Logos & God

Nonsense . . . you're defining rule in a manner convenient to your argument. Physics "rule" the universe. We have constantly learned more about physics, and there is a good deal of uncertainty in our understanding of physics. But no one has ever shown a situation in which any part of the cosmos defies the laws of physics. We are ruled by the laws of physics.

Setanta,

I agree with you that there are observable patterns in the physical universe.

S.

One might respond, good gosh I hope so

dale..

We might have to exempt the weather forecasts.

S.

A follow up question might be:

Can we even escape from the 'anthropocentric perspective'?

Because, after all, everything we do or say or think is centered around the idea that we are a human and that we do exist.

You definitely understood what I was asking the best. I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks this way:)

Well, I guess I don't understand that relative to the question of logos and God. I don't think that wishful thinking, magic or chaos (whatever that is) make the universe go round, maybe goblins..

I'm not sure what you mean by a set of rules either? What rules? The rules we discover by physics? We don't know all the rules? Is the unknowable stuff included in this, such as purpose or our ability to sensate? Or existence in general?

Sorry, if I'm misunderstanding, there's a ton of stuff I don't know that I'm still trying to catch..

saw,

Good point.

My 2p. If we observe patterns in nature, such as those in thermodynamics, I think that is as objective as we can get. However, if we then call these patterns 'rules' or 'laws', we are employing words which commonly imply rule givers and law makers. These are words found in legal or biblical texts which have a human or (possibly ) divine authority. No need for them when 'pattern' will do.

S.

Rules are what happens in a regular basis not some wrriten stuff. Physics describes them to the point we can get them so far, and Philosophy tries to make sense out of them and their conceptual bagadge at large as we perceive them in our specific cultural medium. As for the Anthropic bulshit, you are a thing before you are a "person", you are a physical object, and one that is set on rails not free. Counsciousness is not special nor magic, its not even an actual centre of decision, just the awareness the witnessing of the inter relation of the mathemathical exchanges between "your" micro machine, and the macro machine of the surrounding enviroment. There are no sinners, no faulting, no should or would, could do better, just the facts unfolding in mathemathical harmony. The whole wishful thinking of a boring perfect world without risk, pain, decay, and renewal is an expression of the human mediocrity and its a priori animalistical monkey needs...perfection is in fact what we have now ! I, the suposed atheist, am the one who dares not to correct the "finger of God", Logos is its own and needs no corrections. Facts are true forever and there is nothing to replace them. Reality has no alternative !

This one is for Fresco in particular, questioning language with language, conceptual bagadge with more conceptual bagadge, and Logic itself recurring to logical refutation is to say the least, mediocre at best, and insane at large. Its like replacing the floor you walk in with nothing and expect to keep upstanding...

Observable pattern: Sometimes they're right

Spinoza, is that you?

Mix Spinoza with Parmenides and you get me in between.

dale,

Hope so tomorrow; I'm out riding.

S.