Your "logic" is merely semantics. Mention is not affirmation. And I notice you completely avoid how one can address another's claim (e.g. "God exists") without assenting to that claim. Must be you're not educated enough to have been acquainted with Aristotle's maxim
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
No need to thank me, Corvus, it's par for the course. — 180 Proof

It is so simple. Don't try to complicate it.

You believe something, then you must know it. You cannot believe something that you don't know OK?
For you to know something, the thing must exist. You cannot know something not existing.
Therefore even if you say I believe that X doesn't exist, you are admitting X exists, when you utter the statement. You are contradicting yourself by uttering the statement.

My logic is semantic? All logic is semantic. Reason is semantic, and without language we are just zombies.

So define your g/G (i.e. select a deity actually worshipped by any religious tradition), claim it is more-than-imaginary, — 180 Proof

I don't know anything about God you listed. I was just demonstrating the logical argument, and it proved with the conclusive truth. It could have been about any object X. It was just a logical argument.

The fact that you have written down "God" means that you are a theist according to the conclusion of the argument. Even if you say that you will try to disprove it as empty concept, you have already proved that you know it exists by writing the word "God".

If you really did not believe it existed, then there would be nothing to say about it, even the name.

Sorry if my reply was not appropriate. I will not involve in debates nobody asked me to again. — javi2541997

Your reply was appropriate. Don't feel like that.
I was just trying to elaborate more in Wittgensteinian manner on the argument. :)

t is impossible to be an atheist but in the other hand, it is "possible" to believe in something you do not have proofs about as God. — javi2541997

To be a genuine atheist, one has to be silent, when asked "Does God exist?"

It follows when one says, God does not exist, it it same meaning as God does exist.

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. :)