First extract of Richard Dawkins new book.

[fr0d0]

(9th September 2009 20:59)Saerules Wrote:  

(9th September 2009 20:56)leo-rcc Wrote:  Non Overlapping MAgisteria.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

Scientology? O.o?

The idea that Science and Religion are two separate subjects, rather than overlapping in what they describe.

[leo-rcc]

(9th September 2009 20:59)Saerules Wrote:  Scientology? O.o?

How did you arrive to Scientology?

[Saerules]

The priests asked in one of the first paragraphs something which made me immediately jump to scientology. Just an impulsive assumption

[Kyuuketsuki]

(9th September 2009 20:59)Saerules Wrote:  

(9th September 2009 20:38)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:  And I repeat Saer ... show me one thing that is pretty much universally accepted based on pure logic. 1 equals 1 is an assumption that is borne out by the fact that other stuff based on it works, much like the assumption that the universe is real.

If one did not equal one, then the universe would rapidly become nothingness, or oneness. Shown here: 1=2, everything continuously multiplies until everything becomes a single mass. Shown here: 1=.5, everything divides into halves until it reaches the fundamental particles of the universe and disintegrates entirely. Therefore 1 must = 1. This proves why it is true in our universe. Beyond this... this proves why it is true in every universe preceding ours (i.e. Even if someone is playing us as a video game: they too fall under this rule.)

Actually there is some speculation that there must be universes where 1 = 5 ... don't ask me how but I read it somewhere.

Anyway, you never answered my question ... what has philosophy ever proven alone (without empirical testing)?

Kyu

[Adrian Hayter]

I agree with NOMA. Religion is all philosophical thinking and ethics; it cannot possibly tell anyone about the state of matter because it has no reliable methods for doing so. Science has the reliable methods, we can learn everything about the universe through science, but science cannot tell us if there is a God or ultimate purpose to existence given that these things by definition lie outside of the scope of scientific evaluation. I'd prefer to think of NOMA covering the separation of science and ethics/philosophy.

To sum it up in one example: Science can tell us how to make a nuclear bomb. Ethics/Philosophy can tell us why we shouldn't use it.

[Kyuuketsuki]

(9th September 2009 22:21)Adrian Hayter Wrote:  I agree with NOMA.

I'm in the Dawkin's camp ... like him I think it's horrendously flawed.

Kyu

[Saerules]

(9th September 2009 22:18)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:  

(9th September 2009 20:59)Saerules Wrote:  

(9th September 2009 20:38)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:  And I repeat Saer ... show me one thing that is pretty much universally accepted based on pure logic. 1 equals 1 is an assumption that is borne out by the fact that other stuff based on it works, much like the assumption that the universe is real.

If one did not equal one, then the universe would rapidly become nothingness, or oneness. Shown here: 1=2, everything continuously multiplies until everything becomes a single mass. Shown here: 1=.5, everything divides into halves until it reaches the fundamental particles of the universe and disintegrates entirely. Therefore 1 must = 1. This proves why it is true in our universe. Beyond this... this proves why it is true in every universe preceding ours (i.e. Even if someone is playing us as a video game: they too fall under this rule.)

Actually there is some speculation that there must be universes where 1 = 5 ... don't ask me how but I read it somewhere.

Anyway, you never answered my question ... what has philosophy ever proven alone (without empirical testing)?

Kyu

If that doesn't answer your question, then i am afraid you are dodging my answer. In any universe in which 1 ≠ 1: the universe is either one mass, or it is a void. Have i not proven that our universe is applicable to 1=1, and every universe that could possibly precede ours is also the same? That i have proven with philosophy.

[Kyuuketsuki]

(9th September 2009 22:39)Saerules Wrote:  If that doesn't answer your question, then i am afraid you are dodging my answer. In any universe in which 1 ≠ 1: the universe is either one mass, or it is a void. Have i not proven that our universe is applicable to 1=1, and every universe that could possibly precede ours is also the same? That i have proven with philosophy.

No I am not question dodging ... I do not accept that 1 = 1 is a philosophical issue in the sense you are saying and besides it is, as I said earlier, it is an assumption demonstrated to be true by science and math.

Please do not accuse me of question dodging because I do not see the world form the same perspective as you!

Kyu

[Saerules]

Hmm, it is demonstrated to be true in math and in other sciences. But did i not also demonstrate it to be true with philosophy?

[Kyuuketsuki]

(9th September 2009 23:01)Saerules Wrote:  Hmm, it is demonstrated to be true in math and in other sciences. But did i not also demonstrate it to be true with philosophy?

I don't think so ... I don't think it is possible to demonstrate it. It's an assumption.

Kyu