(May 4, 2009 at 4:52 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(May 4, 2009 at 3:46 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: science is the only philosophy that actually works

How is science philosophy at all? Isn't that just away of saying philosophy doesn't exist? Or is it 'wooly thinking' based on known facts? Doesn't it deny thought as only thought based on hard fact is acceptable?

Philosophy seems to have (as is usual within the English language) a correct meaning and a number of common usage meanings but, thanks to Asimov (who was one of those dratted Doctor's of Philosophy as you probably know) and his "New Guide to Science", it appears that it derives from the ancient Greeks. Asimov devotes some space to philosophy where he referred to the Greek investigations of the universe and that they called (and I quote) 'their new manner of studying the universe philosophia ("philosophy"), meaning "love of knowledge" or, in free translation, "the desire to know"'(page 8). I would argue that it is because current day philosophers seem to provide little or no direct value to the real world that much of the philosophy bandied about today is little more than academic psychobabble. The true philosophers are scientists like Richard Dawkins.

Kyu

Maybe I agree with you. Maybe Dawkins is a true philosopher, one without a cause as yet. (only in that atheism can't be a cause). I like the definitions "love of knowledge" and "the desire to know". I'd say that's how I started out. I always said "I want to know". I suppose we separate where your desire stems from science and mine from spirituality. I never think of spiritual truths in scientific terms. Practical, real terms that effect people and their basic needs yeah, but never nit picking attempts to explain the real world in terms of what chemical process leads to perceived aesthetic perfection in humans. I see that as scientific phychobabble.

(May 4, 2009 at 6:08 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Maybe I agree with you. Maybe Dawkins is a true philosopher, one without a cause as yet. (only in that atheism can't be a cause). I like the definitions "love of knowledge" and "the desire to know". I'd say that's how I started out. I always said "I want to know". I suppose we separate where your desire stems from science and mine from spirituality. I never think of spiritual truths in scientific terms. Practical, real terms that effect people and their basic needs yeah, but never nit picking attempts to explain the real world in terms of what chemical process leads to perceived aesthetic perfection in humans. I see that as scientific phychobabble.

Who said Dawkins cause is atheism? As far as I know his cause is reason.

I see what most regard as philosophy as psychobabble ... I will continue to believe that until the day they come up with something worthwhile.

Kyu

Here is a challenge.

Please explain to me why it makes more sense that some all powerfull entity you can't see or hear created everything that exists, as opposed to everything that exists spontaneously coming into existence. Sure, it is hard to believe that it all just spontaneously existed, but even if there is a creator, that creator must have spontaneously existed, or that creator's creator must have spontaneously existed, and so on.

In other words, SOMETHING must have spontaneously existed. Why not the environment in which we evolved by chance to the point where we are sentient enough to wonder how we got here, and irrational enough to try and explain it with an improbable deity that can't be experienced?

Go.

The classical argument that Christians use is that God has always existed. The problem that we have is that since the Big Bang theory was proven it has given some weight to the argument that the Universe was in fact created.

Christians will say by God and the rest of us say it came into existence by means that we don't yet understand. It was much simpler for us free thinkers to say that the Universe has always existed and so did not require a creator.

Enter string theory. Although all the evidence for this is so far mathematical it does seem that this is the way the Cosmos really works and if so would finally put to rest the whole 'first cause' argument.

According to string theory our entire Universe exists on, or rather, as a floating three dimensional membrane in a Multiverse of membranes. It was two such colliding membranes that brought about 'our' Universe as we know it, completely wiping out any previous Universe that may have been here.

In this scenario the Universe may only be 13.7 billion years old and had a cause but the Multiverse has always existed and completely negates the need for a 'creator'.

Hey, is it just me who thinks the whole membrane mutliverse thing just seems...really curiously cool? I dunno why but I find it quite appealing. It's weird

EvF

(May 5, 2009 at 10:06 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Hey, is it just me who thinks the whole membrane mutliverse thing just seems...really curiously cool? I dunno why but I find it quite appealing.

What's not to like about multiple universes? It's the stuff of science fiction. That it also screws a major theistic dodge is just icing on the cake.

Kyu

Quote:Enter string theory. Although all the evidence for this is so far mathematical it does seem that this is the way the Cosmos really works and if so would finally put to rest the whole 'first cause' argument.

According to string theory our entire Universe exists on, or rather, as a floating three dimensional membrane in a Multiverse of membranes. It was two such colliding membranes that brought about 'our' Universe as we know it, completely wiping out any previous Universe that may have been here.

In this scenario the Universe may only be 13.7 billion years old and had a cause but the Multiverse has always existed and completely negates the need for a 'creator'.

I find theory to be really intresting. Ever since I saw a documentary about it have I been facinated by it.

Three dimesnional? Isn't 10 or 11 dimensional that you mean?

(May 5, 2009 at 10:28 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(May 5, 2009 at 10:06 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Hey, is it just me who thinks the whole membrane mutliverse thing just seems...really curiously cool? I dunno why but I find it quite appealing.

What's not to like about multiple universes? It's the stuff of science fiction. That it also screws a major theistic dodge is just icing on the cake.

Kyu

Well said. I totally agree. It's awesome. Thanks for putting how I feel into words for me

It's sweet hehe. That something so intuitively extravagant and marvellous can be real science, supported by evidence; and be so much more probable than the absurdity of a religious fairy tail (whatever the religion be). Pwnz

Sometimes reality can be stranger than fiction. But also cooler it seems Awesome.

EvF

(May 5, 2009 at 9:01 am)Darwinian Wrote: In this scenario the Universe may only be 13.7 billion years old and had a cause but the Multiverse has always existed and completely negates the need for a 'creator'.

I get a little dubious when physical theories start introducing infinites.
As far as I'm concerned infinity is a purely mathematical concept and has no physical meaning.

Sure you can use it to approximate (e.g. modelling an electrical wire as inifintely long to find it's electric field) but I don't think it can be used as an actual physical concept