And it continues to this day; William Lane Craig is a particularly egregious case, he continues to deliberately misrepresent contemporary cosmology as providing support for his Kalam cosmological argument, specifically the premise that the world/universe began to exist (and no doubt other apologists/theologians follow his lead here).

Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. No accepted or established scientific theory tells us anything either way. — Seppo

I guess we could chalk it up to two things:

1. Misunderstanding (communication gaps). Not getting the facts straight.

2. Religious zeal. Some believers are too eager to make a point that they're willing to gloss over important details. Cherry-picking, confirmation bias.

Sure; dark energy. But that's about all we know, its called "dark" mostly because we have no idea what it really is or how it works :razz: — Seppo

:up:

the prevalence of the misconception also probably has something to do with the rather aggressive propaganda campaign on the part of theists/Christianity/the RCC in particular to speak into existence an equivalence between and/or corroboration of the Christian creation myth by Big Bang cosmology.

Maybe the universe did have a discrete beginning or creation, but its not a part of any accepted or established physical theory. — Seppo

So, you see the hand of religious types in the invention and perpetuation of the myth that the big bang is about the origins of the universe. Come to think of it, it does further the agenda of a creation stories. :up:

Its about the expansion of space. — Seppo

Any ideas why space would need to expand?

There is a model for explaining how concepts like God — Count Timothy von Icarus

Petitio principii.

Its an extremely common misconception/error, and one that science educators/communicators and popular science journalism is constantly propagating. Lots of popular-level articles and videos that casually refer to the Big Bang as the creation, origin, or beginning of the universe, when the accepted theory simply does not include any such thing. — Seppo

Great! So, I've been wrong all this time. :roll:

Yeah but for the materialist, these mental objects are located in the brain. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The physicality of the mind isn't as cut-and-dried as is necessary to matter. Too, God being material is absolutely fine by me.

Its not about the "creation" of space. Its about the expansion of space. The BBT, at least the parts that are well-corroborated and widely-accepted, doesn't include anything about a "beginning of the universe" or "the creation of spacetime". Its not a theory of origins. Its a theory of the universe's development from a hot dense early state, to the expanding/cooling state we presently observe.

Compare it to how evolution isn't a theory of how life began, but how it developed from some prior state to the currently observed state. — Seppo

Although there is no direct evidence for a singularity of infinite density, the cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state. — Wikipedia

:up: My bad for not thinking/reading before posting but it was such a satisfying explanation for me.

Is God A Mathematician? — Many have asked

Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe. — Galileo Galilei

This is exactly the reason there could NOT have been a big bang! — Prishon

Remember, the Big Bang, despite the imagery it evokes of matter flying apart in an expanding bubble, is all about space i.e. the Big Bang is simply the creation of space. The Big Bang singularity is matter (mass) squeezed to a single point, volume = 0. Density of the big bang singularity = (all the matter/mass there is)/0 = Not allowed! Hence The Big Bang (create space)!

What I find very thought-provoking is that, all things considered, mathematical objects are mental objects. So, if they exist like say a chair does, they must do so in a mind and immediately God becomes a possibility we have to take seriously.

Therein lies the rub.
— TheMadFool
Ay, there's the rub. — Corvus

The problem of induction!

Both t and h have a common cuase. The th pattern in the inner world. The world of ideas. — Prishon

The world of sounds, you mean.

Thanks for relating your personal experience with psychedelics. My point is, if color intensification is part of a trip, why not color perception itself?

A small clarification is in order. One of John Stuart Mill's many contributions to science is setting down a basic rule-set to for causal argumentation known as Mill's Methods. One of the rules is concomitant variation which basically states that if as some A increases/decreases, some B also increases/decreases proportionately, A causes B. In the case of pscyhedelics, increasing the level of psychedelic drugs in your blood stream intensifies color perception. Ergo, my argument is, color perception itself is caused by psychedelics.

We all see the world in technicolor even when not taking psychedelics. Could it be then that we're all tripping?

If there are exceptions and irregularities, then causal relations cannot be formed.
It must be constant occurrences. — Corvus

Therein lies the rub.

The letter combination "th" is the most common two-letter (each distinct from the other) pairing to appear in the English language. Does this mean that "t" causes "h"?

Read Critique of Pure Nonsense. — 180 Proof

I went too far, huh? Apologies! G'day.

Do we share at least the fundamental logical rules of inference with these beings, who perceive so differently? — Mersi

A drive-by of Wikipedia indicates there's been an attempt to draw an equivalence between logic and hypotheses and just as the latter is subject to revision based on empirical testing, the former too should be. This would mean logic is dependent on experience (senses to be specific).

Prima facie it seems a reasonable position to hold but dig a little deeper and such a point of view comes apart at the seams. Logic exists precisely because the senses are unreliable; after all it's sole purpose is to test/analyze what our senses report in order that we may distinguish between truths and falsehoods. As a good example :point:



Any insect that relies on its senses is doomed!

This mantis is,
1. To the senses: A harmless flower (falsity)
2. To logic: A deadly predator (truth)

Why does life want to live?

I think it'll be hard to answer this question if only because life precedes the question, temporally speaking. It's kinda like the situation we, not all though, find ourselves in - we educate ourselves as much as we can or more accurately as much as we can bear, we then hunt for a job, if all goes well we find one, then we spend a good number of years working, one fine day, we're at our desk, staring at a computer screen and then it hits us - why am I doing this? why am I here? who am I? who are these people? questions, questions, questions, and more unanswered/unanswerable questions.

The OP's question is simply life, through us, coming to the realization albeit only vaguely that what it has at its disposal a mechanism of transmitting information. The basic genetic code is copy me (self-replication). Imagine what could be done with that ability at our disposal - we could attach other pieces of code that do amazing things, to it; lo and behold, the possibilities are near infinite if time permits or there are no major catastrophes coming down the pike.

I guess what I'm getting at is to first come to terms with the lackluster fact that life is, all said and done, simply a copying program/mechanism but then to also to recognize the opportunity that this offers. Granted that the copying mechanism has invented ingenious methods to induce in us the desire to copy (mate) but there's no necessity, since we've seen through the ruse, that we continue being led down the garden path. The bottom line - life is for life (selfish) but life can be about anything we want it to be for now, let your imagination go wild!

There was a big bang because we can't divide by zero.
— TheMadFool

This is exactly the reason there could NOT have been a big bang! — Prishon

Bah!

There was a big bang because we can't divide by zero.

@180 Proof If knowledge isn't justified, true belief then it has to be unjustified and/or untrue and/or unbelief. What you seem to have a problem with - religion/mysticism/spiritual - as evidenced by how promptly you dismiss them as woo-woo should be accepted, by you, as knowledge then.

perpetuate harm in an endless cycle — Nils Loc

Death Spiral

In a tit for tat strategy, once an opponent defects, the tit for tat player immediately responds by defecting on the next move. This has the unfortunate consequence of causing two retaliatory strategies to continuously defect against each other resulting in a poor outcome for both players. — Wikipedia

Socrates demonstrated the merits of classical skepticism showing expectations of certainty aren't the products of wisdom; but for some reason people choose to struggle to establish certainty instead of critical inquiry of their own ideas. He was basically delivering Popper's critical rationalism thousands of years in advance but it was misinterpreted and dogmatically applied into absurdity. At least they let Popper live a while longer. — Cheshire

:up: I finally get it (parts of it at least). First things first, for the reason that empirical claims, being inductive logic at work and thus probabilistic, can never be proven. In other words, for a proposition p, p is impossible to demonstrate and so, Popper thought, the only reasonable course of action is to prove ~p (falsificationism). Realizing I can't know I'm right, at least let me find out if I'm wrong. A gold star for Popper for this amazing insight but, as you said, Socrates, in a way, preceded him. Socrates, to me, was and always will be the first wrecking ball in the history of epistemology, the dialectical method's sole purpose being to demolish rather than bolster belief systems.

That's all I have to say at the moment. Thinking is hard!

I dunno what kinda parameters were used in the experiment conducted by Dunning Kruger but my best guess is there are many reasons why one might think one can complete a task but there's only one reason why one fails to perform that task.

In my humble opinion, this is a case of extreme ad hominem. Wilhelm Reich, RIP, whoever the hell he was was disliked for who (he was) and they, whoever they were, took out their anger on what (he did). Perhaps the world would've been a better place only if "they" had heeded an old piece of advice of proven value - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. That's being optimistic of course. What if his ideas were highly toxic and could've either kicked off or given a boost to armageddon? :joke:

In a pantheistic sense, yes - looks suspiciously like the prime mover. In a theistic sense, no - energy isn't sentient, it doesn't think nor does it feel.

My take on the issue is rather simple I'm afraid bit for what it's worth I'd like to share it. There are two realities/worlds and it behooves us to consider them both if we're to get the whole story so to speak. The two realities/worlds are the mental world and the physical world. In the former, two different, mutually contradictory ideas, may coexist and not only that, many variations of them may be part of what's available for subscription e.g. there are theists and atheists, physicalists and nonphysicalists. It bears mentioning though that not usually in the same mind; nevertheless cognitive dissonance has been widely reported in the population. It's thought-provoking that the so-called physical multiverse is, at the end of the day, (just) an idea!

As above, so below? — 180 Proof

At a solary system level, it's gravity that keeps the planets in orbit

At an atomic level, it's electrical charge that keeps the electrons in orbit.

Are the two, gravity and electrical charge, the same or different?

Action, according to Newton, has an equal and opposite reaction.

Nope. Have a good one, buddy. — 180 Proof

:lol: :ok:

Your "tit-for-tat strategy" is neither moral nor immoral; it's only instrumental. — 180 Proof

Two wrongs don't make a right? :chin:

What question are you talking about? My previous post was in reply to you advocating "JTB", Fool, which I thiink does not apply to (formal, scientific or experiential-doxic forms of knowledge).

I implore you to state your definition of knowledge.
Read (don't skim) my previous post, it's there right smack in the middle spoon-feeding you the A, B, C's. Anything more, Fool, Google & wiki might be of some help (though no substitutes for studying e.g. Peirce, & Dewey, Wittgenstein & Popper, Haack et al ... for starters). — 180 Proof

I expect you to cut me some slack here because I can't make heads or tails of knowledge divorced from propositions that are justified and hence believed unless, of course, you mean to give the stamp of approval to mysticism and revelation both considered "knowledge" in some circles.

It’s actually pretty scary. — Wayfarer

You can say that again!

It appears that few or no people ever practice what they preach because deep down they know their philosophies can't be tranlsated into deeds. Thoughts - go hog-wild; words - be careful; deeds - caution, danger! Isn't that somehow thought-provoking?

If that works for you, run with it, Fool. As I understand it, however, philosophy proposes definitions, descriptions, interpretations, criteria, methods/systems and speculations (i.e. thought-experiments, intuition pumps, etc) – noncognitive ideas – but does not determine knowledge (i.e. (A) indefeasible axiomatic systems of object / expression substitution rulesets or (B) testable explanatory models of physical transformations / regularities or (C) consistent, coherent webs of defeasible beliefs) so I don't see how "JTB" applies to philosophical discourse (pace Plato et al). In other words, knowledge denotes solutions to well-defined problems (cognitivity, theoretical); philosophy does not 'solve well-defined problems' but rather only raises (unbegged) questions – makes relevant ignorance visible – by which problems might become (at least) conceptually well-defined (noncognitivity, performative) and, therefore, solvable (knowable). — 180 Proof

I don't know how exactly to phrase this but haven't you answered your own question?

I understand philosophy, not in the sense just the academic discipline but inclusive of all epistemologically charged discourse, whether self-reflective or otherwise, as a game but not merely as a game, that involves exploration from what is essentially uncertainty as encapsulated in the disjunction p v ~p, for any and all propositions p. This, I hold, is the skeptic's calling card.

Given this is so, justification is a cornerstone with belief being optional for knowledge.

However, you've stated a position that I'm, for better or worse, unfamiliar with. To remedy this rather disconcerting state of affairs, I implore you to state your definition of knowledge.

Glad you liked them! :grin: BTW, I'm actually empathetic to what you say in your OP. Just thinking that philosophers need to put food on the table too, and most don't make great farmers. — javra

You, my friend, have finally given me the clue that I needed to solve this mystery. You said, "...philosophers need to put food on the table too..." and you're absolutely right about that. Earning a living isn't something people would begrudge - everyone's got to eat.

The problem is excess wealth. Sophists, because their fees were so high only consorted with rich folks, themselves becoming affluent in the process. As we all know - the Delphic oracle agreed (nothing to excess) and so did Aristotle (the golden mean) and the Buddha (the middle path) - a lack of self-restraint, which super rich people typify, is not exactly a sign of wisdom...or is it?

Good day!

:lol: That's killing two birds with one stone: money for wisdom (damned sophists!). Thanks for the video and the link.

Troll (definition): Someone who provokes OR abuses others esp. on the internet.

On the internet. Check!
Are you provoking and/or abusing others?

@Banno Wittgenstein OR Death? Choose! :joke:

Yes, absolutely. They should be separated because everything the State touches it becomes toxic and corrupt. Scientists and scientific researchers need to work completely separate from political interests. — javi2541997

An interesting paradox herein. The US is a country where claiming to be an atheist is a career-ending move for a politician but once elected what do politicians do? Spend billions of tax-payer dollars in science research.

So, to be elected, one needs to pander to religious groups but once elected, the shoe is on other foot and one needs to woo the scientific community. A love triangle that has me stoked.

It's like a man (the state) courting one woman (religion) but spending money on the other woman (science). :chin:

Running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. Playing both sides! Bad dog! Bad, bad dog!

I wouldn't be surprised at all if all philosophers are, indeed, sophists. — theRiddler

There seems to be a difference between knowledge and wisdom. You can mint money out of the former and no one will bother but if you try and mix wisdom with money, people will immediately condemn it.

I take that as a good sign though - people, despite being materialistic themselves, recognize some things can't be reduced to dollars.

Sages don't ask for wages. Sophists do.

Diogenes (9.62) reports Antigonus as saying that Pyrrho’s lack of trust in his senses led him to ignore precipices, oncoming wagons and dangerous dogs, and that his friends had to follow him around to protect him from these various everyday hazards. But he then reports the dissenting verdict of Aenesidemus, according to which Pyrrho was perfectly capable of conducting himself in a sensible manner. ....Pyrrho is depicted as maintaining his calm and untroubled attitude no matter what happens to him. This extends even to extreme physical pain [...] — SEP, Pyrrho

This is both funny and somber. Funny because no one in faer right mind would ignore danger like Pyrrho is said to have done and somber because here was a man who practiced what he preached.

Jokes aside, what do you make of a philosophy (Pyrrhonism) that can induce such a transformation in someone who takes the idea (that) seriously?


It appears that despite the similarities between Buddhism and Pyrrhonism, Buddhism is less radical than Pyrrhonism in its general attitude towards life and reality.

:up:

I have grown up — Prishon

:up: