General Philosophy

I was looking to create a list of hypotheses for the existence of everything. It would be helpful to just stick to the list, instead of giving comments or telling which one you subscribe to. 1. Unguided self-creation (something from nothing, quantum mechanics, space fabric, big bang etc etc etc.) 2. Infinite space, time, matter 3. Guided creation (i.e. god or a deity) 4. 5. etc. These are really the only three I can come up with

I have experienced some people are excessively resistant to the word "God". Not only do they try to end all discussions of God with the insistance that God does not exist, but they are intolerant of anyone using the word "God". This has terrible political ramifications and it is my intention to prove that. In general, civilized people favor rule by law. I recently learned of a sect of Hindus who practice cannibolism and are tolerated India, because they are eating only dead bodies cermated in the open or left in the river. This is perhaps more freedom than most of are comfortable with. At least some ecologist might object to leaving our dead bodies in the river…

In math, the concept of negative numbers is an important concept. But if you look at natural reality, what is a negative apple? If you look at tree, it may not have any apples and it may have some apples, but you won't find a tree with negative apples. Although we all understand the concept of negative, does this reflect natural or man-made?

The culture of defending a "status quo" is fairly well-known and also may be called "reactionism," "realism," and/or, "conservatism" depending on the context in which these terms are used. What has occurred to me that I find interesting is that such a culture of "status quo" may actually emerge subsequently to a culture of change rather than preceding it, as might be logically expected. After all, new technologies, lifestyles, and everyday social-economic practices evolve independently, without necessarily getting incorporated into an overall worldview. However, once evolving forms become spotlighted as "change," it becomes possible to react against or control such "ch…

Title says everything. Discuss.

Very few of us on these boards will be unfamiliar with the writer, commentator, and all-round iconoclast Christopher Hitchens - whether you love or loathe him you might find the linked interview interesting. In the interview he talks to Jeremy Paxman about life, death, cancer, and other things in his usual forthright and uncompromising style: Paxman Meets Hitchens This is an iplayer link to content which I am not sure is available outside the UK. I will also ferret around for a different source. Youtube link part 1 Youtube part 2 I hope this is the correct place to put such a link - I wondered about ethics, religion, politics, and the lounge but decided on…

Prompted by posts on another thread ("Can there be any intelligent science pursued without any philosophy?"), I'd like to pose the following: One thing I'd like to imagine is a debate between the philosophy students and science students. Each would be required to stay within their own discipline and argue for the value of each. Any science students using philosophy to defend science would be disqualified (or would lose). They could only prove the value of science using scientific and non-philosophical arguments. The philosophy students would use philosophical arguments to defend the value of philosophy.

Inspired by this thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33922-homosexuality-in-the-animal-kingdom/ I wonder how many posters in this forum consider themselves animals or even part of the animal kingdom? How much of what is interpreted through our research and studies in biology, ecology, zoology, etc. are we anthropomorphizing? Any thoughts?

What does the subject question imply? That things can happen magically/accidentally without cause? That micro events can flit in and out of existence based on zero history, nor initial conditions? If all events do in fact have causes, then does this require one to accept an objective reality? If we accept the well known response of: 'the Universe makes a choice', does this not require an objective reality that is making the choice?

weather your a billionaire or a homeless guy on the streets on NY. a religious leader or a movie star in a hundred years you will be dead and all of your accomplishments will not matter to you any longer. and in a thousand years in all probability no one will remember you. and in a 5 billion years all traces of your legacy will be destroyed with the earth when the sun becomes a red giant. so does anything even these words as I type them matter at all in any capacity?? and as an extension if nothing matters does right and wrong exist?

Is there anybody here familiar with the philosophy of David Hume? I've been particularly interested in reading some of his works lately, especially with regards to his treatise on skepticism. In particular, his Natural History of Religion seems to lay the fundamental logical and moral framework for both agnosticism and atheism... Thanks!

Source: http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm 1. Argument for Relativism: Psychological 2. Argument for Relativism: Cultural 3. Argument for Relativism: Social Conditioning 4. Argument for Relativism: Freedom 5. Argument for Relativism: Tolerance 6. Argument for Relativism: Situations 7. Argument for Absolutism: Consequences 8. Argument for Absolutism: Tradition 9. Argument for Absolutism: Moral Experience 10. Argument for Absolutism: Ad Hominem 11. Argument for Absolutism: Moral Language Postscript: Cause and Cure Any comment? Excerpt: "Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day defined a good society…

I think what we define as "reasonable action" is relative. What a person does is always reasonable in their own eyes, relative to whatever purpose they have. That's why having a shared purpose, and one that serves people the most is so important, it creates the setting for shared definition of "reasonable action". A purpose like: "greatest happiness for greatest number of people" will now create a shared context for what each of us defines as reasonable action. Truth is NOT relative. It stands on its own. But perception is always based on the observer. In short, purpose is a concept, not a truth. And your perception of what is reasonable is based on your own purp…

"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam", said Cato the Elder. (English: "Furthermore I think Carthage must be destroyed".) And it was destroyed. A whole city razed to the ground. Most of its people killed. An empire wiped off the map. Its culture either absorbed or neglected. The Romans made an effort to all but completely erase Carthage from history. It is claimed (but not confirmed) that the Romans even plowed over and salted the earth of the city of Carthage. And today, nobody remembers Carthage, while most know the Roman Empire. At the same time, we know the Romans from cartoons such as Asterix, and from some movies. But what does the average person really…

Why do some believe that things must be proven (rationally) in order be known as true? I ask this question because I have come to a realization that every philosophy and worldview is founded on unproven ideas. It is kind of like geometry, I think. There are theorems which are proven truths. But these theorems are based on "unproven truths" called postulates. Every belief is based on unproven ideas, even empiricism.For this reason (including others), I accept neither materialism nor empiricism to be true. Immaterial things could be just like the "unproven truths" (Christianity holds some to be revealed) mentioned previously. Just because something isn't proven (ration…

OK, just had a thought, does motion mean there's void and matter in the same space? Would it be like saying 0=1, or 0+1=1? A bit scary actually, since that would mean everything is "suspended"? Or do properties depend on motion? BTW I know a conclusion probably requires motion to really be logical (thought process) but still.

In 1996, Nature found 60.7% of scientists expressing disbelief or doubt. 72.2% of the "greater" scientists do no believe in God. About 20.8% are agnostic. The article in the link below calls the "greater" scientists those who are National Academy of Sciences (NAS). http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

Secularism must be distinguished from secularization. Secularization is the praiseworthy contribution of modern man which avoids the primitive temptation to explain all mysterious and unknown forces in terms of spirits, gods, or some other supernatural power. Due to secularization, modern man is aware of his mastery over life and of the fact that the future of the world is, in a very real sense, in his hands. Secularism is something quite different. Secularism is an attitude or philosophy of life which holds that only secular values are real and that all religious values are nothing more than superstition. Materialism holds not that material things have value, but…

(Isaac Balshevis Singer) There are several experimental and theoretical results from science that demonstrate the above quote (although there is debate about their interpretation): 1) The Libet delayed choice experiment: electrodes are attached to a subject's head and the impulses and time measured when a.) the subject decides he/she is going to punch a button, b.) when the button is punched. The interesting thing is that there is a pre-decision rise of the brain potential (starting as much as 2 seconds before the subject is consciously aware of his/her decision), so something is stirring in that mass of jelly we call the brain to compel? or recognize? a decision. Lots …

There are two forms of data we can collect. There is external data and internal data. As an example, a group of people are at a concert. They all see/hear the same external things at the via their sensory systems. Although they all see/hear the same things, the concert might impact each person in a unique way, internally. If you were trying to observe the internal impact of the concert on yourself (internal data observation), one might note data like feelings, sensations, imagery, memory inductions, etc. Unlike the external data, which we all can see, agree, and prove, this internal data can also be hard data, yet it is not as easy to transfer. I can use language to …

This topic I really did not know where to post... perhaps here ? Do animals practice revenge ? In the wild, do confrontations among animals end later in what we know as vengeance or is it something only humans practice ? I cannot find examples...

The difference between things determines the qualities and properties of them, hence if a thing were isolated it would have have no definition at all and couldn't be said to exist. To have any definition things have to be compared. It seems we do not actually observe things; we observe the difference between and quantify the relationship. To exist is to differentiate ourselves from all other things, yet all things only exist by being different to all others. In that it seems there are only different things the primary discernment consists of one difference between two things, but this one difference defines the exact properties of both, so they have the exact …

0 0 0 0 1 1 000 01 0 01 0 0 0 1 1 0101 00 01 0 1 10 1 10 0 0 0 1= Black hole 0 = Planet Lol! e=10^2

5cSgVgrC-6Y The Dilburt in the beginning is rather revealing of the layman's view of Free Will.

I found a very interesting assay regarding free will in PNAS. The abstract: And a paragraph from the conclusions: While not radically new, the paper is very good read and also includes implications for the justice system (also note the follow-ups). It is an open access article: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4499.abstract