The Cosmological Argument

[JohnDamian]

Asked for what? I’m sorry, I don’t fully understand why you think I should be offended?

I do not think you should be offended, as a rational and empirical adult you will review the evidence and judge accordingly.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I do not think you should be offended, as a rational and empirical adult you will review the evidence and judge accordingly.

What a strange little man you are…

 

[JohnDamian]

What a strange little man you are…

Not as strange as a scientist demanding “science” in a philosophy section… I would highly suspect were I to dandy about in a science forum spouting “cogito ergo sum” and the like, I would not be recieved so patiently and good-humoredly.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Not as strange as a scientist demanding “science” in a philosophy section… I would highly suspect were I to dandy about in a science forum spouting “cogito ergo sum” and the like, I would not be recieved so patiently and good-humoredly.

I am entitled to my opinion.

Anyway, I thought you said science was based on philosophy? Changed our mind have we?

 

[JohnDamian]

I am entitled to my opinion.

Anyway, I thought you said science was based on philosophy? Changed our mind have we?

Yes science is based upon one school of Epistimology which is one school of philosophy… Look at it this way:

Philosophy > Epistimology > Empiricism > Scientific Method

Metaphysics (the nature of this argument) is different from Epistimology

Now, how foolish would I look if I applied Biology concepts to Physics?

Whats the evolutionary advantage of the Higgs Field??!!?!?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Yes science is based upon one school of Epistimology which is one school of philosophy… Look at it this way:

Philosophy > Epistimology > Empiricism > Scientific Method

Metaphysics (the nature of this argument) is different from Epistimology

Now, how foolish would I look if I applied Biology concepts to Physics?

Whats the evolutionary advantage of the Higgs Field??!!?!?

That’s why I try to avoid talking in this context. I actually have a friend who has an honours in Philosophy, and I’ve found that “no comment” is the safest response to a lot of the things he says…

He actually argued with me for two hours one night, because I used the word “can” instead of “could” even though he knew perfectly well what I meant.

I don’t understand people who’s purpose in life is to pick fault with other people’s semantics.

 

[JohnDamian]

That’s why I try to avoid talking in this context. I actually have a friend who has an honours in Philosophy, and I’ve found that “no comment” is the safest response to a lot of the things he says…

He actually argued with me for two hours one night, because I used the word “can” instead of “could” even though he knew perfectly well what I meant.

I don’t understand people who’s purpose in life is to pick fault with other people’s semantics.

There is a difference in philosophy between what is (nowadays) called Sophism which is deceptive or needlessly technical nit-picking - and Formal Logic.

Of course, on a forum or in a casual discussion, what is meant is more important, and it’s bad to nit pick… But as you will appreciate, it is essential to be “precise” when dealing with the “big issues” in an academic context, in the same way as you would expect a Mathematician to use 3.14… instead of 4.14… or a Science Journal to say “The World is Not Flat” and not “The World is Flat”.



But seriously, asking for “Empirical evidence” of a “Metaphysical” claim is like me going on a science forum and asking for “Evolutionary proof” that “Spacetime” exists… It’s actually painful to watch

 

[Moonstruck888]

But seriously, asking for “Empirical evidence” of a “Metaphysical” claim is like me going on a science forum and asking for “Evolutionary proof” that “Spacetime” exists… It’s actually painful to watch

I thought I’d already explained that I don’t accept any metaphysical claims, so I see no cause to reprimand me on this.

As far as I am concerned, if you accept that God is metaphysical, you and I have no dispute, since you are confirming what I already take for granted, that God doesn’t exist.

 

[JohnDamian]

I thought I’d already explained that I don’t accept any metaphysical claims, so I see no cause to reprimand me on this.

As far as I am concerned, if you accept that God is metaphysical, you and I have no dispute, since you are confirming what I already take for granted, that God doesn’t exist.

I say God’s existence is a subject for metaphysics, you regard metaphysics as nonexistent nonsense – that is fine.

However, it’s the same as me saying “Pshty, Stars are only the size of my fist and are 10 miles away, and the sun revolves around our Flat Earth because I see it do it everyday, and the Earth is Flat or I would roll!!!” on a science forum… People would probably die of laughter.

Just because you don’t accept metaphysics as a serious school is fine, but it does not mean that objectivelly it is not. Just like if I did not accept biology or space as real, it would not mean it does not exist… It would just make me look like an idiot.

 

[Moonstruck888]

People would probably die of laughter.

The soi disant Jesus of Nazareth did say that his followers should expect to be mocked and laughed at by those who didn’t understand their faith.

I think you’d be hard pressed to find many serious scientists who accept metaphysical claims.

Just because you don’t accept metaphysics as a serious school is fine, but it does not mean that objectivelly it is not. Just like if I did not accept biology or space as real, it would not mean it does not exist… It would just make me look like an idiot.

The difference is that a simple parallax experiment can sort out the issue of the stars distance and one of those meter wheels and a couple of simple sundials can tell you how curved the Earth is.

I am still waiting, and will always be waiting for an experiment that will demonstrate the existence of God or any claim fettered with metaphysical baggage.

 

[JohnDamian]

The difference is that a simple parallax experiment can sort out the issue of the stars distance and one of those meter wheels and a couple of simple sundials can tell you how curved the Earth is.

I am still waiting, and will always be waiting for an experiment that will demonstrate the existence of God or any claim fettered with metaphysical baggage.

In philosophy we have a logical proof… Now I do not pretend to be able to understand all the workings of Science, I accept at face value the fact the Earth is Round etc. However, I find it somewhat irksome that you presume to know metaphysical claims – Now as far as Metaphysicians go I am a “Realist” in that I presume the world around me corresponds to what I percieve in general, so I am more close to science than say a “Nominalist” who denies universal things etc.

But, in the light of you requesting proof, I present the ever formal, and delightfully subtle logical proof for the existence of God, from a man who died in 1308, Bl John Duns Scotus - I would ask that you read it, and consider the following;

1. Is what is being said logically contestible?
2. If so, how?

It is quite short, but it is (in my humble opinion) the best single work on the matter, feel free to refute it soundly and prove its claims wrong – If you prove my position to be false, then I shall have no choice but to seriously consider yours.

ewtn.com/library/theology/godasfir.htm

 

[tonyrey]

Yes… It is of no use to a scientist.

You miss the point entirely. The philosophy of science is not useful to scientists who restrict their attention to science but when they assume science can explain all that exists - including science itself - they obviously don’t understand its limitations… Scientism is self-contradictory. Its only adherents are those who are moonstruck - or suffering from sunstroke!

 

[davidv]

{snip}
I am still waiting, and will always be waiting for an experiment that will demonstrate the existence of God or any claim fettered with metaphysical baggage.

You are two millenia late. The experiment was conducted and was witnessed by many. God became man. He taught us how to inherit the kingdom of God. He suffered, died, was buried, rose again on account of this teaching.

 

[Moonstruck888]

You miss the point entirely. The philosophy of science is not useful to scientists who restrict their attention to science but when they assume science can explain all that exists - including science itself - they obviously don’t understand its limitations… Scientism is self-contradictory. Its only adherents are those who are moonstruck - or suffering from sunstroke!

Point out where I have ever said that science explains all that exists. I have said time and time again that I make no claim to knowledge of where the Universe came from.

 

[Moonstruck888]

You are two millenia late. The experiment was conducted and was witnessed by many. God became man. He taught us how to inherit the kingdom of God. He suffered, died, was buried, rose again on account of this teaching.

I see… And what was the experimental proceedure? Where are the findings? What controls were used?

 

[tonyrey]

Point out where I have ever said that science explains all that exists. I have said time and time again that I make no claim to knowledge of where the Universe came from.

Ah ha! So you either believe science can in principle explain all that exists or you admit that it cannot. Which is it to be?

BTW Do you believe science can explain itself?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Ah ha! So you either believe science can in principle explain all that exists or you admit that it cannot. Which is it to be?

I see no reason to believe there is an explanation for “all that exists”.

BTW Do you believe science can explain itself?

I think that question is absurd. Science is a method of setting up and conducting experiments, that’s all. Science is very easy to explain.

Observe → Hypothesize → Experiment → Repeat

 

[tonyrey]

I see no reason to believe there is an explanation for “all that exists”.

So you reject out of the hand the efforts of scientists to establish a Theory of Everything? That seems a very unscientific approach… What is your reason for believing there** cannot or will not** be an explanation?

I think that question is absurd. Science is a method of setting up and conducting experiments, that’s all.

Do you really believe that is **all **that science consists of? Have you ever heard of the Problem of Induction?

Science is very easy to explain.

Observe → Hypothesize → Experiment → Repeat

“Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread”…

 

[Moonstruck888]

So you reject out of the hand the efforts of scientists to establish a Theory of Everything? That seems a very unscientific approach… What is your reason for believing there** cannot or will not** be an explanation?

Yes, I reject them out of hand. They are based on the idea that certain mathematical dimensions, to wit: properties with variable magnitude, correspond to spatial dimensions that are somehow “compactified”, that is to say hidden.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this. Since there is no evidence at all, I don’t believe it. If there was inconclusive evidence I would suspend judgement, but there isn’t even that.

Do you really believe that is **all **that science consists of? Have you ever heard of the Problem of Induction?

I have the unpleasant feeling that I’m about to…

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, I reject them out of hand. They are based on the idea that certain mathematical dimensions, to wit: properties with variable magnitude, correspond to spatial dimensions that are somehow “compactified”, that is to say hidden.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this. Since there is no evidence at all, I don’t believe it. If there was inconclusive evidence I would suspend judgement, but there isn’t even that.

I agree! But the point is that it is unscientific to reject a scientific theory out of hand just as you reject metaphysics out of hand. It is unreasonable to assume science can explain everything and to assume everything is tangible and observable without evidence.

I have the unpleasant feeling that I’m about to…

You needn’t worry. I shan’t bother to enlighten you. Ignorance is bliss - but it is also short-sighted!