On May 4, 1:02 pm, Robert Henry <[email protected]> wrote: > Wel, to best sum up our ideas, you have stated that, although you > dislike labels, you are a Post Kantian. If this is true, then instead > of trimming the tree branches of each other's plumage, let us start at > the root. Kant found that all knowledge, like you stated, is human > and thus within the mind. Outside the mind, the thing in itself is > unknowable. However, there is at least one thing known about it, that > it exists. So, my question to you is this, how do you know it exists?
What is 'it'? > > > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:38 AM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On May 4, 7:49 am, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > >> You made gross the mistake of stating that "the big bang was invented by > >> science"---if science invented it, as you state then--the phenomenon did > >> not > >> exist or happen---except a recent scientific invention---that is a > >> hopelesly > >> line of thought. > > > What ever happened 13.4 billion years ago is unknown, Human take what > > evidence they can > > and invent an idea to save those appearances; they invent concepts to > > explain what they discover. > > The geocentric universe was invented; pholgistan was invented, > > astrology was invented. They were > > all invented and portrayed as self evident facts, just like you are > > with the 'big bang theory'. One day > > another scientist will invent a new theory to explain some more > > observations. > > You are confused in your conclusion, you say if science invented it > > then the phenomenon did not > > happen. I am not saying that I am saying that the thing called the > > geocentric universe and the big bang > > are inventions. They are contingent explanations which explain > > phenomena which happened. > > > I was responding to your idea that no new knowledge can be made and > > that we are only repeating > > what nature (or is it god) "already knows". This is just a travesty of > > the truth. > > Nature knows nothing. > > >> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 12:35 AM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > On May 3, 8:28 pm, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > Your statement is based on a fallacy. No form of study---science or > >> > > philosophy can purport to ''invent'' let alone create knew knowledge > > >> > You are being very silly indeed. All knowledge is part of a human > >> > invention. Some languages > >> > don't even make a distinction between invention and discovery. The > >> > simple point is that knowledge > >> > is not the thing in itslef, no ideas can exist outside of humans that > >> > use them, thus knowledge is > >> > wholly human dependant and it ALL exists in human praxis. > > >> > Your assertion that you can 'ONLY prove or discover' betrays your out > >> > of date Platonic assumptions. > >> > Let me ask you where the "geocentric" hypothesis was waiting around to > >> > be discovered by the Greek > >> > astronomers? Or do you think it was invented to explain certain > >> > phenomena? > >> > And where in nature do straight lines, integers and perfect circles > >> > exist that are just waiting to be uncovered by the likes of Euclid? > > >> > Nature knows nothing. The statement is so banal. WHere is its > >> > consciousness? It is utterly unscientific. > >> > Science is a model that is literally and practically invented by us to > >> > best fit or mimic that universe, but it is not > >> > identical - it exists in a dialectical relationship with experience. > > >> > I am utterly staggered by your response!!! > > >> > ---you > >> > > can only prove or discover its existence---ie you can NOT prove > >> > > anything > >> > new > >> > > outside the universal laws and elements of nature. Science is a tool to > >> > > augment our inherent incapacities to fully comprehend what nature has > >> > > already provided---and "knows". > > >> > > PROVE. OUR STATEMEN IS BASED ON This stament > > >> > ????? Are you kidding? > > >> > > On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:01 AM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > The thing you have to realise is that the big-bang theory IS accepted > >> > > > by science; it was invented by science; from evidence provided by > >> > > > science.philosophy > >> > > > It does NOT confirm the story of the bible, though politically the > >> > > > steady state was preferable in some ways. > >> > > > The simple fact is that ALL astronomy contradicts the bible and the > >> > > > medieval church. > >> > > > The simple fact that the entire story of creation in the bible is > >> > > > contradicted by science. > > >> > > > Now if you want to assert an intelligent design hypothesis then let's > >> > > > hear it, but don't confuse a bad theory with political resistance of > >> > > > some scientists to the ideology of fools that have tried to prevent > >> > > > the march of science since Ockham. > > >> > > > On May 1, 6:11 pm, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > Few ideas are so readily ridiculed among materialist scientists > >> > > > > than > >> > > > > the suggestion that the universe is intelligently designed by a > >> > > > > supreme being. > > >> > > > > In order to understand why this is so, we must take a look at > >> > history, > >> > > > > and in particular, Hubble's discovery that the universe is > >> > > > > expanding. > >> > > > > Today we accept Hubble's expansion with little doubt. But at the > >> > time > >> > > > > of its announcement, there was a great controversy. Why? > > >> > > > > Because up until then, the steady state theory had prevailed. In > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > steady state view, there was no beginning, no moment of creation. > > >> > > > > Now why, you might ask, was the idea of a Beginning, a Moment of > >> > > > > Creation, so unwelcome among scientists? > > >> > > > > It was because the Steady State Theory was directly contrary to the > >> > > > > opening words of the Bible. "In the beginning, God created..." > >> > > > > The > >> > > > > Bible said there was a beginning. The steady state theory strongly > >> > > > > suggested that there was not. Could the scientists bear to admit > >> > that > >> > > > > they had been wrong, and that the Bible had been right? Perish the > >> > > > > thought! > > >> > > > > Scientists claim to be open to any theory, even a Theory of God. > >> > Just > >> > > > > present the evidence, they say, and conform to the scientific > >> > > > > method. > >> > > > > If your evidence passes muster, then we have no objection to > >> > admitting > >> > > > > your theory into the science text books. > > >> > > > > But scientists are not always quite the pristine seekers after > >> > > > > truth > >> > > > > that they are reputed to be. They are as concerned with personal > >> > gain > >> > > > > as anyone else is, and by personal gain, we must include > >> > > > > egotistical > >> > > > > and ideological factors as well. > > >> > > > > The Hubble announcement caused somewhat of a panic among scientists > >> > > > > who should have celebrated the discovery. Not only did the > >> > > > > universe > >> > > > > have a sudden beginning, but for a few tense moments, it also > >> > appeared > >> > > > > that WE are at the center of the universe. > > >> > > > > A sigh of relief could all but be heard when the centerless > >> > > > > universe > >> > > > > was restored by curvature of space theory. And after a time, the > >> > idea > >> > > > > of a moment of creation settled in, as the primordial point > >> > > > > particle > >> > > > > seemed safely agnostic once more. > > >> > > > > With M theory, we have once again reverted to the comfort zone of a > >> > > > > meta-steady-state theory, so to speak. We have unending sequences > >> > > > > of > >> > > > > Big Bangs, not moments of creation, but rather, collisions between > >> > > > > membranes that manufacture multiple universes. In this mega-verse > >> > > > > of > >> > > > > universes, we have safely retreated back into the underlying > >> > > > > philosophy that has dominated physics for the last few centuries, > >> > > > > the > >> > > > > philosophy called by various names, mostly including the word, > >> > > > > material or matter. > > >> > > > > But there is a problem. > > >> > > > > According to the materialist view of nature, we are condemned > >> > > > > forever > >> > > > > to think only inside the box, or at least, into an infinite > >> > > > > progression of boxes. Everything inside the box of nature can--- > >> > > > > and > >> > > > > must--- be explained only in terms of what is already inside the > >> > > > > box. > > >> > > > > We are not allowed to go too far in terms of questioning what might > >> > be > >> > > > > outside the box. As soon as one suggests that there MUST be an > >> > > > > outside, the immediate challenge is to redefine outside as inside. > > >> > > > > Thus, if someone says that the box is best explained by an external > >> > > > > reality called God, the first response is to say that we must > >> > > > > measure > >> > > > > God by the standards of the INSIDE of the box. > > >> > > > > If we say that God is the uncreated Creator, then the materialist > >> > > > > places upon God the requirement that He, too, must have been > >> > > > > created. > >> > > > > You see, the universe can be uncreated, a self-existent reality > >> > > > > with > >> > > > > no beginning. But God cannot be uncreated and self-existent. It > >> > > > > is > >> > > > > not allowed. Because then, there might be a God. > > >> > > > > Which is why scientists scoff at the idea of intelligent design. > >> > Why, > >> > > > > just because the universe SEEMS to be organized, that does not mean > >> > > > > that it really is. It could all be randomness. And even if the > >> > > > > universe IS organized, that could be purely by chance, there need > >> > > > > be > >> > > > > no organizer, not even an ultimate principle that requires > >> > > > > organization. > > >> > > > > And so in the end, you find that the materialists really do have > >> > their > >> > > > > own, sort of, god. Like the big G God, the little g god is > >> > uncreated, > >> > > > > self-existent. But after that, the differences become major. > > >> > > > > The little g god is not an intelligent designer, although nature > >> > > > > can > >> > > > > produce intelligent designers. > >> > > > > The little g > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
