JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 16th November 2012, 10:10 AM   #241
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 18,938
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Is death ever listed as a punishment in the Bible?
.
Lev 20:2, 20:9,20:10... just a few...
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:10 AM   #242
Merton
Muse
 
Merton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 576
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
However, if you read any of the millions of papers produced in those core sciences every year, and look at what are invariably very extensive lists of references in every paper, you will be hard pressed to find even one reference to any work from any of the well known classical philosophers. That sort of academic philosophy is quite irrelevant and of no use at all to the way we now understand things through science.
Why the eff would they be referencing classical philosophers or "philosophy of that historic sort"? You realize that Philosophy of Science is an active discipline, yes?

http://philpapers.org/browse/science...nd-mathematics
__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." - Thomas Paine
"We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin
Merton is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:42 AM   #243
IanS
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,615
Originally Posted by Merton View Post
Why the eff would they be referencing classical philosophers or "philosophy of that historic sort"? You realize that Philosophy of Science is an active discipline, yes?

http://philpapers.org/browse/science...nd-mathematics


OK, if you want to confine it to current day philosophers, then - how many current day "philosophers" do you think figure as key references in any mainstream science papers?

Your link appears to be about philosophy publications, not about any mainstream cutting edge science of the sort we are talking about on forums like this.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 11:53 AM   #244
Merton
Muse
 
Merton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 576
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK, if you want to confine it to current day philosophers, then - how many current day "philosophers" do you think figure as key references in any mainstream science papers?
Not many. I never said they did. I'm only trying to dispel the notion that Philosophy only consists of semantics and solipsism.

Quote:
Your link appears to be about philosophy publications, not about any mainstream cutting edge science of the sort we are talking about on forums like this.
Yes, Philosophy is usually published as Philosophy.
__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." - Thomas Paine
"We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin
Merton is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 12:10 PM   #245
IanS
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,615
Originally Posted by Merton View Post
Not many. I never said they did. I'm only trying to dispel the notion that Philosophy only consists of semantics and solipsism.



Yes, Philosophy is usually published as Philosophy.

Well then what on earth are you talking about!

The point is - scientific research is ALWAYS reported in the scientific research literature. But you will not find that any of that research ever has to reference work by any philosophers ... because philosophy of that sort plays no part in any of the reported science.

IOW - philosophy of the sort you are talking about, is utterly irrelevant to serious science research.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 12:33 PM   #246
Merton
Muse
 
Merton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Montana, USA
Posts: 576
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well then what on earth are you talking about!

The point is - scientific research is ALWAYS reported in the scientific research literature. But you will not find that any of that research ever has to reference work by any philosophers ... because philosophy of that sort plays no part in any of the reported science.

IOW - philosophy of the sort you are talking about, is utterly irrelevant to serious science research.
To "serious science"? What's that?

Philosophy works in a different manner than science and challenges the very basic assumptions we use to obtain knowledge. Science then applies these methods to get that knowledge:

Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell
The value of philosophy is, in fact, to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find, as we saw in our opening chapters, that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never travelled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.
From Bertrand Russell's The Problem of Philosophy (http://www.paulgraham.com/valueofphilosophy.html)
__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." - Thomas Paine
"We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin
Merton is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 12:49 PM   #247
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
The hard part is thinking about what one reads. Without that effort you'll stay a believer. If you make the effort, and you're rational, there's no chance you'd stay a believer. Not without huge amounts of denial, that is.
This is a straightforward example of the True Scotsman fallacy: hand-waving away anybody who has read the Bible and still agrees with it as not "rational" or in "denial."

It's just as fallacious as when believers argue that anyone who reads the Bible will convert, and then dismiss any counter-examples by saying they didn't read it "with an open heart" or "truly try to understand it."
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 12:54 PM   #248
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Is death ever listed as a punishment in the Bible?
Yes it is. But I missed the Scripture where any form of capital punishment, let alone stoning, is listed as a punishment for wearing mixed garments.

It seems unlikely that someone would base their falling away from the Bible on the existence of a particular passage that they can't even find a reference to.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 01:16 PM   #249
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 25,033
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Yes it is. But I missed the Scripture where any form of capital punishment, let alone stoning, is listed as a punishment for wearing mixed garments.
Do you find that killing your neighbor for picking up sticks on the Sabbath to be objectively moral and good?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 01:17 PM   #250
Rosencrantz
Is Dead
 
Rosencrantz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 335
How did Avalon determine that "Obey God" is a universal good? And, where is this God that we are all supposed to obey?
Rosencrantz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 01:36 PM   #251
Hokulele
Official Nemesis
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Trying to decide whether to set defenses against an army, or against mole rats.
Posts: 28,194
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK, if you want to confine it to current day philosophers, then - how many current day "philosophers" do you think figure as key references in any mainstream science papers?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
__________________
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"
Some person: "Why did you shoot that?"
Yvette: "Blasty! Blasty! Blasty!"

- Tragic Monkey
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 02:17 PM   #252
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,251
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
This is a straightforward example of the True Scotsman fallacy: hand-waving away anybody who has read the Bible and still agrees with it as not "rational" or in "denial."

It's just as fallacious as when believers argue that anyone who reads the Bible will convert, and then dismiss any counter-examples by saying they didn't read it "with an open heart" or "truly try to understand it."
Okay, time to remind you de Nile is not just a river in Africa. I'm sure you don't like it, but the bible is a most vile and foul piece of propaganda. The "good" is sadly outweighed by the "bad". It reads like a N.A.M.B.L.A. recruiting manual.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 02:24 PM   #253
Garnabby
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by Arangarx View Post
Keep in mind I am not advocating anarchy or abandonment of trying to lead a good life. This is not an argument that those who don't believe in God cannot have morals or be good people. This is simply an assertion that without an appeal to God or a higher power, or something that defines right/wrong or good/evil you can't label anyone's actions as such.
There are no absolutes, except for the all or totality, itself... whatever that is, or isn't, to you.

Short of a consistently-working theory of everything, there is no way to determine what truly is right, or wrong; etc.

But, wrongness does exist, and every bit much as rightness. (Only an outside god could imagine, and even contemplate, what doesn't exist.) Ie, the two must balance out.

What to do when things are perhaps, so-bleak? Don't begrudge the universe its infinity of dimensions, etc. Give up on trying to outsmart it, or trying to look after it. Try to save yourself.

God is as god does.

Last edited by Garnabby; 16th November 2012 at 02:32 PM.
Garnabby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 02:28 PM   #254
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,251
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
This is a straightforward example of the True Scotsman fallacy: hand-waving away anybody who has read the Bible and still agrees with it as not "rational" or in "denial."

It's just as fallacious as when believers argue that anyone who reads the Bible will convert, and then dismiss any counter-examples by saying they didn't read it "with an open heart" or "truly try to understand it."
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2012, 05:23 PM   #255
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by Gawdzilla View Post
Okay,
Finally one correct word from you in this thread.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 03:13 AM   #256
IanS
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,615
Originally Posted by Merton View Post
To "serious science"? What's that?

Philosophy works in a different manner than science and challenges the very basic assumptions we use to obtain knowledge. Science then applies these methods to get that knowledge:



From Bertrand Russell's The Problem of Philosophy (http://www.paulgraham.com/valueofphilosophy.html)


I don’t think there is anything left to argue about.

The plain fact of the matter is that science papers do not normally reference the work of classical philosophers. Because that sort of philosophy does not play any direct part in the reported science.

If you read Stephen Hawking's papers on cosmological physics you won’t find constant reference to papers from people like Jung or Wittgenstein. Because fundamental science does not rely in any direct way on philosophy and philosophers of that sort.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 06:26 AM   #257
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,251
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Finally one correct word from you in this thread.
Sorry, my fine troll, but you haven't supported your case at all. The need for a higher authority to be moral is simply the way religions justify their existence. Like everything else in religion that's just a construct of the human mind. If you can't be moral without fear of punishment then you shouldn't be classified as a human being.
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 08:14 AM   #258
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by Merton View Post
Philosophy works in a different manner than science and challenges the very basic assumptions we use to obtain knowledge. Science then applies these methods to get that knowledge:
Again, in practice, this simply isn't true. Scientists don't sit around waiting for philosophers to tell them that the way they gain knowledge is correct. The finer philosophical points of knowledge are simply not important to scientists.

You could theoretically make an argument for any discipline that it needs philosophy to justify its existence, but in fact philosophy is the only one demanding that justification in the first place. "How do we know what we know?" may require a philosophical answer but is also a philosophical question. Other disciplines may not have an answer, but typically they're also not asking the question. They've made their presuppositions about knowledge and reason and they stick to them.

Relevant comic:

AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 01:38 PM   #259
zeggman
Graduate Poster
 
zeggman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,911
I haven't read through all seven pages here, but if I discussed the matter with a fundamentalist Baptist I'd probably point out that Satan is also "a higher power" in that he also possesses supernatural abilities. Choosing to follow one higher power in preference to another higher power is really no different than choosing to "do good" rather than "do evil". The judgement about what is good and what is not still depends on one's internal moral compass. It isn't the higher power which guides our choices, it's our own reason-tempered emotions.
zeggman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 04:51 PM   #260
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 25,033
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Do you find that killing your neighbor for picking up sticks on the Sabbath to be objectively moral and good?
No answer, Avalon?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 05:08 PM   #261
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
No answer, Avalon?
The question was already well answered by my previous posts on the subject -- nothing in the holiness code is "objectively moral." It defines moral behavior only for the people that God commanded to follow it.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 05:20 PM   #262
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 25,033
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
The question was already well answered by my previous posts on the subject -- nothing in the holiness code is "objectively moral." It defines moral behavior only for the people that God commanded to follow it.
And is it objectively good to kill people for picking up sticks on the sabbath?

Last edited by RoboTimbo; 17th November 2012 at 06:59 PM.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2012, 06:54 PM   #263
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 18,938
If he's gonna beat up on the ass that he withdrew from the pit, yes.
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 12:03 AM   #264
Lukraak_Sisser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,981
What I still miss is how objective morality can be tested at all.
AvalonXQ, you assert that 'obey (your) god' is objectively good.

How can that be tested?
Because if its an objective law of nature, rather than the subjective human constuct I assume it to be, it should be possible to test.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 06:33 AM   #265
Garnabby
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
The plain fact of the matter is that science papers do not normally reference the work of classical philosophers. Because that sort of philosophy does not play any direct part in the reported science.
Well, the concept of relativity was around a couple of mellennia before Einstein. (And he might've pilfered a version of it from one of his "girl friends".)

Second, that's too bad. Maybe, if a lot more of the scientists, and others for that matter, tried to live what they believe and know, we'd be a lot further ahead with all of this. Eg, Hawking did refer to the "beginning of time", a point (literally, or not,) at which the laws of physics would (, in his estimation,) break down. Ie, a place spoken of in other terms, such as philosophy. So maybe, let's bring the philosophy into the rest, to bring the physics there?
Garnabby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 07:47 AM   #266
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,853
Originally Posted by Garnabby View Post
Well, the concept of relativity was around a couple of mellennia before Einstein. (And he might've pilfered a version of it from one of his "girl friends".)

Second, that's too bad. Maybe, if a lot more of the scientists, and others for that matter, tried to live what they believe and know, we'd be a lot further ahead with all of this. Eg, Hawking did refer to the "beginning of time", a point (literally, or not,) at which the laws of physics would (, in his estimation,) break down. Ie, a place spoken of in other terms, such as philosophy. So maybe, let's bring the philosophy into the rest, to bring the physics there?
Wait, so you want to bring philosophical wankery back into the mix to fill in the gaps in science's present understanding?

It doesn't work that way. When cosmologists say "it's not possible with present data to extrapolate conditions prior to this point," you can't just say. "Well, some guys have been imagining what things might be like when the laws of physics don't apply, so let's use their baseless speculations and evidence-free assertions in place of real science."

No, when science says "we don't know," that's not an invitation to fill in the answers by others means.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 08:01 AM   #267
llwyd
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 354
Well, was it right to exterminate the Canaanites and other tribes living in the area promised to Moses? If an Israeli invader came to a late term pregnant Canaanite woman would it have been right to kill her and her baby? As the good Lord clearly ordered: "Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes."

One would be inclined to say that genocide is always wrong, but I think there are plenty of Christians who think it's ok if ordered by this ever so loving God...
llwyd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 10:21 AM   #268
IanS
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 2,615
Originally Posted by Garnabby View Post
Well, the concept of relativity was around a couple of mellennia before Einstein. (And he might've pilfered a version of it from one of his "girl friends".)

Second, that's too bad. Maybe, if a lot more of the scientists, and others for that matter, tried to live what they believe and know, we'd be a lot further ahead with all of this. Eg, Hawking did refer to the "beginning of time", a point (literally, or not,) at which the laws of physics would (, in his estimation,) break down. Ie, a place spoken of in other terms, such as philosophy. So maybe, let's bring the philosophy into the rest, to bring the physics there?

If you think Einstein plagiarised someone else’s earlier work, then you should write to all the main physics journals and tell them. See if any of them agree with you.

Re. Hawking and the beginning of time - what I think Hawking is probably talking about is simply that what we call "time" is a property of "space". So that if our universe began as the inflationary stage of a Big Bang process which converted the null vacuum energy into "space", then at that point, what we now call “time” also begins to appear ... it's a property of the emerging "space".
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 12:13 PM   #269
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
It doesn't work that way. When cosmologists say "it's not possible with present data to extrapolate conditions prior to this point," you can't just say. "Well, some guys have been imagining what things might be like when the laws of physics don't apply, so let's use their baseless speculations and evidence-free assertions in place of real science."

Huh? That's pretty much exactly what religion is. You say, "It doesn't work that way," yet you believe in invisible supernatural beings? That is definitively "some guys [...] imagining what things [are] like when the laws of physics don't apply." You do agree, don't you, that belief in gods requires dishonesty, hypocrisy, and willful ignorance of objective reality?
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 12:58 PM   #270
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 25,033
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
The question was already well answered by my previous posts on the subject -- nothing in the holiness code is "objectively moral." It defines moral behavior only for the people that God commanded to follow it.
Avalon, is killing people one of those universal good things to do?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 02:10 PM   #271
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In a beautifully understandable universe
Posts: 2,290
Originally Posted by Garnabby View Post
Well, the concept of relativity was around a couple of mellennia before Einstein. (And he might've pilfered a version of it from one of his "girl friends".)

Second, that's too bad. Maybe, if a lot more of the scientists, and others for that matter, tried to live what they believe and know, we'd be a lot further ahead with all of this. Eg, Hawking did refer to the "beginning of time", a point (literally, or not,) at which the laws of physics would (, in his estimation,) break down. Ie, a place spoken of in other terms, such as philosophy. So maybe, let's bring the philosophy into the rest, to bring the physics there?
It was precisely the act of leaving behind the mental masturbation of philosophy as practised up until the 17th and 18th centuries that enabled science to start progressing. Why would you want to reintroduce it? Is science finding out too many things or something?
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 03:07 PM   #272
Garnabby
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
If you think Einstein plagiarised someone else’s earlier work, then you should write to all the main physics journals and tell them. See if any of them agree with you.
The "concept" had been, and by primarily an ancient philosopher. Besides, i'm sure that most of them, the journal sorts, already know this.

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Re. Hawking and the beginning of time - what I think Hawking is probably talking about is simply that what we call "time" is a property of "space". So that if our universe began as the inflationary stage of a Big Bang process which converted the null vacuum energy into "space", then at that point, what we now call “time” also begins to appear ... it's a property of the emerging "space".
I, myself, wouldn't presume to "think what Hawking is probably talking about". Anyway, time certainly isn't a consequence, or property, of what did, or didn't, happen to space. (Haven't heard that before.)

Last edited by Garnabby; 19th November 2012 at 03:08 PM.
Garnabby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 03:10 PM   #273
Gawdzilla
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 20,251
I wonder if Isaac thought Dad was doing right or wrong?
__________________
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.
Gawdzilla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 03:16 PM   #274
Garnabby
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by Acleron View Post
It was precisely the act of leaving behind the mental masturbation of philosophy as practised up until the 17th and 18th centuries that enabled science to start progressing. Why would you want to reintroduce it? Is science finding out too many things or something?
Maybe, along the same reasoning, philosophy was "finding out too many things, or something".

Seriously, though, eg, even the plus, and minus, signs must come from somewhere and sometime. And each of math, and morality, make use of those, albeit in superficially-different own ways.
Garnabby is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 03:27 PM   #275
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 7,933
Originally Posted by Vortigern99 View Post
If we accept the premise stated in the thread title as valid, the "higher authority" does not have to be divine. It can be the needs of the community as a whole...
Originally Posted by Arangarx View Post
...we can only really call it "currently acceptable to society."
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Right and wrong are subjective, to a degree. Groups of humans collectively determine what is right and wrong...
So if the German society of 1943 determines that it is in their best interest to exterminate the Jews, and to destroy the Soviet Union killing millions of people, then they can claim it is right to do so?

All of this is related to the so-called "Moral Argument" for the existence of God.

Last edited by DOC; 19th November 2012 at 03:28 PM.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 03:27 PM   #276
Beelzebuddy
Master Poster
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,426
Originally Posted by Garnabby View Post
I, myself, wouldn't presume to "think what Hawking is probably talking about". Anyway, time certainly isn't a consequence, or property, of what did, or didn't, happen to space. (Haven't heard that before.)
You've probably heard the term "spacetime" or "space/time" though, right? It's one thing - space AND time. Bending space (with mass, say) also affects time spent in that space, compared to an outside reference. Clocks tick slower. Particles live longer. That's what current physics says exists, extrapolating from that Relativity thing you think Einstein stole.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 03:34 PM   #277
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 25,033
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
So if the German society of 1943 determines that it is in their best interest to exterminate the Jews, and to destroy the Soviet Union killing millions of people, then they can claim it is right to do so?
So if a god wants to engage in genocide and murders millions of innocent men, women and children by drowning, then religionists can claim it is right to do so?

Quote:
All of this is related to the so-called "Moral Argument" for the existence of God.
It's actually related the the argument that morals don't come from imaginary beings.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 03:55 PM   #278
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 7,933
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
It's actually related the the argument that morals don't come from imaginary beings.
Well as far as Christians go, Jesus (whom Christians believe is part of the Godhead and God in the flesh) is not an imaginary being, if we are to believe skeptic Bart Ehrman who said "Jesus certainly existed" in his latest book. So at least according to Christians' beliefs, it can be argued that morality does not come from an imaginary being.

Last edited by DOC; 19th November 2012 at 04:00 PM.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 03:58 PM   #279
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 25,033
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Well as far as Christians go, Jesus---whom Christians believe is part of the Godhead and God in the flesh--- is not imaginary, if we are to believe skeptic Bart Ehrman who said "Jesus certainly existed" in his latest book. So at least according to Christians' beliefs, it can be argued that morality does not come from an imaginary being.
Deliberate dishonesty seems to come from some Christians. Can you post the part where Bart Ehrman said "Jesus was certainly divine"? If Bart Ehrman didn't believe Jesus was divine, how is it that you came to believe that morals came from a mortal itinerant preacher?

No answer for the part about a god murdering millions in a global flood being moral or not?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 04:10 PM   #280
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 7,933
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Deliberate dishonesty seems to come from some Christians. Can you post the part where Bart Ehrman said "Jesus was certainly divine"? If Bart Ehrman didn't believe Jesus was divine, how is it that you came to believe that morals came from a mortal itinerant preacher?...
Bart Ehrman believes Jesus certainly existed, so Christians (who believe morality comes from Jesus) can claim morality does not come from an imaginary being (imaginary being was the wording mentioned in the quote I responded to.)

Last edited by DOC; 19th November 2012 at 04:12 PM.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:38 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.