foundations of reason

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Science is supposed to be about asking questions I thought. .. ...

Not quite. Science is generally about answering questions (as opposed to asking them) -to be more specifically, answering the questions by seeing what the evidence combined with logic says the answers are.
But science doesn’t deal with questions that have no answer.[/b]

But until the question is asked then how does one know that the answer cannot be found?

You have also failed to consider that the lack of an answer may infact BE an answer in and of itself.

Science is basically about trying to explore and understand the universe. Part of that understanding could mean that science may end up learning that some things cannot be understood. It could be that we find there are limits to our rational understanding , and we need to (LOL) understand this. But I fail to see how not asking a question can EVER be said to be scientific.

Originally posted by knightmeister
But until the question is asked then how does one know that the answer cannot be found?

You have also failed to consider that the lack of an answer may infact BE an answer in and of itself.

Science is basically about trying to explore and understand the universe. Part of that understanding could mean that science may end up learning that some th ...[text shortened]... understand this. But I fail to see how not asking a question can EVER be said to be scientific.

…But until the question is asked then how does one know that the answer cannot be found? … (my emphasis)

Obviously I was referring to AFTER the question is asked.

…Part of that understanding could mean that science may end up learning that some things cannot be understood. …

Yes. It is called Epistemology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

…It could be that we find there are limits to our rational understanding .…

Of course there are limits to our rational understanding for we all have limited intellect, but it does not logically follow from that that we can understanding anything by thinking irrationally or illogically!

…But I fail to see how not asking a question can EVER be said to be scientific.......

Who said anything about “not asking a question”? -I certainly didn’t. Nobody is saying nor implying here that you are not allowed to ask a question -I don’t see where you could possibly get that idea. But those questions that presume something that is not so cannot be answered -whether they are asked or not doesn’t change the fact that they are unanswerable -no matter how many times they are asked.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…But until the question is asked then how does one know that the answer cannot be found? … (my emphasis)

Obviously I was referring to AFTER the question is asked.

…Part of that understanding could mean that science may end up learning that some things cannot be understood. …

Yes. It is called Epistemology: http://en.wikiped ...[text shortened]... not doesn’t change the fact that they are unanswerable -no matter how many times they are asked.[/b]

Nobody is saying nor implying here that you are not allowed to ask a question -I don’t see where you could possibly get that idea.
--------------------hamilton-------------------------

You said I couldn't ask "what came before the universe?"

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…But until the question is asked then how does one know that the answer cannot be found? … (my emphasis)

Obviously I was referring to AFTER the question is asked.

…Part of that understanding could mean that science may end up learning that some things cannot be understood. …

Yes. It is called Epistemology: http://en.wikiped ...[text shortened]... not doesn’t change the fact that they are unanswerable -no matter how many times they are asked.[/b]

Of course there are limits to our rational understanding for we all have limited intellect, but it does not logically follow from that that we can understanding anything by thinking irrationally or illogically!
-----------------hamilton------------------------------------

I was arguing that even given unlimited intellect , a beginning for no reason could never be understood because to understand it would be a paradox. Only things that have a reason to begin can be understood. Give me a computer the size of andromeda and it still would make no difference.

Originally posted by knightmeister
If one says that there is no reason why the universe began then the implication is pretty obvious. It will be by definition an inpenetrable mystery that can never be explained.

Hamilton seemed very sure of this (and you didn't have a go at him) but when I drew an obviously logical conclusion from this you are suddenly all ears.

I am only drawing out the logical implications of Hammy's statement.

when I drew an obviously logical conclusion from this you are suddenly all ears.

The conclusion you drew was that "mysticism/spirituality is not such a bad way of looking at reality after all".

How is that an "obviously logical conclusion" to be drawn from the claim that there are facts concerning cosmological origins that are simply brute? Better yet, what does your "obviously logical conclusion" even mean?

Hey, I'm just trying to understand you here.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]when I drew an obviously logical conclusion from this you are suddenly all ears.

The conclusion you drew was that "mysticism/spirituality is not such a bad way of looking at reality after all".

How is that an "obviously logical conclusion" to be drawn from the claim that there are facts concerning cosmological origins that are simply brute? ...[text shortened]... bviously logical conclusion" even mean?

Hey, I'm just trying to understand you here.[/b]

The fact that existence just "IS" means that all we can do is appreciate it/ contemplate it and not try to understand it.We can understand the workings within it but not the thing itself.

That leads us away from science to at the very least a more contemplative way of looking at reality. Science can tell us how the Universe works but it cannot tell us why the universe "is".

Instead of trying to penetrate it with our reason , the only recourse is to contemplate it. This seems a totally logical conclusion to me. What else is there to do?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Nobody is saying nor implying here that you are not allowed to ask a question -I don’t see where you could possibly get that idea.
--------------------hamilton-------------------------

You said I couldn't ask "what came before the universe?"

…You said I couldn't ask "what came before the universe?".…

No I didn’t. Of course you can physically and verbally ask it and obviously there is no rule or law that says you must not.

What I was saying is that the question "what came before the universe?" presumes something that is not so (the existence of a “before&rdquo😉 and thus cannot be answered. It is like asking “why is there a Santa?”. And saying a question cannot be answered is not the same thing as saying “you couldn’t ask it” -of course you can ask it -whether it can be answered or not.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Of course there are limits to our rational understanding for we all have limited intellect, but it does not logically follow from that that we can understanding anything by thinking irrationally or illogically!
-----------------hamilton------------------------------------

I was arguing that even given unlimited intellect , a beginning for no reason ...[text shortened]... n be understood. Give me a computer the size of andromeda and it still would make no difference.

…Only things that have a reason to begin can be understood..…

What is the premise for this belief? -your whole argument seems to revolve around this unqualified assumption.

If I didn’t know what caused an avalanche, that does not stop me "understanding" various properties of an avalanche (e.g. speed, size etc) from observations. So, if, speaking extremely hypothetically here, the avalanche had no “cause” nor a “reason why” for its start, how would that prevent me from understanding various properties of an avalanche (e.g. speed, size etc) from such observations? -I would still have my eyes and my brain regardless of whether or not there is a “cause” or a “reason why” for the start of the avalanche.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Only things that have a reason to begin can be understood..…

What is the premise for this belief? -your whole argument seems to revolve around this unqualified assumption.

If I didn’t know what caused an avalanche, that does not stop me "understanding" various properties of an avalanche (e.g. speed, size etc) from observations. So, if, ...[text shortened]... ardless of whether or not there is a “cause” or a “reason why” for the start of the avalanche.[/b]

...and the title of this thread is "foundations of reason"!

😵

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Only things that have a reason to begin can be understood..…

What is the premise for this belief? -your whole argument seems to revolve around this unqualified assumption.

If I didn’t know what caused an avalanche, that does not stop me "understanding" various properties of an avalanche (e.g. speed, size etc) from observations. So, if, ...[text shortened]... ardless of whether or not there is a “cause” or a “reason why” for the start of the avalanche.[/b]

You went off on a tangent assuming that I was really quite dim. The avalanche thing was unneccessary.

Of course what I was saying was that if a phenomena really has no reason to have begun then that means that phenomena (ie the beginning) can be understood. The beginning cannot be understood.

I have already said that the universe can be investigated but by your definiton the beginning itself cannot be understood. No-one would ever be able to say " this is why/how it began".

Now I do realise that you think I am dumb (because all theists are obviously dumb by definition) but a moments thought would have made you realise that it was more a case of clumsy wording than anything else.

Originally posted by black beetle
...and the title of this thread is "foundations of reason"!

😵

I think you and hammy are unconsciously misinterpreting my point here to make me conform to your "theists are dumb" pre-assumptions. If anything you end up just looking silly yourself.

Do you really think I am that dumb?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…You said I couldn't ask "what came before the universe?".…

No I didn’t. Of course you can physically and verbally ask it and obviously there is no rule or law that says you must not.

What I was saying is that the question "what came before the universe?" presumes something that is not so (the existence of a “before&rdquo😉 and thus cannot be ...[text shortened]... saying “you couldn’t ask it” -of course you can ask it -whether it can be answered or not.[/b]

So you are certain that there is no "before " the Big Bang?

You know this how? Where is your evidence? Where is your argument?

Or is it an article of faith for you?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think you and hammy are unconsciously misinterpreting my point here to make me conform to your "theists are dumb" pre-assumptions. If anything you end up just looking silly yourself.

Do you really think I am that dumb?

No KM, I don' think at all that you are dumb. Instead I think that you try to promote a theological thesis as a philosophical argument. Earlier I posted you this conclusion but maybe you missed it, and then I posted you again this:

"Today is accepted due to the scientific finds and evidence that there is not a specific "reason". But this issue remains open, therefore Tomorrow we may really find out the "reason". So Science will keep up without taking your "definition" as a fact. We just are not satisfied Today with any theological approach and therefore a definition like the one you quoted over here is dismissed. Our ancestors believed "by definition" several things that today are clearly anti-Science and of course not acceptable... But my friend KM once you 'll manage to turn your theological thesis into a stable philosophical hypothesis, well this will be an issue that every atheist, me included, we would like to dig;"

At least three persons over here we keep repeating you the obvious: your thesis does not hold water because is anti-science, dogmatic and irrational but you insist to come again and again and again with the same false argument. And the title of your thread is "foundations of reason"! Why don't you rename it? If you name it "foundations of my faith" everything would be fine.
That's all.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think you and hammy are unconsciously misinterpreting my point here to make me conform to your "theists are dumb" pre-assumptions. If anything you end up just looking silly yourself.

Do you really think I am that dumb?

…I think you and hammy..…

“hammy” 😀 -I like that one -never been called that before 🙂

Originally posted by black beetle
No KM, I don' think at all that you are dumb. Instead I think that you try to promote a theological thesis as a philosophical argument. Earlier I posted you this conclusion but maybe you missed it, and then I posted you again this:

"Today is accepted due to the scientific finds and evidence that there is not a specific "reason". But this issue remain ...[text shortened]... f you name it "foundations of my faith" everything would be fine.
That's all.

Today is accepted due to the scientific finds and evidence that there is not a specific "reason". But this issue remains open, therefore Tomorrow we may really find out the "reason". So Science will keep up without taking your "definition" as a fact.=========beetle-----------

Let me clarify. All I am trying to establish is the logical ramifications of a certain position. I am NOT saying that the Universe has no reason to be. I AM saying that IF we STATE that the Universe began for no reason THEN there are certain implications of this. One of those implications is that the event "the beginning of the Universe" would be an inpenetrable mystery. It would be inpenetrable because to understand it would be to find a reason for it , which would be a paradox.

To understand (not explore) the phenomena of a beginning for no reason is a contradiction in terms because the only way we understand events is by finding reasons why they happen. The moment the event is understood is the moment that we prove the event is not the event we thought it was.We saw off the very branch we are investigating.

Ok , if you follow this then you will understand why I put it to hammy that if he states that the universe began for no reason , then he must also accept that it will always be a mystery.

Clearer?

BTW- I figured this out long before any theology came along.