I will probably work as a nuclear engineer, since science tells me - contra to popular hysteria - that nuclear power is a safe energy source.

Do you base all your beliefs, values and ideals on science? Do you base your moral and political decisions on science? Would you choose a friend or a life partner for scientific reasons? .

I need no proof that I exist, because to deny that I exist is lunacy.

Do you deny that it is logically possible that you don’t exist?

Science cannot explain the mystery of free will. There is something related to how the brain works that I do not believe that science will ever be able to explain.

Why do you believe in free will?

(Neither will philosophy. It’s a mystery.)

How do you know philosophy has not explained the origin of free will in human beings?
Do you believe scientific explanations are the only valid explanations? If so why?

 

[Cecilianus]

“metaphysically” is a better description because it is a self-refuting proposition about a non-physical aspect of reality:
"You are using reason to reach your conclusion that reason does not exist."Exactly. Science takes nothing for granted. If it is self-evident it is not a scientific conclusion. That basic level is not scientific but metaphysical.

In other words it is metascientific, i.e. metaphysical and not scientific.

Okay. But there aren’t any deep, non-obvious metaphysical truths that science is based on - nothing that you would need to take a class in Metaphysics in order to learn before you can do science, as some philosophy majors at my school have occasionally claimed.

Where do you locate “you”? How would you show scientifically that you (not your body) exist?

I don’t know. Probably not my body, since the matter changes completely over a period of seven years (why I reject Aquinas’ claim that matter is the principle of individuation). The best explanation would be my haecceitas, which is of course a philosophical explanation. My understanding (from a 100-level class, though) is that psychology can’t give us an answer to that question, so that’s one question science can’t answer - at least not yet.

If philosophy can give real insight that science cannot give it cannot be subordinate to science - which, as you have agreed, is restricted to physical reality. Nor can scientific truth be the standard by which philosophical theories have to be judged. Philosophy must be superior to science in many respects - and these respects are more important than scientific conclusions because they are concerned with theological, personal, spiritual and moral truths.

Is science true? Can truth contradict truth? Then can philosophical truth contradict scientific truth? If there seems to be a conflict between the two, then you need to answer “no” to the first of those questions. A philosopher sitting in his chair has no right to judge that proven and tested scientific theories are false - that’s the height of arrogance.

Do you accept any spiritual or theological truths? If so why?

Yes. Because I saw the miracle of Lanciano, so I became Catholic.

Do you base all your beliefs, values and ideals on science? Do you base your moral and political decisions on science? Would you choose a friend or a life partner for scientific reasons? .

(1) No. (2) Science has nothing to say about either morals or politics, so no. (3) No (although I do choose friends based on their interest in science - but that’s not what you were asking).

Do you deny that it is logically possible that you don’t exist?

Yes. Cogito ergo sum. Although it’s logically possible that I don’t think. Lunacy does not concern me, however. Science never got rolling because we sat around asking lunatic questions like that. We start by accepting common sense and work from there.

Why do you believe in free will?

Experience.
How do you know philosophy has not explained the origin of free will in human beings?
You’re perfectly free to explain it to me if it has.
Do you believe scientific explanations are the only valid explanations? If so why?

**Of matter? Yes, because the world isn’t the way it is necessarily (or rather, insofar as it is, it is too complex for us to discover through a priori principles. We may and will come to that discovery through the completion of the Standard Model, but it hasn’t happened yet.)

Regarding non-material reality, I don’t really trust any explanation other than revealed dogma, because they are just as epistemologically valid as the old philosophical explanations of matter, which we now know to be false. So why should metaphysics be any more reliable? Aquinas himself thought that metaphysics was less reliable than Aristotelian physics.**

 

[Cecilianus]

Whoops. You had stuff in bold as well. Good luck figuring it all out.

 

[tonyrey]

Whoops. You had stuff in bold as well. Good luck figuring it all out.

In case you don’t know - you can select Profile, Control Panel, Edit Options, scroll right down to Miscellaneous Options where you can select Full WYSIWYG Editing which enables you to wrap quotes and perform various other useful tricks.