Then why isn’t the same epistemic standard used for science used for ancient history? Because they are two different domains. — Noah Te Stroete
Then why isn’t the same epistemic standard used for science used for ancient history? Because they are two different domains.
— Noah Te Stroete
I don't think you know what it means to be a physicalist, and you now seem to have lost track of our conversation. — S
My point is that there are different epistemic standards for different domains. — Noah Te Stroete
I thought you "were done"? More evidence that you're full of it. — S
I don't share that arrogance of yours — Janus
That's the funniest thing you've said by far. — S
Read Spinoza's Ethics S... — creativesoul
Not all religious belief is incompatible with science. A creator of the universe that does not interfere is perfectly compatible. Many derive such from Spinoza. Einstein believed in a Spinozan God.
Einstein. — creativesoul
Compatibility in the only relevant sense S. Not contradictory to science. You're conflating entailment/implication with compatibility. — creativesoul
Many also derive pantheism, although I've read counters to that derivation. That's still the same point. Pantheism (God is within all things) is also not incompatible with science. — creativesoul
you would have to tell me what principle of science would lead one to the conclusion that there is a creator of the universe in the first place, whether intervening or otherwise. — S
Science can't explain the 'order of nature' which underwrites the principles that it discovers and then utilises in order to proceed. Newton discovered that F=MA, and Einstein that E=MC2 - but neither could tell you why this should be so. — Wayfarer
Scientific cosmology now says that the universe exploded into existence from a single point in a single instant. But there is no way of determining why, when this happened, it culminated in a stable Universe populated by intelligent beings. Even for there to be living planets, there had to be many pre-existing conditions. Science knows quite about about what happened, but it can't say why it happened, or why it culminated in an ordered universe. That leads to many debates about 'the fine-tuning argument vs the multiverse' - but all those arguments are likewise beyond the scope of science to solve.
So really all you're doing is preaching positivism. — Wayfarer
I suggest that you first figure out what incompatibility means... then re-read what I've said. — creativesoul
Of course it is. Science results in no such conclusion. — S
I suggest that you first figure out what incompatibility means... then re-read what I've said.
— creativesoul
And you know what you can do with that suggestion. — S
Again... you're conflating implication/entailment with incompatibility. — creativesoul
The burden would be on the person who assumed that there's an objective way the universe should be. — S
First of all, no, I'm not preaching positivism at all. That's just another misleading characterisation, much like the scientism label. — S
Suit yourself. Ignorance is bliss. Laterz. I have better things to do. — creativesoul
Science can't explain the 'order of nature' which underwrites the principles that it discovers and then utilises in order to proceed. Newton discovered that F=MA, and Einstein that E=MC2 - but neither could tell you why this should be so.
Scientific cosmology now says that the universe exploded into existence from a single point in a single instant. But there is no way of determining why, when this happened, it culminated in a stable Universe populated by intelligent beings. Even for there to be living planets, there had to be many pre-existing conditions. Science knows quite about about what happened, but it can't say why it happened, or why it culminated in an ordered universe. That leads to many debates about 'the fine-tuning argument vs the multiverse' - but all those arguments are likewise beyond the scope of science to solve.
So really all you're doing is preaching positivism. — Wayfarer
What is at stake is whether 'science explains how the universe is'. — Wayfarer
And you're the one claiming that science is the sole criterion for determining the answer to such questions. — Wayfarer
What I'm showing you, is that science cannot determine the answer to those questions; science begins with the (quite reasonable) assumption that the universe exists, but really it is silent on what if anything is behind it all, whether there is a higher intelligence or not. — Wayfarer
Everything you say on this topic falls into the category of both scientism and positivism. If you don't like it, change your tune! — Wayfarer
Well yeah, of course it does to a large extent. Are you serious? There's no better recourse. — S
This is a fallacy, the argument from ignorance I believe. — DingoJones
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.