Yeah, I realised that after he reminded me of that rule, lol.
EvF
EvF
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 15, 2024, 10:31 pm
Thread Rating:
|
First extract of Richard Dawkins new book.
|
Yesterday I received an email from Amazon saying my copy had been despatched. I cant wait to read it all. I'm an avid fan of his.
Actually... Dawkins got one thing slightly wrong (well, those philosophers did at any rate
 ). Things can only be proved by logic, and mathematics are some of the absolute BEST proofs in existence. What philosophy accomplishes that mathematics doesn't: is to answer why, or more often why not.Those influential philosophers probably aren't existentialists. 
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
(September 9, 2009 at 2:31 pm)Saerules Wrote: Actually... Dawkins got one thing slightly wrong (well, those philosophers did at any rate Yeah well mathematics, although abstract, is more in line with the philosophy of science in that it works, it has practical application and so on, just like science but philosophy and metaphysics quite simply don't! You see the thing is we need science, we (and science) need maths but there is no way that we actually need philosophy except in the sense that they already exist within those tow areas ... science and math work, why? Because the bridges stay up! "Things can only be proven by logic"? In many ways your language alone leads me to think I'm right ... science never *proves* anything because NOTHING in science is ever held so absolutely that it is beyond challenge! Theists often make out that's a weakness but it's actually it's greatest strength because science goes where the evidence leads. Now you may be thinking I'm a dinosaur and quite possibly that's true and I am well aware that philosophy can feed ideas into science where they can be subsequently tested but I have asked this question repeatedly with no satisfactory answer (which may well be just me) ... what has philosophy ever proven alone (without empirical testing)? Kyu Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings! Come over to the dark side, we have cookies! Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator RE: First extract of Richard Dawkins new book.
September 9, 2009 at 3:35 pm
(This post was last modified: September 9, 2009 at 3:37 pm by Violet.)
You're a dinosaur? O.o I have already told you: philosophy has proven WHY one MUST be equal to itself. Philosophy has proven WHY some forms of the concept of 'gods' simply cannot be true. Philosophy and other sciences are not working apart... but rather: they must be joined together.
It is a bit like putting two and two together to get 4... neither has the full scoop, but each provide information that is necessary. Sciences tell what, how, when, and who. But they can never tell why. Why is there evolution? Tell me how it works, give me evidence that it works that way, show me how long it takes, and whom it effects... but with science: you can never state why. Why must evolution be so? That is the crucial bit of evidence that creationists need before they will understand. I think you mostly despise metaphysics... which is completely unrelated to philosophy... because (!)it is not based on logic(!) 
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
 
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe
Where do you stand on NOMA Sae?
(September 9, 2009 at 3:35 pm)Saerules Wrote: You're a dinosaur? O.o I have already told you: philosophy has proven WHY one MUST be equal to itself. Philosophy has proven WHY some forms of the concept of 'gods' simply cannot be true. Philosophy and other sciences are not working apart... but rather: they must be joined together. 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. Kyu Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings! Come over to the dark side, we have cookies! Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
 (September 9, 2009 at 3:40 pm)Saerules Wrote:(September 9, 2009 at 3:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Where do you stand on NOMA Sae? Non Overlapping MAgisteria. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html
Best regards,
Leo van Miert Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you 
RE: First extract of Richard Dawkins new book.
September 9, 2009 at 3:59 pm
(This post was last modified: September 9, 2009 at 4:01 pm by Violet.)
(September 9, 2009 at 3:38 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(September 9, 2009 at 3:35 pm)Saerules Wrote: You're a dinosaur? O.o I have already told you: philosophy has proven WHY one MUST be equal to itself. Philosophy has proven WHY some forms of the concept of 'gods' simply cannot be true. Philosophy and other sciences are not working apart... but rather: they must be joined together. 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.) Logic only exists where this rule is true. That is why philosophy is too a science. Metaphysics go beyond logic... they are not compatible... because metaphysics must take place outside of logic. They are therefore pointless to discuss, as they have absolutely no application for us, and probably don't exist in the first place. If it will matter to us... it will be based on logic. (September 9, 2009 at 3:56 pm)leo-rcc Wrote:(September 9, 2009 at 3:40 pm)Saerules Wrote:(September 9, 2009 at 3:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Where do you stand on NOMA Sae? Scientology? O.o? Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)
