tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post4050415673947909881..comments2024-03-27T11:16:36.951-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: Proof of Proof is Proof of GodGagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-5154164396087059202008-07-24T18:45:00.000-07:002008-07-24T18:45:00.000-07:00Ray said "...Even the sun rising in the East could...Ray said "...Even the sun rising in the East could change, and without violating causality. A rogue planet making a close pass to Earth and mucking up the Earth's axial tilt. Or, by quan..."<BR/><BR/>Leave it to you to avoid the issue (a philosophical issue, btw, not a particular instance of astronomical traffic reporting), the issue isn't that the unexpected can happen, it is that we can know the Truth about the reality we inhabit. YOur nibbling on exceptions is just a low budget way to smuggle skepticism into the argument and a hapless readers mind.<BR/><BR/>"...If you read what I wrote back then, I also said we were unlikely to su..."<BR/><BR/>Yeah. Read it. Commented on it <A HREF="http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2008/05/atheist-delusion-or-how-materialism.html" REL="nofollow">too</A>. To which you replied:<BR/><I>"<BR/>"van - I've actually been saying that we can study reality and learn things. Kind of my whole point."<BR/>"</I><BR/><BR/>and to which I replied,<BR/><I>"<BR/>Yeah, butt, [ray said:]<BR/>"...I'd say logic, too - I accept 'cogito ergo sum' and such, though I think Anselm's argument has )"<BR/><BR/>... that's why what you say is not, and cannot, mean what you think it means. Follow my previous link for an explanation.<BR/><BR/>"</I><BR/>Did you bother to read that and/or my link? BTW, did you have a momentary break with reality there?"<I>"...though I think Anselm's argument has )"</I><BR/><BR/>Was what?<BR/><BR/>Whether or not you take Descartes 'Cogito ergo sum' at his stated word, or his thoughts at revising it by removing the 'ergo', Descartes takes his existence as an independent primary from the world he is doubting, which sets the stage for Hume and Kant and all the corruption which followed, from a world we can't know (Kant and co.), to a world we don't need to know (pragmatism), to an inability to know anything or even deny that there is an "I" to know any of it ('Brain in a vat' and down to Dennett's idiocies).<BR/><BR/><BR/>"And that's not counting the possibility that we've been wrong about fundamental properties of physics and learn something new tomorrow."<BR/><BR/>Again, in the context of a philosophical argument, more Humian skeptical nibbling. Fundamental properties of physics are not, and have not been found to be wrong, only incomplete or misapplied, from Aristotle to Ptolemy's epicycles, to Newtonian physics and Flogiston. There is a fundamental difference between the meaning of your usage, and the reality of the development of Philosophy and Science. For all your claims to uphold reality, with the ideas that are fundamental to your positions, you fundamentally undermine and deny it.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-26557373608535053922008-07-24T05:50:00.000-07:002008-07-24T05:50:00.000-07:00Van - Even the sun rising in the East could change...Van - Even the sun rising in the East <I>could</I> change, and without violating causality. A rogue planet making a close pass to Earth and mucking up the Earth's axial tilt. Or, by quantum mechanics, enough of the atoms of Earth spontaneously moving in a different direction. The odds are almost incalculably low but not zero. (If you read what I wrote back then, I <I>also</I> said we were unlikely to survive anything that'd make the sun rise somewhere besides the East.)<BR/><BR/>And that's not counting the possibility that we've been wrong about fundamental properties of physics and learn something new tomorrow.<BR/><BR/>Erasmus - I don't <I>have</I> a domain in the traditional sense, I'm using dyndns.com's free IP-forwarding service, and their terms of service are different from ICANN's. They just made it so <I>nobody</I> could use the old domain name.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-78686125359273369332008-07-23T14:02:00.000-07:002008-07-23T14:02:00.000-07:00Van, Ray was different back in his sorceror days. ...Van, Ray was different back in his sorceror days. <BR/><BR/>Ray, when I was looking at your FAQ, I noticed that you lost your domain name.<BR/><BR/>Why didn't you try to get your domain name back using an ICANN arbitration? Whenever I did that, the domain name hijacker/squatter usually folded like a house of cards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-27431744368845272412008-07-23T13:11:00.000-07:002008-07-23T13:11:00.000-07:00Ray said "Re: Hume, I don't take things like causa...Ray said "Re: Hume, I don't take things like causality that way."<BR/><BR/>Ray, didn't you (well... might have been 'you' as sorceror), somewhere back in early may, say: <I>"On the other hand, I do believe that things can be what you might call 'practically absolute'. We can't be sure in an 'Absolute' sense that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, but as a practical matter I'd be willing to bet my and my family's lives on it.</I>"<BR/><BR/>If that was you, then whether you know it or not, you bought Hume's ideas on causality, and the rest, hook, line and stinker....Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-32274114174082043922008-07-23T06:33:00.000-07:002008-07-23T06:33:00.000-07:00Van - Re: Hume, I don't take things like causality...Van - Re: Hume, I don't take things like causality that way. There's talk here about things that "can't not be" - and causality's one of 'em.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-11100304096897972872008-07-23T05:16:00.000-07:002008-07-23T05:16:00.000-07:00Had a few things to take care of, so no chance to ...Had a few things to take care of, so no chance to reply before now. (Yes, really, this place isn't the focus of my life. :-> )<BR/><BR/>Christopher - the point I was trying to make wasn't that 'scientists aren't stupid'. It was more along the lines of what Alan was getting at - how do you know a teacher has something worth teaching before you become a student? Sagan and Cohen both made the point that science (in general) makes prediction you can check and "shows you its notes".<BR/><BR/>Were I to meet someone who 'shone from within' as Bob's mentioned, who demonstrated a superior knowledge even in the way they tied their shoes, well, I'd be interested. Hasn't happened yet.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and Ximeze - Nope, no nuns to resent where I was. Priests of the order of St. Basil, rather. Actually, my second-year religion teacher was really good, he had some really engaging and effective ways of teaching, and he got into the philosophy and foundations. He was not ultimately <I>convincing</I>, but I actually enjoyed his class, and learned some things.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and Ben - I do occasionally use "y'all" in speech, to my wife's annoyance at times. English doesn't have a "plural you" - or rather, it lost "thou" - so "y'all" will have to do, even though I'm not from the South.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-19504580307791217592008-07-22T16:25:00.000-07:002008-07-22T16:25:00.000-07:00"jewish athiest" felt like a bungee-commenter.I th..."jewish athiest" felt like a bungee-commenter.<BR/><BR/>I think Ray's here for the duration.<BR/><BR/>"Also, something about epistemology seems to lure them out like catnip."<BR/><BR/>Maybe he was bothered by the title of the post.<BR/><BR/>"Proof of Proof is Proof of God"<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it goes somethign like this...<BR/>(What? No. Huh? No. Can't be. Must be something wrong with this blog. My metaphysic does not allow for that sentence! There has to be a logical flaw in here somewhere. [type comment] There. I feel better now.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-46788564492874770772008-07-22T15:59:00.000-07:002008-07-22T15:59:00.000-07:00"How often does this blog attract atheist commente..."How often does this blog attract atheist commenters?"<BR/><BR/>Frequent but sporadic drizzles, with heavy downpours every 6-8 wks. <BR/><BR/>Also, something about epistemology seems to lure them out like catnip.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-32838785115357330112008-07-22T15:03:00.000-07:002008-07-22T15:03:00.000-07:00In case anyone was curious or still reading yester...In case anyone was curious or still reading yesterday's comments, "jewish athiest" is a "stong athiest", as opposed to Ray who is a "weak atheist".<BR/><BR/>How often does this blog attract atheist commenters?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-48341790515927956942008-07-22T14:54:00.000-07:002008-07-22T14:54:00.000-07:00jewish athiest says:"Regarding the substance of yo...jewish athiest says:<BR/><BR/>"Regarding the substance of your post, it's one long series of non sequitors and wishful thinking. ("I don't want to live as if there's no God. Therefore God exists.")"<BR/><BR/>And while we're not on the subject of free will...<BR/><BR/>jewish atheist also says:<BR/><BR/>http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2008/06/atheist-13.html<BR/><BR/>"Q7. What’s your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?<BR/><BR/>Without God, I can't see how we have free will. It appears that we have free will, therefore God must exist. Curiously, nobody seems to make this argument except me, on Opposite Day.<BR/><BR/>My refutation is that we actually don't have free will. This has disturbing implications, which I have not yet come to terms with."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-91446017638155482792008-07-22T07:45:00.000-07:002008-07-22T07:45:00.000-07:00Thanks for the response, Bob; choosing a therapist...Thanks for the response, Bob; choosing a therapist is always a dicey thing. My main experience has been with strict cognitive therapists, which have their limitations. Interesting to hear your thoughts on Hillman; some years ago I found his book The Soul's Code helpful, but don't know much else about him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-75030409380274357342008-07-22T06:43:00.000-07:002008-07-22T06:43:00.000-07:00Suffice it to say that you are in much safer hands...<I>Suffice it to say that you are in much safer hands if you are "thinking with the head of Aquinas" than with the head of Dawkins.</I><BR/><BR/>That's not fair. Why not compare Aquinas to Darwin or Russell? Dawkin's is the atheists' Jerry Falwell, not our Aquinas.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the substance of your post, it's one long series of non sequitors and wishful thinking. ("I don't want to live as if there's no God. Therefore God exists.")Jewish Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-37385607223520264152008-07-22T05:48:00.000-07:002008-07-22T05:48:00.000-07:00"Thus, as Just Thomism explains, both types of pri..."Thus, as Just Thomism explains, both types of primitives "want more than evidence; they want the whole science by which their mind could be moved by the evidence" (emphasis mine). They essentially want to see the tree that will prove the existence of the forest, when the forest is on a different ontological level than the tree. "<BR/><BR/>So true, see Hume, for reference (Ray probably needn't bother, since that is where he refers from to begin with). Where Hume wanted to see the hidden packet of 'causation' in colliding billiard balls (as if it were somewhere separate from its Identity), to see 'proof' that the cue ball hitting it 'caused' it to roll away. Failing to see it spelled out for him as he demanded, he denied that there was causation at all. In his defense, he did realize that any world view or life lived by such misosophy would quickly lead to destruction, but he nevertheless didn't see how to avoid it, and so endorsed it. <BR/><BR/>Tying in Ximeze's question, I think we are able to rise to "getting it"... just as I think we are able to stray from, or lose it, and modern philosophy has made it much more difficult to realIze, due to its assault on reality - demanding Proof of what is unprovable, they've undermined the source of all proof, as well as certainty and imagination. From one of <BR/><A HREF="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2008/03/liberal-fascism-getting-to-root-of.html" REL="nofollow"> my posts on Hume </A> <BR/><BR/>"<I>How this pertains to Hume, is that because of his peculiar manner of making his observations, he observed what he did not see and succeeded in convincing others that his myopic perspective was in fact the whole vista of what was there to be seen. In his blindness was sown the seeds of not seeing what was clearly there to be seen with two good eyes - but necessarily missed with a single microscope. He not only convinced others that what he didn’t see, was there to be seen by all, but that in order to claim to see, you had to shut one eye and refuse to see the full picture. </I>"<BR/><BR/>Hume's skepticism convinced people to deny what they couldn't explain in a flatly quantified way, corroding our grasp of Reality. Without Reality and our own Consciousness, we lose The Good, The Beautiful and The True, and all that goes with it - Certainty, Virtue, and the healthy and inspired Imagination they fuel.<BR/><BR/>Imagination giveth, and it can taketh away "Without a vision, the people perish...", it is the inspired religious/poetic imagination which is able to create and clear that space reserved for accessing all that comes below it, our accomplishment 40,000 years ago, was to create the imaginative view that created Lascaux, that let mankind become Human, from out of darkness "...let there be Light!". Without that, we are less than human, we ARE the stories we tell and resonate to - see modern art for evidence. But just as Hume didn’t see causation because he didn’t examine the properties of the billiard balls, that they behaved as they did because of the Identity of what they were, we don’t just cheaply make up the religious/poetic place, but by leaping towards it, reveal it as the central culmination of all we are, and it extends deep into all we know.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Poetry, reading and memorizing Poems, let alone scripture, was once a mainstay of any Education. Walk into any public screwal today, and try to find even a <I>teacher</I> who can read a real Poem ("... smokestack as pretty as a tree..." bilge doesn't count), let alone a student, and I'm afraid you'll be looking for a long time - look for someone who can recite one from memory... and you're on a fools quest. And please, wild fancy, isn't the same as Imagination, being the Poetic equivalent to the libertine as opposed to Liberty issue. C.S. Lewis's <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Experiment-Criticism-Canto-C-Lewis/dp/0521422817" REL="nofollow">An Experiment in Criticism</A> gives an excellent view on this.<BR/><BR/>That higher perspective it took so long to create, can be eradicated.<BR/><BR/>Fortunately, it can be regrown, as Ben mentioned, "Just ask". You have to imagine it is so, that is how the spiritual space is cleared for you to stand within. <BR/><BR/>And no, you won't find little packets of 'proof' that God is real, anymore than Hume could find little packets of proof that causation, reality or himself, were real. You have to - in a very imaginatively real way - Realize it yourself, and it is private, and all the 'proof' you find can only be handled within, we can't bring any artifacts out for Ray to examine and sully, personal and pure, and relies on you to keep it aflame.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-88065280338278568592008-07-22T03:58:00.000-07:002008-07-22T03:58:00.000-07:00My condolences, Julie. I just found out recently t...My condolences, Julie. <BR/>I just found out recently that my mother-in-law has a severe case os BDS. <BR/>Now she thinks we are lunatics because we don't see all of the evil President Bush is responsible for which includes practically every evil and bad thing known to man, to hear her talk. <BR/><BR/>Wisely, Patti suggested I not talk with her mom during these episodes.USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-37205195967459760952008-07-22T03:21:00.000-07:002008-07-22T03:21:00.000-07:00Mornin' Ben! I guess it's kind of a commentcation ...Mornin' Ben! I guess it's kind of a commentcation too, since my current means of commenting has its limits. It's rather cumbersome and slow - not good for maintaining a coherent train of thought. Plus I'm supposed to be entertaining family. So while I can sneak in time to read, time to write is much more limited.<BR/><BR/>I'm trying to look on this as an exercise in patience and holding my tongue. Or fingers. It's not my favorite exercise.<BR/><BR/>Well, time to head for bed.<BR/>G'night, Ben!juliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15975754287030568726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-42294580511654570282008-07-22T03:01:00.000-07:002008-07-22T03:01:00.000-07:00Ximeze-"Are you quite sure that your stubborn resi...Ximeze-<BR/>"Are you quite sure that your stubborn resistance to Seeing isn't a holdover from being endlessly drilled by The Penguins?"<BR/><BR/>Maybe he just needs more drilling. Where's Scatter?USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-70568728234204407532008-07-22T02:57:00.000-07:002008-07-22T02:57:00.000-07:00Ersamus-"I'm more inclined to use the Ben USN (Ret...Ersamus-<BR/>"I'm more inclined to use the Ben USN (Ret) "Just ask" approach rather than the light socket approach."<BR/><BR/>Yep! You can either ask questions about the shorting probe or become the shorting probe (a little inside Navy joke).USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-79342889130706835242008-07-22T02:48:00.000-07:002008-07-22T02:48:00.000-07:00Ersamus-"Kind of like citizens of a city who don't...Ersamus-<BR/>"Kind of like citizens of a city who don't care where the electricity comes from as long as they can still turn on the lights."<BR/><BR/>That is the best analogy I have heard yet! :^)USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-45865619013275228432008-07-22T02:45:00.000-07:002008-07-22T02:45:00.000-07:00Robin said-"Nevertheless, if Bob were a scoundrel ...Robin said-<BR/>"Nevertheless, if Bob were a scoundrel who in spite of himself still channeled Truth, Beauty and Goodness, the Raccoonosphere wouldn't exist. It's the real-ization and assimilation that make the OC difference as they so profoundly and consistently penetrate to the Essential. I never get the impression that Raccoons are interested in using O, but in living in O."<BR/><BR/>Bravo Zulu, Master Robin! <BR/>Not to mention the "behind the scenes work" of Cousin Dupree. <BR/>The man has brought the use of blowtorches and pliers to the heights of artdom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-92137624179159048322008-07-22T02:37:00.000-07:002008-07-22T02:37:00.000-07:00Julie-Well, you are on a blogcation, not a comment...Julie-<BR/>Well, you are on a blogcation, not a commentcation, so you're not explicitely breakin' any rules or nothin'.USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-68938489110881779802008-07-22T02:34:00.000-07:002008-07-22T02:34:00.000-07:00Speakin' of "y'all", Ray is the very first atheist...Speakin' of "y'all", Ray is the very first atheist I have ever heard use that term. <BR/>Not sure if he uses it while talking, but it would sound kinda funny to hear an atheist quoting Carl Sagan sayin' "y'all" in a southern accent. <BR/><BR/>Good ol' boy atheism? :^)USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-5122764875876343522008-07-22T02:29:00.000-07:002008-07-22T02:29:00.000-07:00Julie and Johan-Well, I'm certainly glad that you ...Julie and Johan-<BR/>Well, I'm certainly glad that you guys are exceptional.<BR/><BR/>Along with River, I look at y'all as Raccoon Prodigy's, not apprentices. <BR/><BR/>I mean, if you guys were my apprentices I would be stealing your ideas all the time. :^)USS Ben USN (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07492369604790651538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-4837624760151412762008-07-22T01:49:00.000-07:002008-07-22T01:49:00.000-07:00If you want to listen I think you can use this lin...If you want to listen I think you can use this link below. You will get to a page with links to different formats (external player like Windows Media Player or Real Player) and bandwidth choice.<BR/><BR/>http://www.sr.se/webbradio/include/incExternalPlayer.asp?Id=1261730&Type=broadcast&IsBlock=0&real=1&wmlow=1&wmhigh=1<BR/><BR/>The concerts starts about 14 minutes into the program.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-63037249274501062182008-07-22T01:16:00.000-07:002008-07-22T01:16:00.000-07:00"It's translated via google, so it's pretty funny...."It's translated via google, so it's pretty funny."<BR/><BR/>No kidding.<BR/><BR/>It hilarious if you know Swedish and get all the errors... one good example is the use of "Sin." in the text.<BR/>In Swedish the word "synd" can mean both "shame" and "sin", and the accurately translation should then be "It's a shame".<BR/><BR/>"What I want to know is, how can a buttre little man throw a filthy pliktskyldigt in a small inomhuslokaler instead of a utomhusfestivaler with jazzinriktning? That's crazy."<BR/><BR/>ROTFL! Swedish Chef must be working for the Google Translation dept.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-27315626975130318772008-07-22T01:11:00.000-07:002008-07-22T01:11:00.000-07:00Over 40?Then I guess I would have to call myself n...Over 40?<BR/><BR/>Then I guess I would have to call myself no more than a "raccoon apprentice", being as young as turning 33 in September.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com