Science is without criteria. If a billiard ball makes a click, what does this mean? It's just a sound. The transfer of force is not witnessed. It NEVER is. All we see is stuff happening. If we find fire that is not hot, we would say its not fire. That is subjective. Or we will say another cause is interfering. Why not say there was no law to begin with, just sense perceptions? A law needs criteria. Again, how many times does Galileo have to drop the two balls before he concludes a universal law?????????

Ron Cram, you are picking a few things out from our experience of the world. We can all provide thousands of them too! Which sense do we perceive causality with? If you lift a chair, you can feel the causality. But with billiard balls, you aren't feeling them, so the second ball might have moved without the first hitting it. We assume that the first caused the second. Matter can fool us. Matter mystified Hume, but not you. Again, scientists see repetition till they are satisfied there is a law. So science is subjective!!! Your attempt to salvage it is not working.

How many times must Galileo drop the two balls before he "knows" that they will always fall at the same rate? Till he is satisfied? That brings subjectivism into science!

How many times do we have to test bread before we know infallibly what bread is?

Science has worked so far, but so far we haven't seen the argument that it will continue too.

How many heads does a caveman have to cut off before he knows about this "law"?

Newton is like yang and Hume is like yin. You need both in life. Hume is more mystical you might say, but it is pure rational argumentation. Those who dismiss Hume are like the Thomists who think they understand matter so well as to "know" that it needs a spiritual being to sustain it. As for Kant, Hegel said that he made the Enlightenment into philosophical methods

All we sense is matter. Hume says we are so far from understanding matter that it get even in the way of understanding motion!

I agree with Echarmion. Can anyone prove that after if 20 people die from a poison, everyone after that will? Can anyone provide the argument that shows that regularity PROVES law? Can anyone prove that laws can't change? Hume is not saying go eat poison. It's about a different way of looking at the world and interpreting date

How many times do you have to test something before it becomes a law? This question shows the correctness of Hume's argument. Whenever things go wrong in science, they say something must have caused it. Instead of saying the laws of nature can change orhave a regularity we can't predict, they posit multi-verses. Science about cosmology especially is completely fruitless. There could be "green apple" laws or "pink elephant laws" that we don't know about that change all the equations from the early universe.

To say we observe cause and effect is false. We assume there is a law, but the law could be different from what we think. That's Hume's point

Latter-day Saint hymn "O My Father"

In the heavens are parents single?
No, the thought makes reason stare.
Truth is reason: truth eternal
tells me I've a mother there.

When I leave this frail existence,
When I lay this mortal by,
Father, Mother, may I meet you
in your royal courts on high?

orld, therefore, constitutes the organization belonging to pure universality also, except — Gregory

The second part has a Lutheran tone, as does the whole chapter (from his first book). Indeed that was what he was claimed to be. The Roman Catechism recently said that heaven was a state, not a place. Therefore, it would seem, even God is a state, not a substance (which is more material). Or what of Mormons? The old testament refers to God as feminine in the Holy of Holies (on earth). I found the Latter-day Saint hymn "O My Father" today. They are almost like Catholics (who turn to Mary)!

Pot in moderation helps with abstract thoughts

So only three "people" ever got to be God. And my question was do they feel sacred to themselves, or are they humble and funny about the whole thing? We can never know fully. They have the secret chamber. But do all three feel happiness the same, or do they feel it differently, being different persons in the Trinity?

The problem with adding fractions is that they don't necessarily represent space. Infinite space with finite length is the problem of Zeno.

The infinity of the continuum would suggest that all objects have the same infinity, Thus thought Cantor. But Banach and Tarski essentially pointed out that this would mean you could take a mountain out of a pea. There are so much mystery about the infinite that I don't think mathematicians really know anything about it. We just know there is more out there than we can grasp. Cheers!

So far l've seen is opinion about infinite sets here. Nobody has proven anything about this, most especially Cantor. He got in to many paradoxes that drove him insane. Banach-Tarski came latter. The conclusion does not follow that the real numbers outnumber the rational numbers, because I can as easily find an even number that is not on the odd numbers. The one-to-one correspondence thing is badly used by mathematicians

A combination of other numbers is no guarantee that its a greater set since the whole numbers are more dense than the odd numbers

I think mathematicians take Cantor as dogma without considering other problems. If I can find all the even numbers but line all the odd numbers with all the whole numbers, why can't I do this with all the real numbers? Nothing has been settled to be countable or uncountable at that point yet

Cantor's diagonal problem is that, although he finds an infinity of real numbers not within the rational numbers, there are even numbers that are not within the odd, yet he wants to put them in correspondence. Most people don't notice this

The exceeding of all magnitude seems to be what describes segments and objects. The only way something finite can have infinite parts is to posit something which they are a part of (dimensions). The problem with Cantor is that there is no proof odd numbers can be put in a one to one correspondence to the rational numbers. Any attempt at lining them up applies to any infinity. Try it. Line them up and send them off to infinity. The more likely solution is that all infinities are the same

You can put a one to one correspondence between any infinite set, because infinite sets have units. Likewise, unless you are speaking of process philosophy, an object must have parts. These can be divided endlessly, so it is neither discrete nor continuous. There are simply other dimensions, like a stick man on paper wondering about the 3rd dimension

I don't believe wisdom comes with age. Wisdom doesn't exist except after death. Only knowledge of facts increase, and character

Zeno paradox asks how a segment can be finite when it has an infinity of parts

Zeno's paradox shows that two or three dimensions are illogical. That they naturally imply other dimensions to make them real. Or something spiritual, if something simple (in the Scholastic sense) could make sense of it (something being finite and infinite)

Because how can something be finite and infinite at the same time

2 Corinthians 11:30 If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.

This is the consequence of playing responsibility on some perfect "nature". "The Lord worketh in me" they say. 2 Corinthians 10:17 “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

And then there is the temptation: 1 Corinthians 3:21 "So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours"

As I pointed out, to strive for goodness is better than merely to posses it. This certainly must apply to "God", and even to us if we are God in some way. We become better by work and virtue, not by the grace of an idolized divine nature

If you want to make stuff up (faith) and believe in your lazy God, that's on you

By choosing to have children someone decides to incarnate God into a confused physical creature. If we knew if God was good we would know if life is good. Are we good asked Socrates

If we are all persons with God's nature, and are billions of incarnations, we can read modern liberal Christian works on Jesus, in which they say Jesus only at the end realized who he was, as spiritual readings into our own lives. If this is all true, than my mother (God) gave birth to God (me). Interesting

God's forgiveness is completely external to the sinners soul. Christians most often think God can remove the sin. Calvinist think God's does this against the sinners will. These are all immoral doctrines. My other point was the work is good because doing something hard is wholesome. A God who was forever and is forever in eternal bliss knows nothing of this. So although all objects or even natures could be reflected by God nature, not all actions can. Therefore he is not the greatest being

Dawkins is taken by many theists as spouting nonsense. That the quote from Christopher seems in line with what the East says actually matters in ontology. I want to read Evola's book East and West next, as soon as I order it

Hegel gave an interesting analyses of previous modern philosophers: "Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza, and Leibniz have all indicated God as this nexus (of the soul and body). They meant that the finitude of soul and matter were only ideal and unreal distinctions; and so holding, these philosophers took God, not, as so often is done, merely as another word for the incomprehensible, but rather as the sole true identity of finite mind and matter". So some person named God is the glue between our souls and the world energy. I read a Martin Ball book recently that said we are God. Like instead of a Trinity and one Incarnation, we have billions of persons in God and they all get incarnated. I don't know how we reconcile that with doing wrong, since God can't sin.

I am 33, and have a therapist (pretty one too). She keeps saying that I have free will in everything I do, even when it doesn't always feel free. It's making me think a lot. Teilhard? He believed that we own the whole universe partially thru our bodies, instead of owning a part of the universe (or bodies) completely. But if we don't own our bodies completely, where is the free will? For him, evolution was everything, so he probably didn't have Christian faith. But what of Hegelian faith? Hegel used what he thought was reason to create a theology of reason. I don't know enough about Derrida to have used his word properly, but it seems to me reason is around almost every corner to cast doubt on science, religion, and common sense. Reduce everything to the rubble of doubt..

Is it about being in this world, or being apart from it, generally? I listen a lot to religious chants. They all seem to offer different ways. The old Gregorian chants presents the intellectual part of the beatific vision, which is really interesting, but it doesn't arose the love it is suppose to, which is supposed to be the main act in heaven. My personal favorite is sitar music

There is The Secret, Napoleon Hill, and other more mild versions of "create your reality". Currently I am reading Reroute Your Thoughts

Well my point was that philosophy seems to be nothing but deconstruction. What do you know for sure after studying philosophy? Is the only way faith? As a Catholic priest Teilhard had to have believed in the power of faith. But if people are going to create a reality with their minds, why choose the Christian faith? And are the only options Pyrrhonism or faith? I envy Hegel who could write masterpieces of theology which in his mind was logic and science