F
Faith1960
Guest
Thanks, but think I am now satisfied with the answers I’ve gotten on here. Don’t know if ill write him or not.
- Status
H
hildegaard
Guest
Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time:
…all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.
He does provide and alternative view, though:
There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.
Response To Stephen Hawking: Yes Dr. Hawking it would be most remarkable, but then again our God is the most remarkable being!
…all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.
He does provide and alternative view, though:
There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.
Response To Stephen Hawking: Yes Dr. Hawking it would be most remarkable, but then again our God is the most remarkable being!
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Was it wisdom that created a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons?
Or was it mere logical thinking?
F
Faith1960
Guest
Back to my OP, how about a Reader’s Digest version, in English, telling me what Wolfgang Smith is supposedly saying in Part II? Anybody want to tackle that?
F
Faith1960
Guest
I sent an email to him after all, but I don’t really expect to hear back from him or his people, but you never know.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Science is subjective in the sense that it is the product of mental activity. We infer the existence of things from our perceptions. Our primary datum - and sole certainty - is our stream of consciousness. We cannot get outside our mind and know the physical world directly. All our knowledge consists of “posits” or “constructs” except our direct awareness of our thoughts, feelings, sensations, perceptions, intuitions, choices, values, principles, decisions and conclusions. Like charity knowledge begins at home!
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Well spoken!
R
Richca
Guest
Actually, St Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica quotes Aristotle as saying “that the principle of knowledge is in the senses.” By this, Aristotle means that we gather our knowledge from sense objects for the human intellect is " like a tablet on which nothing is written." In proof of this, if a human being is wanting in any sense, he/she will have no knowledge which can be derived from that sense such as a blind man will have no knowledge of colors. The intellect abstracts the forms of things from their individual material characteristics to an understanding of the species of things and universal knowledge which is the basis of science. The truth of the intellect must correspond to reality. Knowledge is objective, otherwise there can be no science.
Truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are immaterial ideas understood by the intellect which is why Plato said that the intellect is immaterial in nature. These ideas have their foundation in God who is Truth, Goodness, Freedom, Justice, Beauty and Love.
We derive our knowledge from things whereas God’s knowledge is the cause of things.
R
Richca
Guest
Hello Faith, God caused the universe to come into being. “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1)
R
Richca
Guest
I would also like to point out that the CCC#286 says: Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. the existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason, even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error."
And St Paul says: " Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made" (Romans 1:20).
Any philosophical system that does not lead to the knowledge of God as the creator of the universe or the First Cause of the universe is simply wrongheaded. There is something wrong with the intellectual reasoning of that system even if we start with the created world.
F
Faith1960
Guest
But what does causality mean?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
This refers to demonstrating the existence of God, not the creation, in time, of the universe out of nothing. The latter is an article of Faith, not reason. That is why we have a De Fide Dogma regarding it. That is why St. Thomas said it could not be demonstrated, that it had to be accepted on Faith.
Linus2nd
F
Faith1960
Guest
There was a singularity before the Big Bang…that’s not nothing. Also, I’d skimmed the thread Creation Ex Nihilo and just now read some more of it including the OPs link and it seems that Hawking has company. Some math wizards have found that the universe could have come spontaneously, from nothing, on its own.
B
Bahman
Guest
In reality there is no perfect triangle so the concept of triangle is by product of intellect imagination hence the perfect triangle is a subjective reality.
The theorem is again a subjective reality since the concept area is deduced from experience. The theorem can of course to be checked that approximately applies to objective realities unless you could make a perfect triangle and square. The fact that an approximate triangle could tell you some about an subjective reality, the theorem, should be deduced before.
Could you please elaborate what do you mean with this question? I am a little dizzy today.
T
tonyrey
Guest
As I pointed out, all knowledge **originates **in mental activity - not material objects! In that sense it is subjective. Introspection is knowledge that is both subjective and objective. It is unique because we are directly aware of what occurs in our mind.
In other words empirical knowledge is not the only form of knowledge. We also learn as the result of insight, intuition and inspiration:- Pascal
St Thomas and Aristotle were referring to knowledge of things, not God, ourselves and spiritual values…
T
tonyrey
Guest
We’re on the same wavelength, Charlie!Well spoken!
T
tonyrey
Guest
All these factors presuppose the power of reason!
Searle’s argument is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that consciousness is caused by the physical processes of the brain. In other words he is a materialist.
You mean “Yes!” You are agreeing with me.
B
Bahman
Guest
The external world is ontologically objective since it is subjective respect to intellect meaning that it can be directly experienced by intellect. One has to be very careful when s/he wants to put one step further and deal with consciousness and subconsciousness.
The external world, whatever consciousness can experience directly is subjective to consciousness meaning that the external world is ontologically objective. Consciousness is indirectly objective to subconsciousness. Subconsciousness is also indirectly objective to consciousness. By indirect we mean that only their by produce is ontologically objective.
So I disagree with you that consciousness is ontologically objective. It is easy to understand why it is so. If X is ontologically objective then it means that there exist Y which X is subjective to Y. But what about Y? If Y also is objective then there exist Z which Y is subjective to Z etc, which leads to infinite regression.
Opinion is not by product of consciousness but subconsciousness and that is why it could be experienced by consciousness since subconsciousness is indirectly objective to consciousness. In another word, opinion cannot be by product of consciousness since otherwise it could not be experienced by consciousness because it has to be objective to consciousness which is not.
He is making this mistake because he doesn’t notice that for example pain, like, dislike, opinion, etc are by product of subconsciousness.
U
utunumsint
Guest
Hey Bahman,
This is an interesting dialogue. I appreciate the exchanges.
I am noticing that there are a lot of terms being thrown around that are only partially defined, or perhaps I am using a definition in a different way than you are. Perhaps you could share your intellectual background, so I can have a better understanding of where you are coming from?
I have recently been delving fairly deeply into Aquinas through Ed Feser’s books and Aquinas’s writings. Prior to this in university, I studied Schopenhauer, Augustine, Ambrose, Jung, and Freud. Recently I listened to 28 hours of lectures providing an overview of Western Philosophy, so I have an entry level understanding of the major philosophers from the pre-socratics to the modern era.
What motivates me to make this request is that when you introduce the concept of consciousness and subconsciousness, that could mean a lot of different things to different people. Freud has a different understanding of it than Jung and other philosophers’ and psychologists.
God bless,
Ut
This is an interesting dialogue. I appreciate the exchanges.
I am noticing that there are a lot of terms being thrown around that are only partially defined, or perhaps I am using a definition in a different way than you are. Perhaps you could share your intellectual background, so I can have a better understanding of where you are coming from?
I have recently been delving fairly deeply into Aquinas through Ed Feser’s books and Aquinas’s writings. Prior to this in university, I studied Schopenhauer, Augustine, Ambrose, Jung, and Freud. Recently I listened to 28 hours of lectures providing an overview of Western Philosophy, so I have an entry level understanding of the major philosophers from the pre-socratics to the modern era.
What motivates me to make this request is that when you introduce the concept of consciousness and subconsciousness, that could mean a lot of different things to different people. Freud has a different understanding of it than Jung and other philosophers’ and psychologists.
God bless,
Ut
S
seagal
Guest
Here is a short (2.5 minutes) of Theoretical Physicist Lawrence Krauss explaining what quantum physicists mean by “nothing”.There was a singularity before the Big Bang…that’s not nothing. Also, I’d skimmed the thread Creation Ex Nihilo and just now read some more of it including the OPs link and it seems that Hawking has company. Some math wizards have found that the universe could have come spontaneously, from nothing, on its own.
“Nothing” in their universe is not exactly nothingness. They talk about quantum particles and other stuff. They’re talking about the nothingness of space as we know it now. This is not nothing. Where did all that stuff, the seeds of the universe, come from? That’s where God comes in.
- Status