The second is far from boring, but it's definitely more meaningful as you have pointed out. Asceticism should not be caused by a sour grapes mindset. This way, you are not a passive observer in life, you are actively renouncing pleasure. — Eskander
No. For instance, many accurate predictions can be made with Ptolemy's geocentric "theory". (re: scroll down the wiki to Contents)I thought these - confirm & falsify - were two sides of the same coin! Plus, if the experimental findings match theory-based predictions, that does/should count, no? — Agent Smith
No. For instance, many accurate predictions can be made with Ptolemy's geocentric "theory". (re: scroll down the wiki to Contents) — 180 Proof
If that were true, why would anyone have bothered to proffer a new (heliocentric) theory? — Agent Smith
Well, for starters, there are also problems with the geocentric model that, when addressed by shifting an assumption or two, suggests a heliocentric model which lacks said problems and makes better predictions (re: Copernicus, Kepler, Tycho, Galileo, et al). That's how natural science works – e.g. conjecture, parsimony, fallibilism, etc.Good point although I'm not sure about "many accurate predictions". If that were true, why would anyone have bothered to proffer a new (heliocentric) theory? — Agent Smith
NO ... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FalsifiabilityConsider this too: To falsify a theory, doesn't one have to try and confirm the theory.
A zero-dimensional point rather than a concrete entity (or fact), ergo wholly imaginary .
Such as the Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC)? :pray:
Just 'making shit up to console yourself', Eskander, amounts to little more than a drug habit (i.e. philosophical suicide ~Camus); to wit: Thou Shalt Not Question The Questionable (and the corollary Thou Shalt Defend The Indefensible In The Name Of Believing The Unbelievable).
Yeah, and apparently you don't get what your "point" entails. Only unreality (the imaginary) "transcends"You don't get my point. That's why l used the word "transcendent". — Eskander
Of course, but why would a rational thinker "want" that – especially for metaphysics? "An inconsistent system" produces nonsensical results (re: principle of explosion), mere magical (woo-of-the-gaps) thinking – jibber-jabberwocky – rather than a rational (i.e. self-consistent, conceptually coherent, inferentially valid) metaphysics, etc.The law of non contradiction isn't necessary or justified for every system. If you want [an] inconsistent system (this does exi[st]), you can remove the law of non-contradiction .
Ah, let's see: spacetime ("order") "points to" some entity "beyond spacetime"? Uh huh. Well, Eskander, the Argument From Poor Design, among many other sound arguments, reasonably suggests otherwise. :point:The existence of [an] order in the universe (scientific laws, mathematical truths ) POINTS to the existence of a God.
Aka wishful thinking. 'Wanting it to be so, therefore it must be so' (i.e. making shit up just to comfort yourself). Sounds solipsistic to me. Too g_od to be true – this doesn't ring any bells or raise any red flags, huh?I have my own intuition telling me there is a God.
Camus' "greatest problem" was formulated in 1940 after France fell to the Nazis and then published in 1942 – nothing to do with "post WW2". Conspicuously, you "arrogantly" deride and dismiss what do not comprehend, my friend, which also may be why you're content with the fact-free fiats of "my own intuition". :roll:Camus was another arrogant philosopher who could not think beyond the "intellectual" atmosphere of 20 century post WW2 Europe. His greatest problem in philosophy was "the question of suicide" ...
Well, for starters, there are also problems with the geocentric model that, when addressed by shifting an assumption or two, suggests a heliocentric model which lacks said problems and makes better predictions (re: Copernicus, Kepler, Tycho, Galileo, et al). That's how natural science works – e.g. explicability, parsimony & fallibilism, etc. — 180 Proof
This "means" nothing more than the hypothesis-P (model) has not been falsified yet. If there isn't better – fewer assumptions, more predictions, greater explanatory scope – alternative, then the currently unfalsified hypothesis-P is most preferable until it's either falsfied or superceded by another better hypothesis. Tell me, Smith: how does one "confirm" for all-time that hypothesis-P is 'the final explanation' (i.e. the truth). I'll wait ... :eyes:P being observed has to mean something. — Agent Smith
Fair enough. Is this being a presupposition of yours? By that I mean is he just something, an idea of yours, that you assume for the sake and benefit of the assumption. Or do you claim he exists in the sense that chairs and books exist, and that it's his existence that matters?It is impossible to understand how God exists but it's possible to see understand him with attributes we have a good understanding of. (The most merciful, The Wisest, The most Just ) etc. — Eskander
Tell me, Smith: how does one "confirm" for all-time that hypothesis-P is 'the final explanation' (i.e. the truth). — 180 Proof
Hypotheses don't explain their predictions. (Approximately, fallibilistically) hypotheses explain phenomena. — 180 Proof
I believe it was Oscar Wilde's favourite novel. — Tom Storm
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.