Randolpin

No. I mean is that there are absolute truths and also relative truths. They are not contradicted with each other but they exist independently.

I agree with that. But what I really mean is that the definition of philosophy which is " neither correct nor incorrect" is quite mistaken. For example we know that there are some absolute truths. It is true. We also know that there are relative truths. And it is true. So we can conclude that there are really absolute truths and relative truths of reality. Since it is real so philosophy is always correct. And also philosophy is always correct as long as it is being formulated soundly which is logic based and based on proper reasoning base also on established facts to avoid incorrect philosophies. Did you mean that philosophy needs established facts? If yes then I agree with you. Therefore, for me I think that to avoid incorrect philosophy, we should philosophize soundly. In order to philosophize soundly it should be: 1. Logic based 2. Base on established facts ( facts proven by science)

Why do you say that mathematical propositions are not applicable outside math? We all know that math is necessary in understanding reality like how it is being use in General Relativity. Math according to a philosopher is the language of nature. That is not an opinion. It is according to wikipedia and it is true. Example of natural right is our right to live. Our right to be happy. Our right to clothing, shelter, food etc. And many more. I in some point agree with these. But that doesn't eliminate the idea that there are absololute truths. That is not the statement I made. What I mean is that there is absolute truth of reality. I didn't mean that every truth is absolute.

That is in the quantum scale which is the scale of the small. Our lives are inclined and perceive the large scale (Universe, galaxies).For me, I think we should not apply what is in the quantum level to the activities in large scale because they are different. The fact that quantum mechanics is different from large scale doesn't remove the absolute truth that exist in the large scale because we ourselves experience it. Even if we consider that q.m eliminates absolute truth, there is still absolute truth. The absolute truth of quantum mechanics itself. Me, you, all of us perceive that q.m is uncertain and very different from classical mechanics.

There is absolute truth. Kindly look again my examples. Another example is our surroundings. Do you think that it just your own subjective view that the moon is round and other see it as square. Obviously not. All of us see the shape, the structure of the world the same way. Therefore there is absolute truth or objective truth. The truth which is valid in all times and all places. The moon is round for you, for me and for all humans who see it. The moon is round in Asia, Europe,Americas etc. for those who see it. Therefore, there is an absolute truth. In this case, we can't apply the philosophy of relativism because obviously it is not compatible. In this idea, we see that base on facts or evidences in the surroundings, we see that, really, there are correct and incorrect philosophies.

Please excuse my philosophical knowledge in the past weeks in this forum. This forum helps me clarify what is philosophy. This enables me now to share my idea about philosophy. Philosophy as what someone said here, is neither correct nor wrong. But my idea is that, there are correct & wrong philosophies. Example of correct philosophy I want to assert is Universalism and example of wrong philosophy is Relativism. Let me explain why the first is correct contrary to the last mentioned philosophy. Universalism is correct because base on my understanding, there is what we call absolute truth of reality.According to wikipedia, when we say absolute truth, this is the truth which is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as eternal or as absolute. Examples of this absolute truth are mathematics, natural rights etc. This leads me to the conclusion that philosophy is important because it seeks the absolute truth provided that we speculate soundly, interpret facts properly and so we have the correct philosophy.IMO, some philosophies are wrong because some philosophers wrongly speculate and interpret facts.

We must not only rely on external arguments because the answer is on ourselves.

I think this belongs to my point 2. " God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe."

The big bang model and the mainstream cosmology clearly states that the universe has a beginning. Even if we consider that the universe is eternal, questions still arises, why the universe exist or why there is something rather than nothing? Why this is the type of universe we have?

Prometheus said: "Again, i'll ask: if you can imagine something you call god as being without a cause, then why not the universe? Why invent something (god) to explain a problem (first cause) which you then admit is no problem (because god is uncaused). It seems like some vague sleight of hand to get around your own disbelief. I've asked this of many theists who forward the argument from design, but none choose to answer, even in the usual vague terms." God is uncaused. Imagine this: 1. Nothing produces nothing. 2. If something exist,it must be eternal. God is eternal, therefore He is uncaused.

So philosophy is just like speculation? An assertion on how we look reality? Is that what you mean? But philosophy could be correct also, when for example it based it's premise in a solid-ground of premises. Science could act the same way. Science look reality by creating models of it. Philosophy look reality by speculation. The difference between them is that science create model thru evidences or observation while philosophy is merely on speculation. But philosophy could also start it's premise based on already established facts of reality. So it's premise is valid and as a result, we arrive at correct conclusion. Let me give a sample argument. 1. Everything that exist must have an explanation for it's existence. The validity of this premise is based on what we observe in our surroundings. Buildings exist because of the builder's reason to build,plant's exist in a specific place because it adapts the place. So we see that all that exist must have an explanation why they exist. So philosophy will soundly create the next premise that: 2. The universe exist. Therefore it must have a reason or explanation why it exist. Although science don't know yet that there must be a reason, philosophy already knows that there must be a reason, and it could be right because the premise 1 is valid.

Philosophy uses the right & valid premises supported by the evidences found in nature. We can't call it philosophy if the philosophical argument's premise is not valid. This is my point.

Strange posted: Logic does not tell you if something is correct or not. It just tells you if it is logical. In other words, whether the conclusion follows from the initial starting points. So how about this: 1+1= 2 The logic is that if you add 1 & 1 the result is always 2 which is always correct. In your argument: 1. All animals have four legs 2. Socrates is an animal 3. Therefore Socrates has four legs. Premise 1 is false because not all animals are 4-legged so since socrates is an animal is still valid.

Why not the same? Let me give another example. A shoe. The shoe's existence depends in an outside explanation and that is the shoemaker. A pen is the same as the shoe etc. so why we avoid the idea that a pen is also the same as the universe?

How can you say that it is not logic based? If it is not logic based, why it is important? Why many philosophers are engaged in philosophy? If it is not logic based, they are only wasting time..

What I really mean by "more advance" is that, philosophy advances and tackle an idea where science not yet can't. Strange posted: There is no way of knowing if philosophy is correct or not. Philosophy is logic-based so how can we say that it might be incorrect?

First, I don't mean that "making stuff" count as philosophy. As I understand, philosophy requires logic to operate. So, philosophy is more on logic while science is also requires logic but with evidences also. I hope this makes clear to you. I'm talking both. In other words, the general philosophy. I'm talking both. In other words, the general philosophy.

I don't really say that philosophy and science are different. I only point out the difference on their uses. Let me clarify it. Philosophy advances beyond what can be perceived by our perceptions unlike science which relies on evidences. I'm talking here not the general sscience but physics, biology etc.

This topic talks about the relationship of philosophy, science and reality. I will expound it thru questions: 1. Is philosophy more advance than science in understanding reality because it can form ideas even when there is no experiments performed or observations (While science on the other hand can't step forward because it relies on data)? 2. Is philosophy always correct? Are there instance that science prove philosophy?If philosophy always correct, we can rely solely to philosophy than science. 3. Is philosophy as accurate as science? 4. When can we say that a question become philosophical? Can we say that philosophy is an advance science? If yes then we can conclude that the only task of science is to prove philosophy ( is it correct?). I hope you understand my points. If you need clarifications, just ask me. Thank you...

The explanation of the universe can be found only in the universe. There, that was easy. It must be outside the universe. Let me give an analogy. A ballpen exist. Now you ask, why that ballpen exist? The ballpen itself can't answer or provide an explanation. The answer must be outside the ballpen. The answer is that there was a machine which created that ballpen.

First I want to have a clarification as to why space is not being created during the big bang. As I understand big bang, this is the time when the univese (all - spacetime and matter) begins out of nothing. Secondly, the 2 reasoning I suggested is not an argument but rather it is the 2 possible ways either space is finite or infinite. I can agree with you that space is finite because it has an origin during the bigbang and it seems to me that it is impossible to be infinite because it must be instantly created during the bigbang. But what I am curious, is again as what I pointed already, why you say that space is not being created?

This question is based on the property of space in my point of view. In my point of view, space-time is peculiar because it can curve even if it is not tangible or at "first sight" it is somewhat unrecognizable or we don't even mind about it but here it comes because of G.R. we found out that it is a thing that can curve thru mass/energy. The second question follows, is mass/energy the only "thing" that can curve space/time, if yes then why? Answers or feedbacks are very much appreciated. Thank You

Now, I will provide the explanation on the points I mentioned for my argument of God's existence. I borrowed my ideas mostly from the debates & works of Dr. William Lane Craig and share it on you as best as I can. Now, let me explain first my first point: God is the best explanation why anything at all exists. (The sentences of the following paragraph are mostly quoted from a recent lecture on a debate of Dr. Craig) This is called the contingency argument. It talks about a certain thing's existence requires an explanation. It is because it is contingent in it's existence. It can exist but it doesn't have to exist. Now, to clearly understand, lets suppose that you are in the forest doing hiking and suddenly, found a ball lying on the ground. You would naturally wonder how it came to be there. If your hiking partner said " Forget about it, it just exist inexplicably". You think that he is either joking or want you to keep moving. No one would take seriously the idea that the ball just exist without any explanation. The ball's existence requires an explanation because the ball is contingent in it's existence. It can exist but it doesn't have to exist. So what makes the ball different from for example, unicorns which can exist but do not exist. There must be something that explains the ball's existence, typically a causal explanation. So what is the explanation of the universe ( all of space-time reality). The explanation of the universe can be found only in a transcendent reality, beyond the universe, beyond space & time which is metaphysically necessary in it's existence. There is only one way to get a contingent entity like the universe from a necessarily existing cause and that is if the cause is a personal agent who can freely choose to create a contingent reality. It therefore follows that the best explanation of the existence of a contingent universe is a transcendent, personal being which is what everybody means by God.