Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Dawkins and Williams


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 697 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 8 Mar 2012 19:35:42 GMT
Tom M says:
Hi Gary

This has nothing to do with superposition and quantum weirdness. It has to do with nothing.. no thing. Put another way, the absence of anything. It's not logic saying this. Logic is the tool of philosophical reasoning. What we are addressing is the mind's apprehension of reality, and I don't mean this in an uncritical sense.

You only have something to think about because 'something', some object acts upon you.

The word 'object' as Jaki points out in his wonderful book Means to Message: A Treatise on Truth available very inexensively on Kindle.. means litterally.. something thrown at you, the "ject" part is from the french, jetter, to throw.

Nothing does nothing. You are suffering from the same problem Dawkins has which is really just the philosophical vacuum he grew up with in empiricism. I'm not offering a philosophically naive anti-modern view of this. Quite the contrary. I referred a couple of times to the physics which is quite unrelated.

So.. give it a little thought Gary. Honestly.. your sanity is at stake in this.

I'm listening to Neil Young's "Harvest Moon" as I type.. I LOVE the experience of listening to this SOMETHING acting on me. :-)

Posted on 8 Mar 2012 19:36:41 GMT
Tom M says:
REALISM - The Supposition
By Mortimer J. Adler



What is realism? The clearest response to this question is to frame it in a series of four statements which sum up classical realism.1 First, realism involves the affirmation of a reality outside our minds-a world of real existences that are independent of our minds. Second, realism affirms that the world-the order of real existence-has a determinate structure of its own; that is, it is whatever it is regardless of how we think about it. Third, realism affirms that the world-the structure the reality-is intelligible. Fourth, realism affirms that the world, having this knowable structure, provides us with a basis for determining whether our efforts to know it fail or succeed. This last point means that our theories can be falsified or confirmed by reference to something which is extrinsic to and independent of our minds.

Having a realist philosophy means that one is not Kantian, i.e. what is knowable depends for its determinate structure upon the determinate structure of the human mind itself. This is often referred to as idealism.

Having a realist philosophy means that one is not a pragmatist, i.e. treating "reality" as if it were a plastic blob that can be given whatever shape or structure the human mind finds it useful to impose upon it.

In trying to clarify the realist position it was necessary to draw the lines of distinction sharply and distinctly. It should not be forgotten that the realist often holds as true what the idealist and the pragmatist also holds as true, even though their initial starting points and reasoning to that truth differ.



Notes

http://tfout.com/erealism.htm

Posted on 8 Mar 2012 20:00:43 GMT
Tom M says:
Who is the pathetic little twit who keeps adding the 'does not contribute' button. Brain dead or what.

Posted on 8 Mar 2012 20:01:48 GMT
Tom M says:
Gary

I am not telling you how I think the mind works, I am describing how YOUR mind works. Try thinking of nothing. Let me know what happens.

Posted on 8 Mar 2012 20:03:41 GMT
Last edited by the author on 8 Mar 2012 20:04:23 GMT
Tom M says:
Harvest Moon.. Neil Young

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVi0UvFu8Yo

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2012 09:26:24 GMT
G. Heron says:
Tom M

I asked the question on what basis does anyone say that nothing can come from nothing.
The only asnswer I got was logic. I pointed out that logic is something and therefopre cannot be present in the presence of nothing.

What I am saying is that absolute nothing, ie no time no space, no matter , no energy , no existence of any kind has never been observed for as I pointed out there could be no obersever, therefore I fail to see how anyone can then start saying what nothing is capable of.

I would also point out that absolute nothing is the most unstable state there is as any change destroys it completely.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2012 09:31:04 GMT
H W says:
["God" is the best way to begin with nothing]

The best way?

or the way that sounds the best to you?

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2012 09:36:16 GMT
G. Heron says:
glorify the LORD

""God" is the best way to begin with nothing, logically-speaking, because you can go on to elaborate exactly how and why it is that way."

Are you saying that god is nothing, if not then you are not starting with nothing, you are starting with god.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2012 14:23:40 GMT
I am in the same boat as you and recently had to ignore someone for continually making fun of any error I made, this person also believed that the sun orbited around the Earth.

There you go.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2012 14:26:27 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Cj- it did amuse me him picking up spelling mistakes but didn't spot the errors in what passed for thought processes in his own ( for want of a better word) brain.

In reply to an earlier post on 9 Mar 2012 14:29:04 GMT
Got boring real quick though LOL

I have him on ignore now, only way to deal with a troll

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2012 15:57:33 GMT
Spin says:
Tom: You have been on this forum a while, as have I. My answer is (after a year or more of contributing, and due to the latest trend of abusing buttons,): Who cares who presses what button or who ignores who? It is weird and annoying but, as I have come to think, if being "accepted" by an anonymous community on a website is more important than getting ones views across, then one should consult facebook, twitter or some "I am Great!" site. In short, screw 'em! =)

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2012 16:18:08 GMT
Last edited by the author on 10 Mar 2012 16:18:38 GMT
Spin: In short, screw 'em!

It's been obvious that that is your philosophy, Spin. No real need to point it out.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Mar 2012 16:36:21 GMT
Spin says:
Philip: did not Buddha say: "If all else fails, let them stick it up thier posteriors"? =)

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Mar 2012 15:35:32 GMT
Jesus isn't an allegory but a person-- check out the post I was replying to.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2012 20:08:35 GMT
David Groom says:
G Heron,

'I would also point out that absolute nothing is the most unstable state there is as any change destroys it completely.'

My view is that 'nothing' can only exist outside the realms of the universe as we know it. Within our universe, as you say, it is impossible to observe 'nothing' as the mere fact of observing means that 'nothing' doesn't exist. And as you say 'nothing' must be a very unstable state as the slightest change must destroy it. My guess is that those who go on about 'nothing' on these forums are thinking about space and an area of it with no atoms within it, but this is not itself 'nothing'. The fact that the area with no atoms can be defined and observed in itself makes it a theatre within space and cannot be defined as 'nothing.'

So I believe you are quite correct when you say that we have no idea what the properties of 'nothing' actually are. For all we know, it is an unstable state from which 'something' must always be produced. If so, then once again we come back to the fundamental argument that a god is not needed to explain existence. The fact that we think we need this explanation may simply be nothing more than showing the limitations of our brains to comprehend the strangeness of the universe with our natural receptors.

The other thing that people on here go on about is that events are all caused and by definition the universe must have been caused by something. This has been shown to be false by a couple of examples, one being the decay of a single radioactive atom, an uncaused event and one which cannot be predicted. The other is the observation of matter coming in and out of existence without cause, again at the quantum level. Based on these observations, we can say with a fair degree of certainty that 'cause' is not always necessary for events to take place. This means that it cannot be postulated that the universe could only come into existence via a first cause (god to the religious). That is clearly not the case.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Mar 2012 02:30:56 GMT
Tom M says:
Gary , sorry for the delay. Nothing is nothing. It does what its potential is which is nothing. In fact, rather like time, nothing is simply an object of reason.

There is no such thing as nothing. Nothing isn't. What we're dealing with here is the basis of reasoning, the principles of which cannot be proven in themselves, but which have to be employed if one wishes to refute them.

So with the intelligibility of the universe. It is assumed by all of the sciences and must be assumed by anyone who even wants to argue against it.

It's like trying to say that there is no such thing as truth. The statement assumes a whole universe of implcit truths and contradicts itself.

The issues you are grappling with here are truly bewitching if you have not had much exposure to expicit and good philosophical thought. Indeed the confidence that the universe is a work of reason is the judeo christian bedrock of the progress of the west.

As I often point out, atheistic materialism destroys the very intelligibility of absolutely everything . The real atheists, like Sartre and Camus understood this even as they found it impossible to live as if it were true, but the modern consumer atheist doesn't understand any of this, or much else. They aren't really interested in the truth of things. Quite the contary as is so obvious.

In any case, the points you raise are fundamental and go to the roots of the philosophical basis in reality which must be assumed, ironically.

One really good book is by Mortimer Adler. He deals with these most fundamental things in everyday language and anyone who wants to know about truth, the good, and the most basic elements of existence should give him a read.

Six Great Ideas

It's good that you are asking these fundamental questions. I was fascinated by them.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Mar 2012 02:41:33 GMT
Tom M says:
hi David Groom

There is nothing called nothing. Nothing refers to nothing. Incidentally, space doesn't exist either. Neither does time.

Your radioactive decay example most certainly does not show acausality. This is a preposterous reading from philosophically immature minds. You are completey messed up in distinguishing ontic vs epistemic causality.

Incidentally, while you obviously don't know anything about space , time, or causality, hence matter, where do you get off presuming what religious people think. What possible bearing does religion have on philosophical argument? It seems you don't know much about philosophy or religion or religious people either.

Lastly, most religious people speak of God. Who is this 'god' you referred to and have you met anyone who believes in it?

In short, as I read your mind through your posts, it seems I have come across a bona fide agnostic who probably fancies himself to be a 'new atheist".

If so.. and your intellectual content seems to indicate this, please read up on some of these issues before you post again.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Mar 2012 09:39:11 GMT
Last edited by the author on 15 Mar 2012 09:41:09 GMT
G. Heron says:
Tom M

"There is nothing called nothing. Nothing refers to nothing. Incidentally, space doesn't exist either. Neither does time. "

Are you saying there is no such thing as spacetime because if you are I would be interested in where you think you are living.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Mar 2012 09:53:06 GMT
Drew Jones says:
"Nothing is nothing. It does what its potential is which is nothing."
I ask again, how do we know what nothing does? You maybe right but this isn't exactly something we have established in anyway. We have absolutely no idea what the potential of nothing is.

"There is nothing called nothing. Nothing refers to nothing. Incidentally, space doesn't exist either. Neither does time."
If that's the case then what are you talking about. If all these things are nothing or non-existent then how do we even talk of them? And what do you mean when you say space and time do not exist?

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Mar 2012 12:23:59 GMT
Dr HotFXMan says:
I've finally got it "Tom M" - it's a taken a while but it's really simple - you are quite barkingly bonkers. Explains everything.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Mar 2012 12:30:17 GMT
I object to this silly way of arguing on your part.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Mar 2012 12:46:40 GMT
AJ Murray says:
Not bonkers, just American.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Mar 2012 13:04:51 GMT
Dr HotFXMan says:
I object to the inane drivel that you and others post.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Mar 2012 13:06:54 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 15 Mar 2012 13:08:26 GMT]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  32
Total posts:  697
Initial post:  29 Feb 2012
Latest post:  14 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions