Berkeley's argument for the existence of God

[FlatAssembler]

How about the Boolean algebra? Modern computers wouldn't exist without it.

[vulcanlogician]

The illusion that philosophy is useless is created by the fact that, when philosophy succeeds at explaining something, it starts to be called science. Galileo almost certainly wouldn't have come up with his ideas if he hadn't read the Aristotle's natural philosophy.

And rejected Aristotle's ideas.

Just like Einstein "rejected" Newton. Rejected and corrected mean the same thing in certain contexts.

[The Grand Nudger]

How about the Boolean algebra? Modern computers wouldn't exist without it.

Modern computers instantiate boolean algebra in explicitly material form.  Were it not for the ability to do so..they wouldn't work.  

Computing as we know it is entirely material.  If you couldn't make a physical gate do what we expect, there would be no computing.  How an immaterial gate might work....anyone's guess.  

Speaking of....if I had access to the physical servers and the IO of posts I could tell you the -exact- mass and space of every idea discussed in this thread...and that would only be the beginning of the material specificity I could, then, employ.

[polymath257]

And rejected Aristotle's ideas.

Just like Einstein "rejected" Newton. Rejected and corrected mean the same thing in certain contexts.

I'd argue that Galileo did more 'rejecting'. Galileo's dynamics wasn't approximated by Aristotle's. Einstein's *was* approximated by Newton's.

The point is that Aristotle's physics wasn't even *approximately* correct. It had to be rejected wholesale. It wasn't simply 'corrected'.

One of the guiding principles for both Einstein and Bohr was that the new physics should yield Newtonian physics as an approximation.

[vulcanlogician]

The illusion that philosophy is useless is created by the fact that, when philosophy succeeds at explaining something, it starts to be called science. Galileo almost certainly wouldn't have come up with his ideas if he hadn't read the Aristotle's natural philosophy.

Yeah but in modern times, what does philosophy ever explain which then becomes a science? Not disputing that has this happened in the past. After all, even today any progress in the field of Artificial Intelligence becomes a field in its own right. But whenever people defend philosophy in this way they almost always refer to achievements several hundred years ago.

In modern times, there are some people who think we should reinstate compulsory prayer in schools.

Why, according to empirical data, is that a bad idea?

Why not implement theocracy instead of a democracy?

 If only there were a field of study that addressed such questions...

[I_am_not_mafia]

Computing as we know it is entirely material.  If you couldn't make a physical gate do what we expect, there would be no computing.  How an immaterial gate might work....anyone's guess.  

Speaking of....if I had access to the physical servers and the IO of posts I could tell you the -exact- mass and space of every idea discussed in this thread...and that would only be the beginning of the material specificity I could, then, employ.

You could probably work it out considering how much the daily passage of information on the internet weighs "0.2 millionths of an ounce" (whatever an ounce is supposed to weigh), "roughly the same as the smallest possible sand grain, one measuring just two-­thousandths of an inch across" (bloody imperial measurements)

This doesn't of course include the hardware or the power plants and cabling required to power it.

How Much Does The Internet Weigh?

---

Yeah but in modern times, what does philosophy ever explain which then becomes a science? Not disputing that has this happened in the past. After all, even today any progress in the field of Artificial Intelligence becomes a field in its own right. But whenever people defend philosophy in this way they almost always refer to achievements several hundred years ago.

In modern times, there are some people who think we should reinstate compulsory prayer in schools.

Why, according to empirical data, is that a bad idea?

Why not implement theocracy instead of a democracy?

 If only there were a field of study that addressed such questions...

Politics, psychology, sociology and (according to economists in the introduction to their books but at no other time afterwards) ... economics.

[Pat Mustard]

I'm surprised this thread is still going, especially as I already gave Johnson's definitive 250 or so year old definitive rebuttal to the Cat's (yes, this is the proper denonym for people from Kilkenny) argument.

[Mystic]

So now we know even someone else then the word Salad maker MysticKnight proves God, you guys still won't accept. 

[Succubus]

I'm surprised this thread is still going, especially as I already gave Johnson's definitive 250 or so year old definitive rebuttal to the Cat's (yes, this is the proper denonym for people from Kilkenny) argument.

Amment I only just after tellin yee this threads cat!

I worked with Irish lads for years and the crack was fuckin mighty.

[Silver]

I'm surprised this thread is still going, especially as I already gave Johnson's definitive 250 or so year old definitive rebuttal to the Cat's (yes, this is the proper denonym for people from Kilkenny) argument.

Theists always think they're coming up with the "newest", best arguments in support of god's existence. What they keep failing to realize is that if god truly existed, he would be capable of proving his own existence. Since he cannot, since theists act as his delusional advocates, it becomes clear god is merely in their minds as imaginative concepts.