iambiguous wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 4:11 pm
There you go again, merely believing this "in your head"..."logically". Much like those on the other side who believe in their heads logically that there was never not something.
I'll stay tuned for the documentary on NOVA that finally settles it. And, with any luck, in our lifetime!!
bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2022 7:28 pmI have the right to think that my argument is right unless someone shows a flaw in it.
Indeed, and I really appreciate those like you who create threads like this. Why? Because few things fascinate me more than contemplating how existence itself came to exist at all.
In fact, contemplating this is so utterly mind-boggling, it's still the closest I can now come to God. Him/Her/It being one possible explanation for existence, right? Until, again, you start to wonder if God too popped into existence out of nothing at all or has always existed.
No, what I question here are the
limitations of logic in regard to such things as morality and religion and those really big metaphysical questions.
Logic revolves around the rules of language. But human beings themselves...where do
they fit into the complete understanding of existence itself? How on Earth can we determine if the human brain is even capable of grasping that?
Webster's dictionary: "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration: the science of the formal principles of reasoning"
A priori and a posteriori, how would we go about validating what we think is logically true here? Again, empirically, materially, phenomenologically.
Mathematics, science, and philosophy all intertwined in the definitive explanation?
And, for some here, theology?
iambiguous wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 9:42 pm
A world of words. Words defining and defending other words. Metaphysically as it were
bahman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:55 pm Does the world of words have any value to you? If not why do you bother with philosophy at all?
Because my main interest in philosophy revolves around how others close the gap between what they think is true "in their head" about things like morality and religion and the Big Questions and what they can demonstrate using the tools of philosophy -- the philosophical equivalent of the scientific method -- all others are obligated to believe in turn if they wish to be thought of as rational men and women.
If all one is interested in is noting a "flaw" in the language used to explain something, then the exchange can go on and on and on up in the didactic clouds that revolve around definitions and deductions.
But how is that connected to the physics, the chemistry and [with us] the biology of existence itself?
Though I'm the first to admit that my own speculations here seem able to be nothing more than my own "wild-ass guess".