Independent of the nature of the universe our "rackets" should be able to produce objective results...if not then we admit that we don't know and can not prove — Nickolasgaspar
The only rackets that are relevant are those conforming to the rules of logic. Your metaphysics need to originate from a sound starting point...not an assumption that you don't care to demonstrate. — Nickolasgaspar
You don't understand!!!!!!
In order to say that you know the truth or that your claim is reasonable you need your claims to be based on methods(rackets) that can produce Objective results and play with the rules of logic — Nickolasgaspar
You are trying to promote claims as true or reasonable or philosophical without any objective or epistemic justification....by just saying "its metaphysics". — Nickolasgaspar
Philosophy's goal is to come up with wise claims about the world and expand our understanding.
That is realized by USING logic and constructing Valid Arguments. For the conclusions of those arguments to be wise Our Premises need to be SOUND.
Do you understand what soundness of an arguments is and how it is achieved?
Spoiler alert...by demonstrating the truth value of those premises. — Nickolasgaspar
If you keep using unjustified assumptions then you are not doing philosophy or metaphysics.
You are preaching your theology. — Nickolasgaspar
Why is this so difficult for you? Making up magical explanations can never expand our understanding..like when a stage magician tells you his trick was magical that explains nothing about it. — Nickolasgaspar
-identifying logical fallacies is not your strong point...right? — Nickolasgaspar
I'd rather [sic] selling my car before getting to such roundabout. — Davillar
Logic can be used in philosophy. Of course. I don't deny that. Like I said, the only logical conclusion, if the gaps are closed, is the conclusion that there are gods who created the universe. — Hillary
No. theology has no room in philosophical inquiries. Philosophy has a goal to arrive to wise conclusions through sound arguments while theological conclusions are not the product of/ or interested in sound arguments.And just as science is involved in philosophy so is, and should, theology be. — Hillary
-Only Unsound arguments and their conclusions are restricted from being used in additional philosophical arguments.The fantasies are restricted by what we see in the universe. — Hillary
Theology and atheology are irrelevant to philosophy. Logic took care of that issue. Wisdom need knowledge and logic needs sounds argument.It's you preaching atheology. — Hillary
NO they are not...they are assumptions that can't be verified...thus unjustified to be used as auxiliary assumptions in a new argument.The assumptions are fully justifiable — Hillary
There is one philosophy.....the intellectual effort to produce sound arguments and wise conclusions.Only within your conception of philosophy this isn't the case. — Hillary
-Do you know what circular reasoning is?????Rhetorical question, the answer is available above!The existence of gods is justifiable because of their existence, — Hillary
-According to the Soundness an argument must have in order for its conclusion to be used in a philosophical framework...not according to me lolwhich you might claim an unjustified claim, because claims, according to you, are only justified when there is evidence that the claim is true. — Hillary
Again the existence of something can only be evidence...for its existence, not your assumed entities.But like I said, the evidence of the claim is the existence of the universe. — Hillary
-That is kindergarten philosophy...argument from personal incredulity. Your claims are nothing more than fallacious conclusions.The magical explanation, a universe from a divine hat, is the ONLY explanation (if the gaps are closed). — Hillary
-You are making a claim about knowledge...so we are off the Philosophical field...you will need to provide objective evidence for that knowledge claim.In the magician's case, the trick actually can be known. The trick the gods played can't be known, though we can investigate the material universal and life evolving in it. And learn about the gods and their reasons for creation. — Hillary
The only one undermining your efforts ....is you sir. There is nothing that you can't do if you are willing to challenge all your assumptions. — Nickolasgaspar
lol you can not use "logic" and "logical conclusion ....are gods" in the same sentence.
The gaps are there, you just cover them with a magical plug that you made up. — Nickolasgaspar
That is kindergarten philosophy...argument from personal incredulity. Your claims are nothing more than fallacious conclusions. — Nickolasgaspar
There is one philosophy.....the intellectual effort to produce sound arguments and wise conclusions.
Theology is not in a condition to provide soundness in philosophy. — Nickolasgaspar
-You are making a claim about knowledge...so we are off the Philosophical field...you will need to provide objective evidence for that knowledge claim — Nickolasgaspar
know your story now "Hillary". Your ideas are not welcomed in the scientific field...so you are taking your revenge in philosophical forums. — Nickolasgaspar
On the contrary! It provides the most sound arguments. — Hillary
there is nothing there in these ideas of yours.
They are philosophically and scientifically null, reminiscences of a era when humans saw agency, intention and purpose everyone.
Only when we removed agency and teleology form our philosophy ,we enabled science to experience an epistemic run away success for more than 500 years.
Your assumptions are known to be failed for centuries. Nobody (except some crackpots like Sheldrake and ) uses them in the Academia any more. — Nickolasgaspar
_Why i feel like a dodged a bullet?I can't help it they don't understand my cosmology and I have no intention telling you about it! — Hillary
-that's even better try a new age or a theological forum!I have better means than telling that on a philosophy forum! — Hillary
You're not even able to understand a tiny part of my cosmology. Let alone the big picture. Sorry Nickolas, but you will continue to live in the dark till you die... :lol: — Hillary
"Claims about knowledge is what Philosophy is about! "
As you said....claims. Now you will need to demonstrate their soundness. — Nickolasgaspar
guilty as charged! I do tend to use the phrase ...I don't know....when I don't! — Nickolasgaspar
We don't want any one to steal our Nobel Prize! right!! — Nickolasgaspar
Who can say. But it is fallacious to argue they must come from a lawmaker, because they are laws. — hypericin
From the human mind.Where do the laws of physics come from? — Art48
My BothAnd worldview, based in-part on Information Theory, implies that the answer is "yes". The physical universe came into existence with "laws" built-in. Just as a hen is born with all the eggs (stem cells) she'll ever have. Early scientists referred to the consistent regularities in nature as "laws", by analogy with the social laws of humanity, that are intended to regulate behavior. In the metaphor, there is an ultimate authority, not necessarily to design the laws, but to authorize (sanction) them. Yet, the analogy was based on the prevailing system of monarchy. Today, we might as well assume that Nature (Society) established its laws by consensus (about what works). However, since we have no information from the "time before time", the author or lawmaker or systematizer of the fertilized Singularity (cosmic egg) is anybody's guess.So, to the question “What came first, the universe or the laws of physics?” I would answer “The universe.” — Art48
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.