It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tempering Philosophy and Science, an Eclectic Approach to Metaphysical Questions (Excerpts from book

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:


posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
The philosopy behind a lot of these ideas and the ideas themselves are definitley valuable to consider . For instance science as a dictatoship couldnt really be wrong, eveyone would win and the greedy nature of humans would be removed from society and change the mindset on the idea of dictatoship at the same time ( as it is now viewed as unjust and somewhat tyranical.

There is a ton of information here
I think it might be scaring some people of the topic or they just don't have the time to even browse it all. I just browsed the science as a dictatorship topic and read the titles of the rest. Hopefully I can return to further indulge myself. I hate to see threads like these that required some actual hard work and effort to put together be drowned out and forgotten.

I think a lot of these ideas will become more prevalent as time goes on as I am starting to see and read related ideas and opinions all over the place.

The first step always has to be getting the ideas out there.
Like in that movie inception, the power of putting an idea in someones head is immense but the trick is forcing them past their hubris to think it was thiers
Eventually people will become more comfortable with these ideas and real transitions can be made possible.

Good post, Hope to be back soon



posted on Feb, 11 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
thanks for the encouraging words! I am just using this opportunity to share my work with others, network with others of like mind, to have my ideas challenged, to challenge the ideas of others, and perhaps gain some valuable correspondance.

Many have stopped talking about the big questions that we all inevitably ask and answer in the recesses of our hearts and minds, and in our lives. Many believe the questions have been settled, clearly and distinctly. It is my purpose to critically challenge many of the prevailing ideas of contemporary liberal thought, and those of the Elitist ivory tower acadamia; these notions and truths are propogated so widely, and with such ease, that you would think they were self-evident. It is my goal to bring them under the scrutiny of the critical and eclectic expose of this outside-the-box thinker.



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

What is the big deal?’ some may ask; this is America and we are free to do and believe as we see fit. Inasmuch as this is true, this is true, however just as Dawkins zealously evangelizes his strong atheistic belief, that there is no God, and just as he implies that these ‘antiquated remnants of superstitious mechanisms of social control’ pose a grave threat, it can clearly and distinctly understood in the mind that it is quite the opposite: that by definition God is indefinable, at least in such a way that can be fully and accurately described and understood. Furthermore it seems that the evidences and arguments put forward by Dawkins are flimsy and short sighted, filled with fallacies, and that it can be shown that it is Dawkins fatalistic propositions which are in fact delusional, disingenuous, and dangerous!


I don't know. He's says that you're dangerous and you say that he's dangerous, and that's fine except that you say that he's wrong to be free to say that you're dangerous, as you clearly suggest that he's dangerous.

He "zealously evangelizes" his beliefs and so do you. The individual is free to choose which he/she likes better or to choose to tell both of you to go pound sand.

In the end, it's a he said - he said situation if neither of you can prove (even logically) that you've got anything other than opposing views. You say that God is indefinable...well, that pretty much kills off the rest of your presentation for all practical purposes. The rest must (by implication) be a laundry list of reasons why people should believe your idea instead of this Dawkin character's idea.

Why do people think that they can suddenly find a new argument that will succeed without bothering to actually present new information that either reveals unknown facts or puts evidence into a new light - transforming that evidence in a clear and convincing manner. There's a reason why it takes new and compelling evidence to reopen a criminal case after it's been closed and the verdict has been rendered. If not, the justice system would be like this board, with the same stuff being repackaged by every excited guy with a modem and plans for the speaking tours in his future.

Good luck though. At least you've got a well-established platform.
edit on 2/12/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEasterI don't know. He's says that you're dangerous and you say that he's dangerous, and that's fine except that you say that he's wrong to be free to say that you're dangerous, as you clearly suggest that he's dangerous.

He "zealously evangelizes" his beliefs and so do you. The individual is free to choose which he/she likes better or to choose to tell both of you to go pound sand.

In the end, it's a he said - he said situation if neither of you can prove (even logically) that you've got anything other than opposing views. You say that God is indefinable...well, that pretty much kills off the rest of your presentation for all practical purposes. The rest must (by implication) be a laundry list of reasons why people should believe your idea instead of this Dawkin character's idea.

Why do people think that they can suddenly find a new argument that will succeed without bothering to actually present new information that either reveals unknown facts or puts evidence into a new light - transforming that evidence in a clear and convincing manner. There's a reason why it takes new and compelling evidence to reopen a criminal case after it's been closed and the verdict has been rendered. If not, the justice system would be like this board, with the same stuff being repackaged by every excited guy with a modem and plans for the speaking tours in his future.

Good luck though. At least you've got a well-established platform.
edit on 2/12/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)


reply to post by NorEaster
 


thanks for your response. Actually there is plenty of evidence and fresh logical arguments based on some of the latest science in these excerpts, which leads me to ask did you bother reading beyond this introduction from which you have quoted.

It is not a case of he said she said, as I have certainly taken the time to spell out precisely where Dawkins logic is lacking, and where it fails, and the discourse is filled with fresh evidences. In response to my discourse being undermined by my acknowledgment of our own inherent limitations:

If I were to say that God is by definition Complete, Perfect, and Infinite in nature, which are three attributes that God must necessarily possess(will qualify if you disagree), then I have just found myself guilty of the same sort of absurdity and contradiction in premise as Dawkins! Defining something is placing limits, and establishing boundaries of an object so that we might have a more clear idea of its outline, and what it encompasses. If God is by definition Infinite then it is absurd to think that I can in some way define God in a way that will make God wholly understood , or that I can understand anything so sublime and boundless. By observation and natural reasoning alone it is possible to know that God exists, and to glean some idea as to some of the characteristics which God must necessarily possess, but the logical deductions of our finite experience and natural capabilities have limitations. This is where claims of historical and scriptural claims of revelation need be seriously considered, for how could we have even a concept of something so sublime and vast as God, without a willful act of revelation from God?


The God hypothesis is presented as such:


“there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the Universe, and everything in it, including us.”


The God hypothesis is challenged by Dawkins antithesis statement which he hopes to establish:


“any creative intelligence of sufficient complexity to design anything comes into existence only as the end result of an extended process of gradual evolution.”


Immediately it is glaringly obvious that there are some serious problems inherent between these hypothesis, including incongruities in measurement, absurd contradictions implied by these definitions, and other logical pitfalls. For example consider Dawkins antithetical position. Here you find that Dawkins has omitted the word supernatural and instead conflates the idea of a supreme supernatural creative intelligence, which is seen in the God hypothesis, with the similar but altogether different idea of “all creative intelligences.” In other words in the universe of discourse of “all creative intelligences” we will find Humans, who are creative intelligences, and we may find alien creative intelligences, and if God is a creative intelligence then He is in here as well; hence “all creative intelligences.” The implication is that since God is in this category, and humans are as well, and since we ‘know’ that Humans are sufficiently complex to intelligently create only as a result of an extended process of gradual evolution, that therefore if God is a creative intelligence then He too must have come about only as a result of an extended process of gradual evolution. In short because it is implied that if something is scientifically applicable to humans that it is somehow applicable to God.


Is it the case that because Humans and God are both creative intelligences, that what is necessarily true for Humans is therefore also necessarily true for God? It would be absurd to suggest this, and the reason is because there is an unaddressed fundamental difference in kind. This error in Dawkins hypothesis is a categorical one: equivocating a singular supernatural creative intelligence with natural creative intelligences (plural), and inferring that because Humans evolve, so does God. It is obviously true that Human Beings are natural, and extended over space and time, but are these words even applicable to the supernatural creative intelligence defined in Dawkins God hypothesis? Are beings that are not natural, and are not extended over space and time precluded from things like “coming about”, “changing over time”, or “gradually evolving”? It seems self-evident that this is the case unless this supernatural creative being decided to take on a natural form.


To imply that one could accurately infer notions about a supernatural God, which is defined in Dawkins’ ‘God Hypothesis’, from an antithesis statement which necessarily precludes the supernatural, unobservable, or the infinite, is an error in judgment. This weak attempt at objective logic fails, and subliminally subjects the reader to what I will call the blind observer premise, which is the assumption that if you cannot observe a thing by means of sensory perception that it does not exist.


Technological extensions of sensory perception or scientific instruments in other words, are based upon the same mechanics, principles, and physics as your natural sensory perception. However, it has proven difficult, if not impossible, to directly observe the visceral conscious experience of the mind, or the observer, even though the mechanisms by which a conscious observer arises are beginning to be understood, in terms of biochemistry, neurophysiology, and quantum biology. While it is possible to observe the neuronal and astrocytic processes in the brain, and to compile advanced maps of the brains neuronal structures and pathways, it is impossible to observe the mind, thoughts, feelings, or dreams, but who would deny their existence?


Furthermore Dawkins antithesis statement not only fundamentally precludes the ‘supernatural creative intelligence’, which he himself define as God, and begs the question by implicitly precluding that which he hoped to disprove, but to try to pass off a fundamentally flawed model as a sound, valid, and conclusive epistemic instrument is either ignorance, laziness, or malice!


It is now plainly evident that the definitions and premises which form the very foundations of Dawkins argument are grossly insufficient in their capacity to examine the issues at hand, of metaphysics and theology; in fact science is fundamentally incapable of delving into these matters, as it presumes that only the observable material Universe exists, or rather, as the scientific verdict on metaphysical issues should be expressed, that metaphysical or supra natural entities and events cannot be observed or tested in a controlled environment, and that therefore it cannot make or lend scientific inferences about such things; in other words-Science can’t tell!

edit on 12-2-2011 by mrphilosophias because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join