Yeah, FWIW, I think this should be changed to philosophy as well.
I don't, what does it have to do with philosophy? It's an article on religion trying to yet again force it's way into the realm of scientific reality. A Religious discussion forum is the only appropriate place for it.
Monserrat said:I don't, what does it have to do with philosophy?
Monserrat said:It's an article on religion trying to yet again force it's way into the realm of scientific reality.
It is an OP that questions atheists as to whether creator entities (gods) exist or not. I don't know for certain, but I don't think it would be zgoldsmith that got dinged for what he might want to say. I am pretty sure that it would more likely to be Rawlings who would get dinged for putting it in the wrong forum, though I think that is unlikely. They should probably just move it... it is a thread about whether god(s) are the best explanation for the Universe, or not.
I don't, what does it have to do with philosophy? It's an article on religion trying to yet again force it's way into the realm of scientific reality. A Religious discussion forum is the only appropriate place for it.
LOL! And of course, the above judgment is philosophical in nature owing, no doubt, to an unwitting presupposition of a metaphysical naturalism.
At the risk of repeating what Dezaad said, this sub-forum is for discussion of religions. One rule is there is not supposed to be any criticism of religions here. Zgoldsmith (and, presumably, others) would like to be able to criticize the conclusion of the article, which would possibly run afoul of that rule. Whether or not it would, this seems pretty clearly to be a philosophical, rather than a religious, problem anyway. The question is whether the new crop of teleological arguments are any good, which is traditionally a philosophical issue.
That isn't clear to me. The article questions the motivation of the recent theories about multiverses.
It is an OP that questions atheists as to whether creator entities (gods) exist or not. I don't know for certain, but I don't think it would be zgoldsmith that got dinged for what he might want to say. I am pretty sure that it would more likely to be Rawlings who would get dinged for putting it in the wrong forum, though I think that is unlikely. They should probably just move it... it is a thread about whether god(s) are the best explanation for the Universe, or not.
Considering the extreme open natural of the question would I be wrong in assuming the conference resulted in a whole lot of "I don't know," "maybe," and "I guess" without any solid answers?
But there is not a shred of evidence of the existence of these other universes. Nor could there be since contact with another universe is impossible.
Therefore, only one conclusion can be drawn: The fact that atheists have resorted to the multiverse argument constitutes a tacit admission that they have lost the argument about design in this universe. The evidence in this universe for design -- or, if you will, the fine-tuning that cannot be explained by chance or by "enough time" -- is so compelling that the only way around it is to suggest that our universe is only one of an infinite number of universes.
It discusses religion and science, I don't know if you read through the article or not but it claimed that there was scientific evidence backing intelligent design and then stated that most scientists agreed with this. It doesn't go into philosophies on God. I have a sneaking suspicion that the only reason people want it moved is because: 1. They didn't read the article. and 2. they want to go off on religion without getting an infraction.
I can see how you could turn it into a philosophical discussion but that's not what the topic in the thread is about.
Not at all. It's based on what is or is not science. Philosophy has blurry lines, science is solid it's tangible it's measurable.
No, if you read the religion forum rules, my understanding is that it is for discussions where the existence of god is not in question.
It is for discussions about religion without having to put up with atheists questioning god's existence at every turn.
Since the OP specifically indicates a debate about whether science and scientists agree that there is a god or not, this is a philosophical discussion by the definition that this forum uses. If it is not moved, I can't see how the question can be explored.
Your point is well taken. I'm getting it moved, waiting on MOD. My apologies, new to board.
Wrong. Once again. Your assertion is philosophical in nature. Science deals with the empirical or measurable. That doesn't mean that science in and of itself is what you hazily have in mind at all.
The surest thing we have are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, i.e., the first principles of philosophy, not our estimations about phenomena beyond. The very premise of science is necessarily metaphysical and unfalsifiable. Further, you don't grasp that you're revealing an unwitting assumption of a metaphysical naturalism for reality.
Philosophy necessarily precedes science; science necessarily rests on philosophy.
You just think you understand the matter.
And when I put water in my freezer it turns into ice. Prager is a ****ing moron. He proved that when he declared that there is no possible way to provide evidence for the multiverse theory. He doesn't want evidence. He just wants to remain ignorant. That's why he made such stupid claims. It's fine if he wants his religion and to remain ignorant of science and the world around us, but thankfully there are actual scientists out there willing to put in the hard work to actually answer the questions rather than accept the verbal diarrhea that Prager is spewing here. Just because he is far too stupid to understand something doesn't mean it's impossible.According to Prager, the consensus is that we live in a universe that is very conducive to intelligent life.
Monserrat said:Where does philosophy fit in?
Monserrat said:Which philosophy did it bring up? All I saw was certain religious people (in the article) yet again bashing science and then blaming atheism for scientific theories/sometimes just hypotheses that they don't like.
Monserrat said:The only reason that I could see for this being moved to philosophy is just so the anti-religious can go through their usual routine of mocking the religious.
Dennis Prager | Jun 18, 2013
Townhall.com
Last week, in Nice, France, I was privileged to participate, along with 30 scholars, mostly scientists and mathematicians, in a conference on the question of whether the universe was designed, or at least fine-tuned, to make life, especially intelligent life. Participants -- from Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley and Columbia among other American and European universities -- included believers in God, agonistics and atheists. . . .
http://townhall.com/columnists/denn...sts-embrace-the-multiverse-n1621935/page/full
That no one at all is suggesting that this belongs in the science forum is very telling.
There is no valid scientific proposition in the OP's article. Just a bunch of theists demonstrating that they do not understand science very well, and dismissing it because it has advanced beyond the knowledge possessed by people in the bronze age.
No, that's not how science works at all. We assume a consistent and natural universe because that's what's there. When we make predictions based on these premises, the predictions come true. When we make them based on metaphysical arguments, they don't.
Originally Posted by Rawlings
Science deals with the empirical or measurable.
The surest thing we have are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, i.e., the first principles of philosophy, not our estimations about phenomena beyond. The very premise of science is necessarily metaphysical and unfalsifiable. Further, you don't grasp that you're revealing an unwitting assumption of a metaphysical naturalism for reality.
Philosophy necessarily precedes science; science necessarily rests on philosophy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?