21
   

Who destroyed philosophy?

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 10:18 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

Quote:
Maybe the existence of God is one of those undecidable issues, but that there is still disagreement is no proof (or even much of an argument) that it is.


OK then, which is it? Does God exist, or not?

[splendid quote by Aristotle, by the way. And I think my outlook on the question is still one of agnosticism.)


How is your question relevant to what I said? Why would it even matter what I replied to it?
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2010 11:44 pm
@kennethamy,
How is my question relevant to what you said? You said
Quote:
Maybe the existence of God is one of those undecidable issues, but that there is still disagreement is no proof (or even much of an argument) that it is.


So if the existence of God is not undecidable, which you appear to be saying here, then how say you? Exists, or doesn't exist?
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 12:31 am
@talk72000,
The problem with that arises on examination of the word "thing" as being observer-dependent.
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 12:46 am
What about the East Roman Emperor Constantine ?
Or Justitianus ?

Christianity simplified thinking to a mere sham of what it used to be.
Islam is try her best to be more perceptive.

Will they listen to reason / rational argument ?
Will Capitalism bring World Peace ?

Palestina should be a land for A-Theism
And new Philosophy about IT ALL Y

Leonard US is a 2 Cents Drunk

0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 01:45 pm
@fresco,
You sound like Wittgenstein who goes into the meaning of words.

Of course there is further thought if one takes into account a thought experiment.

If we define non-living thing as 0 and living thing as 1
then evolution would be 1/0 = infinity i.e. a living entity came alive out of a soup of non-living chemicals. While to the biologist this acceptable to the religionist it is unacceptable whose God out of nothing (1/0=infinity) is equally improbable.

In an empty set there is nothing there so nothing can come out of nothing. To get something out of nothing would require a 'miracle'

Of course, it cannot be proved that God exist nor can it be proved that God doesn't exist just that God existence is improbable.

Much of our logic and mathematics comes out of our abstraction of this world so it is this world's logic.
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 03:50 pm
@kennethamy,
Who did it ?
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 04:21 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep wrote:

Who did it ?


Who knows? It is an insoluble mystery, of the kind you like. Clarity is your enemy.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 04:25 pm
@talk72000,
Quote:
a living entity came alive out of a soup of non-living chemicals. While to the biologist this [is] acceptable


you mean, an acceptable conjecture or speculation.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 07:55 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

Quote:
a living entity came alive out of a soup of non-living chemicals. While to the biologist this [is] acceptable


you mean, an acceptable conjecture or speculation.


It is a speculation only if there is no evidence for it. Is that what you think?
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 08:58 pm
@kennethamy,
It is not a matter of opinion - it is a certainty that there is no empirical evidence of how non-living matter became organic. Of course, about 100 science grads will now jump in with examples of artificial life, Miller Urey experiments, etc, but I still say it is all speculation on what might have happened. There is no evidence of what did happen.
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 09:03 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs wrote:

It is not a matter of opinion - it is a certainty that there is no empirical evidence of how non-living matter became organic. Of course, about 100 science grads will now jump in with examples of artificial life, Miller Urey experiments, etc, but I still say it is all speculation on what might have happened. There is no evidence of what did happen.


what though has this got to do philosophy ?
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 09:05 pm
@north,
i would like to someone20to Drunk
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 09:06 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep wrote:

i would like to sometimes


what ?
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 09:09 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep wrote:

i would like to someone20to Drunk


why ?
Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 09:12 pm
@north,
logic fails to explain. I do not understand KennethAmy
north
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jul, 2010 09:29 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep wrote:

logic fails to explain. I do not understand KennethAmy


then reason Kennethamy out
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 01:29 am
@talk72000,
Wittgenstein is signifcant but did not, as I understand it, go into the non-dualism which I am suggesting. As far as I am concerned, "existence" applies only in the a realm of verbal communication between what we call "observers". It signifies a "structural coupling" or consensual act, rather than an independent "ontological entity" even though the language with which we communicate predisposes us to operate as though there were an "objective reality". Questions of "existence", by definition, are always verbal activities, albeit these can be in the form of internal dialogue.

Pepijn Sweep
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 01:39 am
@north,
No more banning; it is illigal in your countries
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 01:40 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

As far as I am concerned, "existence" applies only in the a realm of verbal communication between observers.


Does that mean that before there were people who could communicate nothing existed, so that people existed before the Moon which, according to scientists, is more than 4.5 billion years old? Someone's chronology is wrong here: either yours or science's .
fresco
 
  0  
Reply Sun 11 Jul, 2010 01:56 am
@kennethamy,
It means that DISCUSSION of "the existence of the moon" is a verbal dance between language users. But I doubt whether you can get your head round that !
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/05/2025 at 06:51:34