Philosophy Now Forum

That does sound better. Yes, thank you. Moreover, Russel's criterion WORKS BETTER! You might want to incorporate it into your evaluation of ideas. Doing so might leave you without either Big Bang theory or an almighty God by way of explanation for your own existence, a point from which you can move...

The human brain is a machine capable of autonomous action. As such it must have built-in programs to guide its actions when you are absent. These programs are also known as directives. The brain's prime directive is to always be right. A few people are soul-driven, or as I'd word it, "Beon driv...

There is a better criterion, attributed to mathematician Bertrand Russel: "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities. That does sound better. Yes, thank you. Moreover, Russel's criterion WORKS BETTER! You might want to incorporate it i...

My translation: Solve metaphysical problems in the context of the physics we already know instead of basing our ideas on the religious beliefs of ancient goat herders. Would you say that your advice is contemporary to any particular area of physics? How would you solve metaphysics in classical phys...

Philosophy will remain a futile enterprise until it abandons the absurd criterion for the evaluation of opposing ideas known as "Occam's Razor." The principle attributed to Mr. Ockham was lifted, without credit, from Aristotle, who expressed it thusly: We may assume the superiority, other ...

The referenced document could be the worst garbage I've read on any so-called philosophy forum.

It fails to address the beginnings of that which we know to exist.

GL

Consider the possibility that you, at the level of mind, are not a created entity: not by God, not by biology. Your mind has two components: brain and beon (a.k.a. soul). The beon component is that which wonders, and which asks thoughtful questions. The purpose of life is simply to bring beon to con...

Since there is no moderator support for getting rid of trolls and sandbaggers, I'm abandoning this thread and the entire PNow forum. Have at one another, jackasses and nitwits. Between the lot of you, you possess all the philosophical acumen and half the intelligence of a bag of houseflies. GL

Greylorn Ell wrote: Belinda, Your's is a curious comment, given that I've used my limited linguistic skills to try to write about a reasonable version of God, but cannot get it done because of the sandbaggers like yourself, whom you seem to cherish. What do you think? Should I continue, or move els...

Immanuel Can wrote: From the point of view of eternity there may be order which is characterised by causality. You or I cannot know. Since you refer to epistemology, we'll have to establish what you mean by "know" in the above sentence. Do you mean "know" experientially, deducti...

Yes, I will leave. I reflected what I thought you meant and you confirmed I understood from the first post. I was contributing with sincerity and on topic. But NOW you've just resorted to blatant insults for contributing 'bullshit'!? If you want any respect for your views, you can't BULLY those you...

Immanuel Can, I am not a good illustration of eternal order. When I copy David Hume and claim that all we can inductively know is constant conjunction of events I 'm making an epistemological , not an ontological, claim . From the point of view of eternity there may be order which is characterised ...

Unfortunately, if I am correct about what the OP is asserting, the LOGIC alone suffices to remove the Big Bang theory and with priority to any discounting of its alternative Steady State model. It IS political because of this very factor. I suggest it doesn't. Even if right, the BB theory is not re...

A Steady State model can potentially remove any need for even a Deistic god. When governments or other organizations support science, it cannot do so without caution to insulting religion as an institute itself. You are correct: a steady-state model, if proved true, would cast doubt on the necessit...

Scott, Actually, my concerns come as much from the philosophical level as from the technical/implementation level. Atomic physics is goofy, but that is the consequence of other problems that would be silly to try to explain on this forum. My issue is with cosmology. It is not a function of any scie...