It is impossible to be an atheist. Because, to say that God does not exist, one must know what God is. If one knows about God, then God must exist, because one cannot know what does not exist.

When can one define metaphysics? Is it possible to define metaphysics when possible?

I am interested in how one can even begin the process of legitimate metaphysics? — Shawn

When one asks what is X, or the fundamental nature of X, that is when metaphysics starts. When X is defined, the definition comes from reasoning using the concepts other than X by applications of reason, and people know the definition is reasonable or not by reasoning too. The full process is, metaphysical process.

In that sense, I feel it was Thales who first started Metaphysics in history of Western Philosophy. When he asked what the world is made of, and came with the answer after application of his reasoning to the question - water. Water was fundamental to all lives. Without life, the world has no meaning. Later Aristotle had elaborated on Metaphysics formally.

I think so too. After all, if my understanding of the OP is correct, we are trying to look into the issue through philosophical inquiry. And in order to do so, we need to ask questions. Either that, or we don't have the discussion :smile: — Apollodorus

Philosophical logic and analysis are the methodical principle to sieve out the claims of pseudo science and science religions from the genuine scientific theories. :)

Sure. Good idea. :up:

That was not logic, it was a stupid argument. We are not born with knowledge of math or anything else. We only have the potential to learn. When we are knowledgeable we gain the ability to create math and comfortable beds and high-rise apartments, etc.. The more knowledge we have the more we can learn. It took mankind millions of years to get to where we are today. Our capability to fill our heads with knowledge is not different but because we know more we can understand more. However, now we have unrealistic expectations of children and locking them up in classrooms and expecting them to learn what they have no interest in learning is not healthy. — Athena

It is the most fundamental method of proving in Logic that the example was irrelevant and senseless for the argument. It shows the example proposed is not a universally true case by simply showing the contradictory case. I definitely read about the child genius cases with their IQ 200 doing calculus.

:up:

I am done. Not even a child prodigy would do simple math without a teacher. Mathematical concepts do not automatically come with being human. Only the potential to learn comes with being human. — Athena

That was just to say, that your example of child cannot do math is not relevant and not sensible in the arguments by giving you the contradictory case. It is just a logic.

The Big Bang began as a theological concept. There's nothing about the Big Bang that is exclusive of God. — theRiddler

My initial post was asking, if the big bang was a scientific religious theory.

The question was, why do the non-religious read it. — baker

The agnostics read it too.

How many Slytherins to stir a cauldron? :grin: — Apollodorus

The Big Bang seems based on the material principle of inference, so I was trying to seek materially based inferences (the explosion and bouncy castle scenarios) of the possible causes for the BB, but couldn't quite come up with a reasonable understanding in both cases.

To test and formulate rigorous scientific laws and principles, it needs philosophical analysis, logic and reasoning.

Not that I know of. Defines metaphysics as such, defines transcendental this or that pursuant to context, but doesn’t explicitly combine them. But he does so combine transcendental and philosophy, so one could make the leap if he wanted to badly enough. — Mww

Sure, thanks for your confirmation. :up:

Isn't that a "leading question"? — InPitzotl

It is an inferred question I suppose.

The problem with bouncy castle scenario is not the castle itself, but finding out "who pressed the button".

Does Kant define what is transcendental metaphysics in the CPR?

Not only that, but why did it suddenly decide to expand all over the place in all directions all at once and without making a sound or saying something? That's acting suspiciously, no? :wink: — Apollodorus

Yeah, come to think of it, the bouncy castle belief on the BB theory sounds more esoteric than the explosion scenario. That would have looked like a scene in Harry Potter. :)

:100: :up:

The bouncy castle pumped it up. — Tom Storm

There you have it too. :)

Exactly. Now you have it. — Tom Storm

So why was it condensed at first place? What was the nature of the condensed matter?

it's an expansion of condensed matter all at once in every direction. — Tom Storm

Wow, that is a bouncy castle pumping up then. ok.

The force where you pay attention to advances in science. — frank

I do value Science, but also am aware that some of their theories are imaginative and unrealistic.
And beware there are many pseudo sciences too.

What force are you talking about? Adam.

Sure. All those guys who built the Hubble are just blowing smoke. Losers. — Wayfarer

So where have the debris and dusts all gone after the BB? It must have gone somewhere. You are not postulating some gigantic divine recycling depot somewhere in the space out there? The sky is clear as crystal at nights. Have you ever watched the night sky? BB sounds more magical than Harry Potter's magic wand.

Trust your intuition, not the youtube videos :)

Sure. All those guys who built the Hubble are just blowing smoke. Losers. — Wayfarer

Wasn't the Hubble a mobile telescope in the space? If there were big bang, there would have been no Hubble. They wouldn't be able to see anything through the debris and dusts in the space. The hubble is a good evidence for no big bang.

I quit my Astronomy hobby some year ago, so haven't been following. Just being realistic, nothing to do with anti science. But if you think back, the scientists in the past used to believe that the sun was rotating around the earth, and earth was flat.

Yeah sure Corvus, because you think that, then it undoubtedly must be so. No doubt you're an expert in all this kind of thing. — Wayfarer

It is just a simple common sense WF. You don't need to consult an expert for that, I would imagine :D

I think you under estimated how large the universe is, and the power of explosion to create it, if it ever happened, I shudder to think. :chin:
I am quite certain that it wouldn't had been a bouncy castle pumping up affair for sure, if it really ever happened.

To learn how wrong you are, read up. — Wayfarer

If there were bing bang to create the size of the universe, then the explosion would have created immense amount of debris and dusts, which would still be floating around in your room, so you wouldn't be able to read your screen or type any texts for sure :D

Isn't the CPR partly about to demonstrate how the a priori can yield knowledge of the independently real (Kant's letter to Herz 1772, cf. NKS) thus proving how transcendental metaphysical knowledge is possible?

"The primary problem to be solved is not how we advance by means of a priori ideas to the independently real, but how we are able to advance beyond a subject term to a predicate which it does not contain." - Commentary to Kant's CPR, NKS pp.26 1923

Can I time travel?

Isn't big bang a scientific religion?

Never say never. :D

Well... I guess when you want to be baptized you have to pass through a church or institution. You cannot be part of "God's blessing" if a priest does not make the average "ritual" in the church.
Also, most of the people just go to church in Sunday and hear a lecture.
It is weird to see a person who reads the Bible in their own home or room but... Yes I agree with you that these people can exist. — javi2541997

Søren Kierkegaard was a total lone individual facing God, and in communication with the divine being in his house, reading the Bible, praying, meditating, writing and philosophising. He stopped going to church at one point after the bitter fallout with them, I gather. Can be done.

And human, when broken down to its root meaning, means moist soil, That means contained in our word human is the belief that a god made us from mud, but few of us are aware of that. And to stop at the root of logos being connected to the spoken word and dropping its meanings of being a principle, law, and reason is a failure to understand the meaning of logos. That law meant universal law, not man-made law, and a democracy is supposed to build it isn't laws on an understanding of best reasoning and universal laws, but in our ignorance, we don't know that. — Athena

Principle was listed far behind in connection to logos in the dictionary suggesting that it is not usual usage or connection. I have not come across principle to denote reason. That would be very unusual, if anyone used that meaning.

The most popular meaning of logos is with language in philosophy. If you read some Heidegger, it will be evident.

The universal laws are laws established by the scientists and imposed into the universe. It is all from the workings of human mind and reason. There is absolutely nothing out there in the universe apart from matter and space.

It looks as though they are working according to some clever principles or laws, because you are imagining so.

No, a child does not automatically know 1+1 = 2. It takes a lot of work to get a child to understand the concepts of math. There are primitive tribes today that do not have the ability to count above the number 3 and it took us centuries to understand the importance of the zero. — Athena

There are some child prodigies who can do high level calculus.

Sure the tribe people must have had very simple life style, for which they only needed 3 fishes to catch, and enough to feed the whole family at a time. That is not necessarily to their disadvantages or shortcomings in their abilities. Because it is all they need for survival and life of happiness.

I am confident that when they caught 1 fish, they would know instantly they must catch another 2 to make up total 3 fishes without having to recourse to observations or experience, making full use of their reasoning.

Will follow your reading group. :)

The Critique of Pure Reason by I. Kant

I have the Guyer, NKS and Max Muller translation version.
I prefer the MM version best for clarity of the translation. Cross referencing between the 3 translations will render flexibility.

The Idea of Nature by R.G. Collingwood

Looks "phenomenal"..... — Pantagruel

Got the same book. Looks an interesting book well written.
If you start a reading group with it, will follow.

Agreed that of course there are persons who truly believe and care about religion. It is true. But I guess the real target here is the church or episcopal institutions. I totally think that those are simply powerful lobbies that work for politicians (conservative most of them). If you live in a tiny town and somehow you want to be the mayor or council you will need to work or debate with the church in the town because it has a lot of power of influence.
My point here: I respect and understand all the individuals who truly believe in God and they act in this way. On the other hand, I not respect the Church as an entity at all... I guess they should not be part of important things as homosexuality or educational system. This is why it can seen as dangerous by atheist like me. — javi2541997

Being religious does not mean that one has to be tied to churches or temples or any organisations. One can be perfectly and rightly religious just sitting in one's own room, and be religious happily reading the holy scripts, meditating and praying to one's own God.

Sure, it could be just their own opinion or experience. I can understand that. And in reality, there must have been such cases in some part of the world to some religious people. Fair enough.

But there are also genuine religious people who are happy about their religion and got a lot of positivities out of their faiths and religions. For a example, I know my friend who is doing well in his life after taking up a religion doing better and happier in his life. Before that, he had been suicidal and utterly miserable.

I read about the religious charities in some places, who have been preparing free meals for the homeless people in the street, feeding them everyday with the volunteers help saving many lives for many years. This is not some 1500 year ago, but it was a few months ago. I was in the city, and witnessed them serving the free meals to the homeless people in the streets, and also read about them.

They are not irrational, pathological, violent and dangerous, are they? For them those negative remarks would be totally unfair and unjustified, anyone would say.

So simply saying that all religious people are insane irrational and dangerous is not correct. That is my point.

New atheism:
making truth claims about the nature of reality, and are subsequently rejected on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to support them. New atheism further maintains that religion is not simply wrong, but irrational, pathological and uniquely dangerous. By promoting beliefs and behaviours that emphasize cosmically ordained rules, sanctions and ways of life, religion is believed to foster divisive tribal mentalities, creating prejudice, discrimination and violence — javi2541997

The problem is that the insufficient evidence to support them doesn't follow that all of them are wrong, irrational, pathological or dangerous. Maybe some are, but not all.

I am not saying one way or the other, but simply saying that the arguments from the atheists are not infallibly conclusive on their claims. Whatever they say, it is some comments on what they experienced, heard, read, so it could be anything such as, they got bitter on their personal experience from the past their attending the churches or temples, or indeed what they claim had been the case in the real world, who knows?

But one thing clear is that it does not cover the whole religious people, and the religions in the whole world and in the whole history as a universal necessity. Therefore they are not conclusive claims to qualify as truths.