If your model predicts something with a good degree of accuracy under various different test methods then there is likely something within it worth looking at. — I like sushi

I like sushi!

After the gaps are closed? I don't get your question. If you close the gaps with a demonstrable answer then by definition we all have to conclude to that answer? Did I misread your question? — Nickolasgaspar

What else can we conclude? If I know the fundamental workings of the universe, how can you explain then where the fundamental came from, or why?

What else can we conclude? If I know the fundamental workings of the universe, how can you explain then where the fundamental came from, or why? — Hillary

First of all we need to ask ourselves. "Do we really know the fundamental workings of the universe".
The answer should sound like...."it appears so". At least the working we have recognize appear to play a Necessary and Sufficient role in our explanations of how the Universe get to be the way it is.

IS it enough to know the workings of our universe? No because the underlying cosmic field we detect (Quantum Fluctuations) show us that the story doesn't end with the understanding of our universe alone.
Now by trying to produce observations on a cosmic level, like we did with the Nobel Awarded observations of the Cosmic Quantum Fluctuations) we can produce models that could explain better the nature of the fundamental workings of our universe.

That said our current answer should be "we don't know"..and we don't know if we ever will.

I should point out that asking "Why" questions about the workings of Nature is a useless and fallacious endeavor. "Why" (assuming intention purpose and planning) is a "good" way to pollute the question you are asking (poisoning the well fallacy). Teleology needs to be demonstrated not assumed.
So I will keep your "How" question and linked it to my answer "we don't know" plus I will need to know which aspect of this "fundamentality" you are referring to?

-Well its a teleological fallacy to assume "reasons" in Natural Processes.
Teleology needs to be verified not assumed.
i.e. We can establish the teleology of a brand new car in our society, but can you assume that the teleology of any car that gets old and breaks down is to end up as a giant "flower pot" outside a Mall?
You need to understand that somethings just "ARE" there in nature and as pattern seeking agents we project our meaning and priorities on them...either we deal with old cars, universes, biological processes.
Sure religions do pretend to know the reasons behind our existence and goals...but again that is a subjective take not an intrinsic feature of natural processes.

.

Check this discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCwjSuQjMjg
Maybe you will see the gaps in your reasoning because he reproduces the same fallacious arguments on the question of the origins of life.

The present crop:

• The Real Meaning of the Gospel
• The Mold Theory of Person Gods
• The Fine-Tuning Argument as (Bad) an Argument for God
• Divine Hiddenness and Nonresistant Nonbelievers
• Jesus Christ: A Lunatic, Liar, or Lord? The Logic of Lewis's Trilemma
• Jesus as a great moral teacher?

The people who participate in those threads are interested in them to whatever degree they make efforts to present their point of view. Are you asking for those people to go away?

That would remove what you find objectionable.

Are you asking for those people to go away? — Paine

No. I'm asking for an ongoing conversation about what is proper to the forum.


The Real Meaning of the Gospel is pretty terrible,

Jesus Christ: A Lunatic, Liar, or Lord? The Logic of Lewis's Trilemma has pretensions to philosophical content, but like Jesus as a great moral teacher? fails to deliver.

I'd delete these or move to the lounge.

The others are a bit better.

:up:

Nothing about me without me, so due notification to @Art48, @Dermot Griffin, and @aminima.

[

Jesus Christ: A Lunatic, Liar, or Lord? The Logic of Lewis's Trilemma has pretensions to philosophical content, but like Jesus as a great moral teacher? fails to deliver. — Banno

The failure of this thread lies in the fact that all that can be said has already been said in the short Wiki article, particularly in the criticisms section.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis%27s_trilemma#:~:text=Lewis's%20trilemma%20is%20an%20apologetic,talk%20and%20in%20his%20writings.

Neat summation. I like the Narnia version:

"Logic!" said the Professor half to himself. "Why don't they teach logic at these schools?".

The thread breaches

using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument — Banno

as

it treats elements of Gospel narratives as established fact. Anyone who accepts the Gospels is already convinced. — Relativist

And as I mentioned anyone with a pinch of critical capacity would recognise the rhetorical wedge.

In some sense religion is science (god hypothesis)

In some sense science is religion (Is god a mathematician?)

In some sense religion is science (god hypothesis) — Agent Smith

It's not a testable hypothesis, so explain what you mean.

It's not a testable hypothesis, so explain what you mean. — Relativist

I wouldn't say the God hypothesis is untestable. An intelligent being would, since intelligence & order are correlated, ensure that their creation (the cosmos) is ordered rather than chaotic. I had a muslim acquaintance who attempted to convince me of Allah's existence in this way.

In my opinion the scope of philosophy is the scope of opinion. It is the examination and evaluation of opinions. Theology in the broadest sense of the term remains politically, socially, intellectually, historically, and culturally important.

From a philosophical perspective theological concerns are not theological endorsements. It is not simply an ontological matter of whether there are gods and how such claims are to that is to be understood, but epistemological - what can we or do we know about such things, and practical - how theological matters ought to influence our lives, as individuals and as peoples.

wouldn't say the God hypothesis is untestable. An intelligent being would, since intelligence & order are correlated, ensure that their creation (the cosmos) is ordered rather than chaotic. I had a muslim acquaintance who attempted to convince me of Allah's existence in this way. — Agent Smith

That sounds more like post hoc rationalization than hypothesis testing.

That sounds more like post hoc rationalization than hypothesis testing. — Relativist

Ad hoc modding of a hypothesis, adjustments, in order to compensate for counterevidence.

In my opinion the scope of philosophy is the scope of opinion. — Fooloso4

So a thread on hairdressing would be fine for you? - what can we or do we know about such things, and practical - how hairdressing ought to influence our lives, as individuals and as peoples?

If hairdressing were as central to human life as theology has been and continues to be, then a thread on hairdressing would not only be fine with me, it would be something I think should not be ignored.

But hairdressing is central to the life of hairdressers. Would you be happy to have a group of hairdressers discussing the relative merits of.. I don't know, mirrors, clippers and chairs... on this forum?

Perhaps the only reason they are not here is that we do not have a section on "philosophy of hairdressing" that looks like an invitation.

An evaluation of opinions includes the question of which opinions are worthy of our consideration. What is central to the life of hairdressers is not what is central:

politically, socially, intellectually, historically, and culturally important. — Fooloso4

But if a group of hairdressers showed up, it would be interesting to hear what argument they would make to support the claim that what they say about hairdressing is worthy of our attention.

@Banno

With the return of Joe Mello the scales are closer to tipping in your favor.

...Joe Mello... — Fooloso4

Who, now? Not my area of expertise. I just use clippers over my face and head every six weeks.

Is the capacity to engage in banal chat an issues of professional pride for a coiffeur, do you suppose? Would engaging in a deep conversation dishonour their profession?

Would engaging in a deep conversation dishonour their profession? — Banno

We could ask them if it's like being Sisyphus: all that effort to cut it, only to have it grow right back.

Who, now? — Banno

It is better that you don't know. Let's just say that if you were looking for an example of someone who contributes to the

preponderance of low quality thread of a theological bent. — Banno

he would be near to top of the list. He came here, stirred things up for a while by letting us know that we knew nothing about Christianity and that he knows all there is to know, left, and came back yesterday.

...hmm.

Someone else @ThinkOfOne is now clawing his way to the top. Same tactics.