Do you believe in gravity?

[numinus]

Do you read the posts put up by other people, numinus, or do you just decide what you think they mean and then begin making cutting quips?

Funny. I was wondering the same thing about you.

 

[samsara15]

I made a mistake. I admitted it. Do you have to be so arrogant and pompous?

 

[numinus]

I made a mistake. I admitted it. Do you have to be so arrogant and pompous?

That wasn't my intention. I thought that if you understood what I was saying, you would better appreciate what I am driving at -- that there is an objective order of existence.

 

[samsara15]

That's what I'm looking for, numinus, to see where you are coming from. Sound bites, which we often encounter here, don't tell us what each other is thinking. I have often been accused of having a fuzzy view of reality, an accusation which may have some basis in truth. I want to hear what you are thinking.

I am an easily persuaded person, which in practice means that I have been persuaded a few thousand times too often, which leads to a general disbelief and distrust in everything. So I go my own way. That's a contradiction in a person being easily persuadable. Extreme skepticism, however, is not a very viable philosphical position, although I sometimes use it as a blowback stance when I need to make use of it.

Now what is it you were driving at with your question of how the pantheist deals with the concept of transcendental numbers? I don't see how that is any different from how a theist or deist would do the same. At least, from my POV it is not.

Are you trying to say that we can conceive of something that does not exist in the physical world, so that implies some form of dualism?

 

[numinus]

That's what I'm looking for, numinus, to see where you are coming from. Sound bites, which we often encounter here, don't tell us what each other is thinking. I have often been accused of having a fuzzy view of reality, an accusation which may have some basis in truth. I want to hear what you are thinking.

I am an easily persuaded person, which in practice means that I have been persuaded a few thousand times too often, which leads to a general disbelief and distrust in everything. So I go my own way. That's a contradiction in a person being easily persuadable. Extreme skepticism, however, is not a very viable philosphical position, although I sometimes use it as a blowback stance when I need to make use of it.

Now what is it you were driving at with your question of how the pantheist deals with the concept of transcendental numbers? I don't see how that is any different from how a theist or deist would do the same. At least, from my POV it is not.

Are you trying to say that we can conceive of something that does not exist in the physical world, so that implies some form of dualism?

No.

What I am saying is that there is objective existence beyond the human experience. Mathematics, logic, moral law, god -- they are not constructs subject to the vagaries of the human mind. We do not invent them, we can only discern them.

 

[samsara15]

I can accept the idea of objective existence beyond human experience. Then how is the Pantheistic God any different from the Theistic God or the Deistic God? For example, the Hindu concept of Brahman, 'beyond Being and Non-Being' (whatever that might mean)?

There are some people, however, who maintain that mathematics is created, not discovered. I am in neither group, because I see some justification for both views, and cannot decide which way to jump.

I'm not so sure about moral law. Different cultures have differed substantially in their interpretations and practices of moral law.

 

[Dr.Who]

I think we are quite opposite. I would ask the question: Wouldn't it be more logical to remain agnostic to god and have faith in science.

It would be logical to remain agnostic to both or to have faith in both using the same standards.

Science doesn't have all the answers yet, but dropping science and going to faith in god simply ends the whole process of thought. If you say "god started it all", end of story. There is nothing left to analyze or do.

So who is suggesting that we drop science? Even the most loony, the Young Earth Creationists, attempt to justify their positions with a reliance on some misguided understanding of science.

The founders of the scientific method founded it in large part because they believed that God had imposed an order on the universe, the laws of nature, that were intended to be investigated and understood by men.

Every time the bible describes a miracle and does so with awe and wonder the fact that it is so unexpected proves that the normal state of affairs is for things to act according to predictable rules.

 

[numinus]

I can accept the idea of objective existence beyond human experience. Then how is the Pantheistic God any different from the Theistic God or the Deistic God? For example, the Hindu concept of Brahman, 'beyond Being and Non-Being' (whatever that might mean)?

Objective existence has no place in unity. Otherwise, it wouldn't be objective, now, would it?

You can also consider the epistemological nature of human error and fallacy. Lagboltz once tried to demonstrate that fallacy is a subset of omnipotence and concluded that it exists outside the universal set -- a patent logical contradiction.

There are some people, however, who maintain that mathematics is created, not discovered. I am in neither group, because I see some justification for both views, and cannot decide which way to jump.

Surely, it is created, along with everything in the universe. Why else does the physical world behave according to it?

I'm not so sure about moral law. Different cultures have differed substantially in their interpretations and practices of moral law.

Try kant's general principle of the metaphysics of morals. Certainly more interesting than all that humean and utilitarian garbage about relativistic morality.

 

[Lagboltz]

Science is based on what can be proven within its method. Science has no business asserting anything without this kind of proof. Certainly, it has no business soliciting anyone else's faith.

I'm saying that scientists have faith that the laws of nature are ordered enough that nature can be modeled mathematically when given enough experiments, time and creativity.

I would be the last person to abandon science. The prospects of being unemployed isn't really a pleasant thought.

I don't know if you are trying to purposefully misunderstand what I'm saying or not. From the context you should have inferred that I was talking about the origin of the universe, not whatever engineering job you have.

What I am not prepared to accept is the assertion that science constitutes the end-all, be-all of human knowledge.

I think you are prematurely abandoning the idea that science has a role in understanding the origin of the universe.

 

[samsara15]

Your definiton of garbage fits with your world view and ideological / religious views. Mine fits with mine.

The Hindus (some of them) see our existence as part of one of Brahma's dreams. In that POV, we are real, and our objective existence is only as part of the dream. So the Self is an illusion.

 

[numinus]

I'm saying that scientists have faith that the laws of nature are ordered enough that nature can be modeled mathematically when given enough experiments, time and creativity.

I understand what you are saying. And I agree with you, up to a certain point. Science cannot go beyond this point -- even with an infinite amount of time and creativity.

I don't know if you are trying to purposefully misunderstand what I'm saying or not. From the context you should have inferred that I was talking about the origin of the universe, not whatever engineering job you have.

And I replied in the most honest way possible -- that I cannot abandon the way I am predisposed and trained to think.

I think you are prematurely abandoning the idea that science has a role in understanding the origin of the universe.

No, I am not. In fact, I have speculated about this more than you have, it seems.

 

[numinus]

Your definiton of garbage fits with your world view and ideological / religious views. Mine fits with mine.

The Hindus (some of them) see our existence as part of one of Brahma's dreams. In that POV, we are real, and our objective existence is only as part of the dream. So the Self is an illusion.

If self is an illusion, then everything that is contingent on it is an illusion as well, no?

In that point of view, any argument is futile.

 

[Lagboltz]

It would be logical to remain agnostic to both or to have faith in both using the same standards.

I would agree that would be most logical. But my training is in physics. Religion is not a large part of my life, so I stress my faith in science more than others might do.

So who is suggesting that we drop science? Even the most loony, the Young Earth Creationists, attempt to justify their positions with a reliance on some misguided understanding of science.

I was telling numinus that he seems to be using his understanding of the physical aspects of cosmology to focus on the current unknowns, and consider them hopeless flaws. I am saying he is appealing to god prematurely. He therefore falls into that category of YEC, but at an earlier level of cosmology that the young earthers do.

The founders of the scientific method founded it in large part because they believed that God had imposed an order on the universe, the laws of nature, that were intended to be investigated and understood by men.

Every time the bible describes a miracle and does so with awe and wonder the fact that it is so unexpected proves that the normal state of affairs is for things to act according to predictable rules.

I can accept that. That is why a true scientist never gives up when faced with inconsistencies or difficulties with a theory. My interpretation of what you are saying is that the liturgy of a scientist is to study the creation, and not worship the creator. Once you abandon a theory as inconsistent, such as the seeming singularity at the beginning of the big bang, and say god did it, you are abandoning that liturgy.

 

[samsara15]

If self is an illusion, then everything that is contingent on it is an illusion as well, no?

In that point of view, any argument is futile.

So it is.

 

[Lagboltz]

I understand what you are saying. And I agree with you, up to a certain point. Science cannot go beyond this point -- even with an infinite amount of time and creativity.

You scoff at quantum mechanics as an ingredient for understanding the cosmos. Many scientists have theories that overcome the barrier that you put up. There are many reasons to think that scientists can go beyond your barrier.

And I replied in the most honest way possible

Not when you carry the inference that I was talking about an engineering job.

No, I am not. In fact, I have speculated about this more than you have, it seems.

I really seriously doubt that. I have been doing a lot of reading on the relation of quantum mechanics to the earliest phases of the universe and mega-universes, but that requires an understanding of quantum mechanics.