I mean, imagine a kid born and raised in an island without developed science/education and then he would never heard of this principle and other criteria that give us the ability to reason. — javi2541997

I don't think the knowledge of a theoretical principle gives us the ability to reason. The kid on the island can figure out that (for instance) he can get the fruit of a tree by shaking the tree, instead of climbing up on it.

Reasoning is not only reasoning that very intelligent people do (whoever they are), but reasoning is a process in the brain that helps solve problems, big and small.

-----------
Reasoning did not have to be pre-thought. If it did, then there would be no reasoning. (Because there is no infinite regress of men and women passing on the skill and minutiae of the reasoning process.)

So you can't believe anything you like, you must believe as you're told. — Wayfarer

Wrong. You believe anything you like. But if you advocate some beliefs, religion may frown at it. Nobody can tell you what to believe, and you are a perfect example of it (as am I).

Religions are still another stage of belief... that's the basic idea. Belief, not knowledge. So... what were you saying?

Carry on, Harry Hindu. You seem to have a very viable and fruitful conversation with yourself, totally ignoring others' input. Must be an interesting world inside your head.

LeMaitra’s work was never ‘debunked’. It was elaborated, improved, refined - in exactly the same way as many other foundational papers in 20th C. Cosmology. — Wayfarer

True. One of the ways it was improved, was the correction of the size of the space that included the matter. You said it yourself here that LM's work was not accepted without refinement and improvements. Get with the times, Wayfarer, incorporate those improvements into your model of the Big Bang.

As you haven’t bothered, the English translation of LeMaitre’s paper was generally referred to as the ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’. — Wayfarer

But it has been debunked. That does not seem to phase you at all. Your being impervious to facts is a GREAT armor in the field of philosophical discussion.

No. I go by the standard that the scientific community accepted.

If you go to the origin, then we should believe Kepler's heliocentric world view, but we know the sun is not the centre of the world.

Maybe this is the source of your erroneous ways. You go back to the UNCORRECTED version of theories, the original ones. Time to dust off those Internet searches, and look for the updated, corrected versions of theories.

I’ll get to the point. Religious fundamentalists believe they can use science to prove God exists.

Scientific materialists believe they can use science to prove God doesn’t exist.

They’re both mistaken, in my view. — Wayfarer

Scientific materialists will NEVER claim what you claim they claim. Science can't prove anything.

Religion is based on belief, so anything goes. They don't need proof.

An atom, actually. — Wayfarer

No, Wayfarer, for the third time. It was the size of a thimble, not of an atom. Read my lips: thimble.

Harry HIndu, you completely misread my post. it is I who does the believing, and the topic of the belief is not another belief, but a repulsion.

You go on believing that my belief is about somebody else's belief, and that an obvious thing like being male or female must not be a topic of belief.

Well, it isn't, if you read my post again. The people see their sex/gender. There is no belief, no mistake about it. They are repulsed by it. No belief, no mistake about it.

Then you took my post, materially misunderstood it, and misrepresented it, made therefore a Strawman argument.

Please read carefully.

You call them as you see them based on what? — synthesis

On what I see.

I also grudgingly admit that the OP has a point - the 'big bang theory' (an awful name, by the way) has many vast anomalies. And it's impossible to deny that it seems to converge with the idea of 'creation ex nihilo'. — Wayfarer

The bing bang theory (a kinder name) does not presuppose or state or claim that the world came from nothing. It says that all the matter existed in a volume the size of a thimble.

Sorry to correct you, but without this correction you seem to make sense, and we can't allow that. :-)

Awakening from the scientific trance for a second, one has to say the universe could not expand then coalesce into the vast reality it has become from an infinitely small point Just not possible — Joe0082

You're right. It is impossible for anything inside an infinitely small point to expand into a vast world.

But the theory does NOT state what you ascribe to it. It says the matter in the universe that we know was concentrated in the volume of the size of a thimble. NOT INFINITELY SMALL. You ride on false assumptions, of course it is easy to prove something true wrong when the proof you use is wrong.

Amnesia does not absolve anyone, as the greatest witness of all is history. — Gus Lamarch

Not morally, but legally, amnesia can absolve even the worst criminality.

Amnesia that presents not in the criminal, but in the jury that decides the case.

If all jury members after they start to deliberate but before they come to a decision, have amnesia, then they say, "hey, this guy/gal did nothing wrong, I don't remember hearing any evidence to convict him / her." Then of course they come in, the foreperson says "not guilty in all / in any of the charges," the guy is set free, and bob is your uncle: amnesia absolved (in the criminal sense) a criminal.

I admit this is highly unlikely, but it is not impossible.

Not all moralists are simply “control-freaks”. The ancient ones whose writings have survived were almost always moralizing—not to the many—but to a few. — Todd Martin

Whether you want to control a few, one, or a global population, you are still trying to control. Control, or attempt at control, is done by control freaks, no matter their scope of influence.

According to the law of my country, good deeds do not cancel out criminal deeds. Some decisions take into consideration that the defendant may do good in the future and not rescind, but in case of murder, that is not a consideration.

This is the legal side of it.

If you ask about the moral "should", then I abstain from the discussion.

I am the type of philosopher who prefers to make his points the way the proverbial umpire did: "I calls them as I sees them". In other words, I give the status quo, I may even explain things, but I make no moral judgments.

that help you out. — synthesis

... and so help you god.

From God, or The Absolute (whichever you prefer). — synthesis

It's nice to name a possibly existing, possibly non-existing entity to be the ruler... no risk, he does not make any rules, so YOU make the rules and YOU say that it's from god.

Nice going, but fewer and fewer people believe this.

Are you going to argue with God (in public)? — synthesis

Many already have, and god has already lost the debate many times over.

And they see that authority protecting their niche in the system. — synthesis

I am sorry; is English not your native tongue? Another sentence that is awkward to the point of being understood, but not quite correctly written. I am not trying to criticize you, I am saying I can't respond to things that I am not totally sure what they mean.

Is not greed, lust, hedonistic desires and hunger for power intellectual? — synthesis

Make this a sentence that is syntactically sensible. This is nonsense. I am not saying you are speaking nonsense, I am saying the quote is grammatically so out-of-shape that it makes no sense. Please rewrite it in English if you wish me to answer it.

Things that have existed and that can be and are taken for granted are simply unnoticed. And it's typical that especially part of the so-called "intellectuals" in their criticism of the society they live in do not notice how central, how important these things that take for granted truly are.

Hence it's no wonder that historically it has been the intellectuals that have promoted and believed in authoritarianism (communism, fascism etc), because they haven't seen the negative side of it in their lives. — ssu

Given that intellectuals are intelligent, and nobody but the intellectuals suppor totalitarianism, you are saying that it's the dumbfucks only who oppose totalitarianism.

Then how do you explain the Trump phenomenon and the storm of the Bastille Capitol?

I am wondering if some of the people writing here are actually in favour of totalitarianism? — Jack Cummins

I am not in favour of anything. But I call the shots as they are. In the manner of the proverbial umpire, who says "I calls them as I sees them".

I make no judgement and I make no wishes or opinions or rules. I am a philosopher. I calls them as I sees them.

All that matters is that moral authority comes from a source that cannot be corrupted by man's intellectualism. — synthesis

Morality is not corrupted by intellectualism; morality (such as it is) is mostly or else always corrupted by greed, lust, hedonistic desires and a hunger for power.

And moral authority does not come from anywhere, PRECISELY because it should come form a source that can't be corrupted.

Nazi Germany, the USSR, Communist China...man created God because it became apparent that society needs something morally pure (above man) when he inevitably goes bad (and he always does). — synthesis

Not to mention ancient Rome, Athens, The RC Inquisition and Autodafe, the Spanish and Portuguese and English and French near annihilation of the Native American Population, the Indian Caste System, Quantanimo Bay, the Bay of Pigs, the Bay of Loose Diarrhea, the Bay of Aborted Feti, the Bay of Mangled Car Wrecks with children cut in half... etc.

Human nature conquers human-nature-wannabe, and that's why god that has been created by man has been made dead by man.

This is so because man has realized that not even god can force humans to act the way CERTAIN humans want to control everyone else to act that SPECIFIC way that they envision would make a better world.

Moralists: god-worshipping or secularists, are both control freaks, who cite morals when their ammunition to control others has gone thin.

American ideals offer the freedom to strive to become human — Nikolas

Show me a human who is not a human. Be the person free or not free, from this or that or the other thing, or to do this or that or the other thing. Just simply show a human who is not a human.

Over the past years it has become apparent (to me) that man needs a higher, everlasting moral authority...
— synthesis

Do you have an example in mind? — Wayfarer

I'll volunteer for the job, if nobody else is in line for it.

Freedom is just a fancy word for nothing left to lose.

I cited a specific issue: turning the sexual chromosomes into their opposite in all body cells. That has not, to my knowledge, been done yet. Maybe you have a source document that claims that?

It seem obvious to me that there are people that can identify as something that they are not. — Harry Hindu

There is nothing new in that. Nero identified himself as the benevolent, loving emperor. Hitler identified himself as the savior of the Arian races. My neighbor identifies herself as the world's most beautiful woman. My mailman identifies himself as a caricaturist, I identify myself as a man with a very good sense of humor, you identify yourself as the master of Banno, and Banno identifies himself as a know-it-all.

Obviously in the above list the identities assumed to apply to the self are a far cry from reality.

It does not even need to be restricted to the human race to identify yourself as something you are not. For instance, my dog identifies himself as the lord of the manor, and my cat identifies herself as the person for whom the world has been created to be her playground.

----------------------------------

I believe that there are people who are truly repulsed by their own body, due to their sexual characteristics. This makes them reject their own sexual nature, and identify with its opposite, or with an alternative. This is not even arguable, there are tons of evidence to support this. This is akin to hetero men watching homosexual porn, or else truly gay men watching straight porn. It's a huge turn off -- and if your own body turns you off the same way and with the same intensity, what the heck are you supposed to do with it?

I believe also that there is not only strictly homosexual or else heterosexual attraction. There could be a mix of those affecting the same person. These are not changed over the course of life at any point, and one is stuck with this outlook practically from birth. This may be one reason to name sexuality non-binary.

And finally, those who are accommodated in questionnaires to name their "sex" with a choice of "male", "female", "other", "mix", "neither", "funny you should ask", "who wants to know", "I've hoped you could tell me", and "fuck off", are not the ones that decided to do this. It is done by the same philosophy of our leadership that bans hate speech, that encourages tolerance, that makes sure nobody has to die unnecessarily, and that people of any color, race, national origin or religion can fully participate in the social context of the countries in which the questionnaire is altered thus.

The 'problem' (if you believe in problems) is the fact that we can alter our DNA. — TaySan

??? This is not true. At least not in a biologically fully formed individual. We can alter our DNA in the zygote stage, and that has lead to nothing so far. Aside form that being unethical.

Our x-rays also can alter the genetic make-up of our zygotes, of our cells, but not in a planned way or directed way.

Nothing in the human body, in zygotes, or in early human development can man (i.e. science) change a Y chromosome into an X and vice versa.

So how do you mean we (humans) can alter our DNA? I think the fact is that you can't alter one of the two X chromosomes in a pair to be Ys in all the cells of a body, and the other way around. It is impossible. In fact, you can't even change one cell's Y into X.

I'm not speaking out against the notion of thinking of spectrums. I am speaking out against impossible propositions.

I believe strongly that in humans, gender is NOT defined by the sex chromosome pairs. But sex is defined by them. The difference is that sex is biological, gender is psychological. I believe a man who claims he is a woman trapped in a male body. No problem. But it is him who also says "male body".

What we need is: more tolerance, more understanding, and more clear thinking. Less bigotry, less bs, less muddled-up thinking.

Non-binary people aren't necessarily genderless. — Pfhorrest

In my opinion binary people are either 1 (one) or 0 (zero).

I don't want to think of myself as a Zero. Much less in lower case, as a zero.

So, by the process of elimination, I'm a one. 1. One, one, One, or The One.

This fits with my language usage as well, as I often say, "One is not amused" when I catch one of my subjects utter a really bad pun.

So I call "one". Everyone has the right to name oneself the way he wants. I am not sure if this right applies to everyzero.

So those around me, the seven or so billion, please raise your hand if you are a binary zero.

No? None? You see, we are each one, distinct and separate, ones.

We are not binary. We are urinary.

But then you are not explaining how music is able to "directly push emotional buttons". The last time you were saying that it is explained by our responses to recognizing patterns. This time, it seems like you are saying music somehow has direct access to emotions. — hypericin

You said this in response to a (by me true) claim by PfHorrest, "Music pushes emotional buttons." (Not quoted verbatim.)

It is true. PfH only states a fact, without any actual explanation why it is so.

Many other respondents made observations how we hear our mothers' heartbeats, how we hear rhythmic noises or sounds in nature, how bird songs are attractive, etc. They fail to say why it is attractive, while in the description, in the stating of facts, they are unerring.

I have an explanation. This is what it is:

A mutation occurred at one point which manifested in music appreciation. What we call music from then onward to the mutant and to his or her offspring was pleasurable, and to a lesser degree, also useful in evolutionary terms. It turns out that texts are easier to memorize when in verse, and in meter, than straight prose. And it's even easier to memorize if it's to music.

So in those tens of thousands of years when accumulated knowledge, that helped the survival of communities and individuals within, was passed by word-of-mouth (prior to any ability to mark text on permanent text-carrier), it was extremely important to have it memorized well; and verses put to music made this possible. So the gene that manifested in the enjoyment of music, also survived, because it was an evolutionary advantage.

What are facts, though? — bongo fury

I attended several trials. As an outside observer.

The presiding judge at one jury trial gave directives to the jury; the directives included something like this (quote is not verbatin): "You will be hearing opinions and claims. Opinions and claims become fact when you accept them as being true."

This struck me hugely.

You stand up at church during mass at points in the RC churches.
At trials, you stand up when the Judge appears or stands up or leaves.

You shut your clapper at mass. As an observer.
You shut your clapper at the trial as an observer.

You don't sass back to the judge, even when given permission to speak.
You say a few words at the mass if you are part of the congregation, but definitely don't sass back.

And what really struck me: the wafer and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ via accepting it;
The claim becomes fact via accepting it.

The RC faith does not stand up to logic and reason.
Trials, if they include this transmogrification, also don't.

Trials are patterned for their rituals after the Church rituals. Not for the pattern of the rituals only; also for the pattern of incomprehensible processes.

What are facts, though? — bongo fury

Facts are solidified opinions.
Facts weaken under extreme heat and pressure.
Truth is elastic.

-- "The Physics of Epistemology", taken from "Murphy's Laws, Book 3", 1973.

What exactly do you find wrong in Spinozism? — Eugen

For starters, Spinoza said, or claimed, as you said, "God has will" and "God has no will". If someone (Spinoza in this case, as per your recall) so blatantly claims something and its exclusive opposite both to be true, then I am sorry, I can't take him seriously.

I quoted you, in my previous post to this, so please check the claim I make -- it is totally factual.

Super! :100:

In his view, God is nature, it possesses infinite consciousness (plus other infinite attributes), but it is not conscious and it has no will. Isn't this self-contradictory? — Eugen

Spinoza said neither God nor humans have free will. But they both have will, which is the desires of the thinking subject. — Gregory

What does Spinoza ACTUALLY say? You claim he contradicts himself, which can be claimed even without any extra thinking:

"God .. has no will"
"They [god and humans] both have will"

So which is it? I can't argue with somebody (Spinoza in this case) if he speaks in terms of self-contradiction.

Thanks. Attributes (or forms of movement) do not derive from each other, but they do influence each other. What Spinoza says about this, is archaic, to me it is out-of-date, I don't bother memorizing stuff that I don't find is true.

Actually, I did not say They are wrong. I said, "i've been wronged." The two are not the same.

It is incredibly important in philosophy to read texts precisely for what they say, and it is equally important to write precisely what you mean. I think you are good at the second part (your opening post was clear, to the point and without unclear or not reasonable parts; it was well written, logical and reasonable), but you need to work on the first part, and if you are new to philosophy, then it will be an exercise to understand the nuances between subtle differences.

I feel I am doing wrong (not that I'm wrong) in an ethically measured action, when I do something I feel I shouldn't be doing, even though it is to my advantage to do that thing.

-----------
To say "I avoid unethical actions to feel comfortable" is true, but not the whole picture.

So a rock hitting you doesn't cause you to think ''Damn rock! I'm hurt...", but a previous thought does. — Eugen

I don't get this. Can you explain? What's "a previous thougth"? Any previous thought, or only select a few kinds of previous thoughts? What kind of thoughts? A certain kind or ... what you wrote I can't mind-mine.