House On Fire?

lightgigantic said:
I had hoped it may cause you to reconsider what you meant by saying science has superseded philosophy .....
Click to expand...

Why should it? what authority does this man have? Why should anyone pay any attention to what he says, thinks, or does?
Although I do seem to recall his name. I guess I'll have to research his creds since you didn't establish them.
 
lightgigantic said:
definitions of rationality are already established

this is a rational statement
p1 all pigs can fly
p2 all horses are pigs
therefore all horses can fly
(of course there are a few problems with the premises)

this is a truthful statement
p1 I am hungry
p2 it is almost night time
therefore it is thursday
(of course it has a few problems with rationality)

people often make the claims that theism is not rational, when actually they mean something else- at the moment I am just trying to help you form a coherent argument
Click to expand...

Those are examples, not definitions. We need definitions, and there are several dictionarys on line. You might want to copy a link to help establish Bona Fides
 
Here are ny sources concerning physics and your alleged need to add philosophy.
Michele Besso
Paul Erhenfest
Niels Bohr
Max Born
Arthur Eddington
Philipp Frank
Werner Hiesenberger
David Hilbert
Banesh Hoffman
Philipp Lenard
Hendrik Lorentz
Mileva Maric
Robert Millikan
Herman Minkowski
Georg Nicolai
Abraham pais
Max Planc
Erwin Schrodinger ( check out his cat)
Leo Szilard

since the protocal has been established ( by you) I'll check your source, you may have the honour ofchecking mine.
 
lightgigantic said:
you are certainly fitting this quote to the letter


Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything
Benjamin Wooley - Virtual Worlds
Click to expand...

The next time you quote an author please try to spell his name correctly, there are two l's in Woolley. Since he is simply an author and can demonstrate no expertise in either philosopy or physics. The quote is meaning less.
 
Professor Lewis Wolpert, erudite biologist
Yes he seems to be as you advertised. Smart, certainly. But a biologist no demonstrated expertise in physics or philosophy.
Why should I pay any attention to them out side of their fields of studys/
 
Last edited:
lightgigantic said:
people often make the claims that theism is not rational, when actually they mean something else- at the moment I am just trying to help you form a coherent argument
Click to expand...
I think that by rational, we mean based on sound premises, and following a logically consistent argument to it's conclusion.

Theism has as it's premise an unseen, sometimes unfathomable, and always supernatural entity/cause/god(s) that require what the catholics revere as the "mystery of faith". The arguments and constructions that follow are ambiguous, many times selfcontradictory and end with as many different conclusions as there are theologians.

This, I think, firmly places theism in the realm of the not-rational.

Theories like the expansive beginning of the universe as we know it (big bang) rest on solid and demonstrable physics. Where such theories break down represent opportunities for new understandings of physics or undiscovered phenomena. Not wild speculation and construction of entire baseless philosophies like religion.

Hopefully you can see the difference.
 
snake river rufus said:
No it is not, it's an attack on the hominem's thinking and that is allowed
Click to expand...
well no its not thinking - if you were in the middle of discussing something scientific and someone just threw in "pseudo science clap trap" with out explaining anything further, what would you make of it?
(IOW it doesn't constitute a legitimate challenge to anything)

snake river rufus said:
Those are examples, not definitions. We need definitions, and there are several dictionarys on line. You might want to copy a link to help establish Bona Fides
Click to expand...
examples don't illustrate definitions?
rationality means that the premises lead to the conclusion
truthfulness means that the premises (and possibly the conclusion) are true.

when you say "theism" is irrational it seems that you are actually trying to say theism is not truthful

snake river rufus said:
Here are ny sources concerning physics and your alleged need to add philosophy.
Michele Besso
Paul Erhenfest
Niels Bohr
Max Born
Arthur Eddington
Philipp Frank
Werner Hiesenberger
David Hilbert
Banesh Hoffman
Philipp Lenard
Hendrik Lorentz
Mileva Maric
Robert Millikan
Herman Minkowski
Georg Nicolai
Abraham pais
Max Planc
Erwin Schrodinger ( check out his cat)
Leo Szilard

since the protocal has been established ( by you) I'll check your source, you may have the honour ofchecking mine.
Click to expand...
some of them had formal training in philosophy
what makes Dawkins unique however is that he is making bold philosophical claims (namely providing a definition of delusion and applying it to a field beyond his scope of expertise)

snake river rufus said:
The next time you quote an author please try to spell his name correctly, there are two l's in Woolley. Since he is simply an author and can demonstrate no expertise in either philosopy or physics. The quote is meaning less.
Click to expand...

his statement is not a philosophical one
his statement is an observation of the state of affairs in science

snake river rufus said:
Professor Lewis Wolpert, erudite biologist
Yes he seems to be as you advertised. Smart, certainly. But a biologist no demonstrated expertise in physics or philosophy.
Why should I pay any attention to them out side of their fields of studys/
Click to expand...
once again - he is not making a philosophical statement - he is however making a statement about the state of affairs in contemporary science however ....
 
superluminal said:
I think that by rational, we mean based on sound premises, and following a logically consistent argument to it's conclusion.
Click to expand...
sound premises is an issue of truthfulness
a consistent argument is an issue of rationalism
Theism has as it's premise an unseen, sometimes unfathomable, and always supernatural entity/cause/god(s) that require what the catholics revere as the "mystery of faith".
Click to expand...
electrons are also unseen.
What does it mean to be "sometimes unfathomable"?
Sometimes fathomable?
And as for "supernatural", a better word to use would be transcendental (ie superseding efforts of empiricism)
The arguments and constructions that follow are ambiguous, many times selfcontradictory and end with as many different conclusions as there are theologians.
Click to expand...
if you want to write this off as a truthful premise I think you have to provide some sort of authority or body of work that you can reference

This, I think, firmly places theism in the realm of the not-rational.
Click to expand...
provided your above premise is truthful, yes
Theories like the expansive beginning of the universe as we know it (big bang) rest on solid and demonstrable physics.
Click to expand...
interesting that you refer to the big bang
aren't we hubbled, I mean huddled, around different ideas of the origin of the universe now (the arguments don't happen to be ambiguous, many times self contradictory and end with as many different conclusions as there are theorists do they?)

Where such theories break down represent opportunities for new understandings of physics or undiscovered phenomena. Not wild speculation and construction of entire baseless philosophies like religion.

Hopefully you can see the difference.
Click to expand...
whats the difference between a new opportunity offered by a broken down theory and a wild speculation?
:confused:
 
lightgigantic said:
sound premises is an issue of truthfulness
a consistent argument is an issue of rationalism
Click to expand...
No. Sound premises are also an issue of truthfulness. As in they are based on honest evaluations of the facts as presented by honest admissions of what we know and don't know (based on scientific rigor).

electrons are also unseen.
Click to expand...
No. Electrons are "seen" but not directly observed. The effects they produce are entirely prevalent and observable. The explanation for these effects has been solidly and consistently proven to be a small particle called an electron. This can be thoroughly trusted by untrained but interested laymen with the smallest bit of research into basic science. Unlike researching basic theology (as I have) there is no coherency or compelling foundational logic visible whatsoever.

What does it mean to be "sometimes unfathomable"?
Click to expand...
In some mythologies the entity is fathomable, like the greek gods. Their motives were well understood by those that subscribed to them.

if you want to write this off as a truthful premise I think you have to provide some sort of authority or body of work that you can reference
Click to expand...
What? That religion as the explanation for the anything we see around us is baseless mythology? It's axiomatic my friend.

interesting that you refer to the big bang
aren't we hubbled, I mean huddled, around different ideas of the origin of the universe now (the arguments don't happen to be ambiguous, many times self contradictory and end with as many different conclusions as there are theorists do they?)
Click to expand...
No my poor scientifically ignorant friend. All actual cosmologists accept that the universe was once in a hot, dense state and evolved according to physical law. Some of the mechanisms are in debate, but the conclusion is unanimous.

whats the difference between a new opportunity offered by a broken down theory and a wild speculation?
:confused:
Click to expand...
One is guided by scientific rigor and the desire to find the actual reality of what is happening. The other is a hallmark of blind faith and wishful thinking.

Just a note. I brought up the BB because it is one of the greatest discoveries in science. And one of the most misunderstood by the general public. Despite what some nutters here may post, it's in fine shape and has extroadinary explanatory power. This does not mean that it is the be-all-end-all of the description of the universe. But whatever future descriptions arise, they won't be revealed by the bible, quran, or the BG.
 
some of them had formal training in philosophy
what makes Dawkins unique however is that he is making bold philosophical claims (namely providing a definition of delusion and applying it to a field beyond his scope of expertise)


Really? which ones? Please be specific.
I'm apologize, but I missed the post that Dawkins was introduced. Could you provide the post#?

Beyond his scope of expertise? Considering the backgrounds of those that you have introduced, Is this a claim that you really want to make?
 
"examples don't illustrate definitions?
rationality means that the premises lead to the conclusion
truthfulness means that the premises (and possibly the conclusion) are true.

when you say "theism" is irrational it seems that you are actually trying to say theism is not truthful"

Examples are ambiguous. Too open to different interpertations. If we cannot agree on the exact meaning of words,,

"rationality means that the premises lead to the conclusion"
Not detailed enough. An insane man could make a wild guess that, accidently, turns out to be correct. But you could not call the person rational

"truthfulness means that the premises (and possibly the conclusion) are true."

Really? That is too broad to be meaningfull.
Before we go any further, I'll request that you provide definitions (with links).


"when you say "theism" is irrational it seems that you are actually trying to say theism is not truthful"
You are mixing up to different meanings and trying to apply them 'willy nilly'. Unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top