First Principles

January 28th, 2020 at 1:07:57 PM permalink
toomuch
Member since: Dec 30, 2019
Threads: 0
Posts: 22
Quote: FrGamble
I would not say you are the devil or anything like that. I do have a hard time following your posts, but that is probably just me. I don't know exactly what of my beliefs you might consider "extreme". I do agree that usually extreme positions are not the place to be, it is usually taking some truth and taking it to the absurd.

I will try to fill in some of what I am writing here, but, it was never my intent to become crystal-clear about anything. This sort of medium lends itself more to reflecting outwardly on where we are at a given point in our lives. There are, of course, professional math and physics forums for the discussion of those things on a "talking shop" basis with like-minded persons.

Here is another quick quote from the internet. Note that a lot of my knowledge-base of classifications and such is from a few decades ago, when, eg, religion was taken as a branch of philosophy. I have little doubt that it still is, but, having outgrown such distinctions, I see no need to go back to redo any of that thinking. Heck, the last I heard, Russian chemistry classified ionic/covalent bonding as essentially the same type of bonding instead of the two we classified it as. Both interpretations are a matter of the same thing, electromagnetic charge, with the stress on the magnetic, at that level of bonding. (I guess that seeing the two as one, and versa, is sort of a marriage of ideas. Medical phages were another basic Russian notion picked up on by us.) Just to add, that with marriages of ideas, and ways and extents of looking at things, the group has to in some ways be the individual while the individual is the group. The two would be very difficult to separate in either definition, itself, or theory and/or practice.

Quote:
Some say that physics is nearing its end because it will soon answer all its questions; I am not that optimistic. Others claim that philosophy is already at an end because its questions will never be answered and, perhaps, should never have been asked; I am not that pessimistic. I bring the non-news that, as usual, neither our successes nor our failures are at an end.

For physics to answer all its questions would be a triumph of human ingenuity. Yet it is precisely the ingenuity of human beings which makes me doubt that we will ever reach this consummation. For philosophy to leave its questions unaddressed would be a tragic abandonment of reflection and meaning. Yet it is precisely the inescapability of philosophical questions, the fact that they are not merely academic, but arise in life, which makes me doubt that we will ever suffer such a loss.

From the quote, and, I guess, many other things, it may become fairly obvious that, in many ways, philosophy, and, hence, religion, is fundamentally at odds with science. To take the quote a step further, perhaps, the stronger the science, then the weaker the religion.

But, as noted, earlier, we know that science can't be completed. It stands in its own way with its own laws, and other results. We are, on the end of it, limited by the very things science points out to us. Eg, nothing routine, in any commonly thought of sense, may exceed the speed of light in a given medium. For science to get past itself, it must give something up. On the other hand, existence/non-existence, reality/fantasy, certainty/uncertainty, God/Devil, "love of knowledge", however you want to think of and write it, it, too, must give something up to get past itself.

I find things to work out better with science as something separate, and down the road a bit, from reality. And, to keep the atheism and theism stuff together. As well, to approach religion and the like from the science side of things because of its availability of names for and ways of looking at things in specific and general. Philosophy is just so "inbred", intense and divisive that it is hard to get a finger-hold on it. I think that there's something to it, but that way too much is made of it. Keep it in the fore/background where it belongs? Best to, eventually, have the physical model reduced to the level of the periodic table, at which point you have only the numbers to work with. The numbers go relatively fast, and, of course, can't lie. If you get 2 + 2 = 5, at this point, then you're fricked, have to re-adjust, re-think, and re-hope-and-pray. The most-fun part is when the numbers all-of-a-sudden start to fall into place.

Because science can't be completed, it appears that philosophy can't be abandoned, even in principle, assuming that these two things are indeed fundamentally at odds with each other. I called them the usual, "apples, and oranges". I might call the philosophy the science-itself, and, science as science-in-general, and science-in-specific. Putting things this way puts out things that we can interrelate to find consistency of simpler terms and assumptions.

What may philosophy offer that science can't? Things to do with certainty, such as finity, and infinity, the latter of which math and physics already avoids with a passion. Science advances in spits and spurts, but is neither finite nor infinite. It can't really even much extend a human's lifespan, which has remained remarkably intact for eons. What has changed dramatically about that is the infant mortality rate.
Were there a God, per se, then there wouldn't be any atheists, to begin with.
January 28th, 2020 at 1:17:47 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: toomuch
I will try to fill in some of what I am writing here


Sorry dude. If you want your
posts read you have to find
a way to get to the point.
I'm not going to read all
that rambling trying to
figure out what you're
saying. If you're just writing
to entertain yourself, carry
on. I won't be reading it.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
January 29th, 2020 at 4:37:03 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
Quote: Evenbob
Where did I call him a liar. He
calls me a liar all the time.


I don't always call you a liar. You are wrong about so many things and since you won't really listen to anyone you keep repeating the same wrong thing. I don't know if that is lying because I really believe you have so closed your mind off to certain things that you are stuck in your ignorance and error. This might be your crutch if you will. A blind faith that Christianity is for weak minds and weak people. You need to believe this for some strange reason.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
January 29th, 2020 at 10:05:23 AM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: FrGamble
that Christianity is for weak minds and weak people. You need to believe this for some strange reason.


It's what I see, hard to argue
with what I see. It's a fact
that 85% of Catholic priests
were raised in the Church
and went to Catholic schools.
So it's no shock when they
decide to do their religion for
a living. They were never
given a chance to kick the
crutch to the curb and think
for themselves. So they're
taught how to enable their
co-dependent followers and
keep the crutch mentality
alive.

"Most Christians, of course, understand that their relationship with God involves dependency. We depend upon God for our needs, for our identity, for life itself. We are dependent on God. Unfortunately, however, many Christians have a difficult time distinguishing between a healthy dependence on God and an unhealthy dependence, or codependency."

'Many Christians' should be changed
to 'most Christians' when it comes
to having an unhealthy dependence
of their invisible best friend.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
January 29th, 2020 at 1:23:07 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
I do love how much value you put on the evidence of your own personal experience, please remember that for future discussions.

I'm not sure where you get that fact about priests. I never went to Catholic schools and now a days most priests I know also never went to Catholic schools. Many did not even grow up in a Catholic family.

Finally, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but we are all dependent on something. You have chosen your own limited mind and opinions to lean on. I depend on the loving creator of the universe who became man, died for our sins and rose again. Maybe you should look to challenging your beliefs and finding something a little more solid and tested then just being totally dependent on your god of "me, myself, and I"
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
January 29th, 2020 at 1:41:23 PM permalink
toomuch
Member since: Dec 30, 2019
Threads: 0
Posts: 22
Quote: FrGamble
I don't know if that is lying because I really believe you have so closed your mind off to certain things that you are stuck in your ignorance and error.
Only a strong mind can hurt itself.

Quote: FrGamble
You need to believe this for some strange reason.
It's his "sure ticket" to Heaven.
Were there a God, per se, then there wouldn't be any atheists, to begin with.
January 29th, 2020 at 1:53:00 PM permalink
toomuch
Member since: Dec 30, 2019
Threads: 0
Posts: 22
Quote: FrGamble
I'm not sure where you get that fact about priests. I never went to Catholic schools and now a days most priests I know also never went to Catholic schools. Many did not even grow up in a Catholic family.

Quote:
I don't know the statistics.
I CAN tell you that I recently met a doctor whose appearance and name were familiar. So I asked. "Was your father a doctor in (town)?". He said yes, and as we chatted a moment. I discovered he has 16 family members who all became doctors!
Leslie Jean Rhodes, CCU/ICU, OB, Neonatal, Geriatrics, ER& Trauma ER, Med Surg
Were there a God, per se, then there wouldn't be any atheists, to begin with.
January 29th, 2020 at 3:51:40 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: FrGamble
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but we are all dependent on something.


But Xtions are over dependent, they are
encouraged to be codependent, to go
to god and Jesus for everything. It's
the opposite of self sufficient, it's
cloyingly dependent in every way.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
January 29th, 2020 at 4:24:02 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 67
Posts: 7596
If you believed in God would you think it possible to be overly dependent upon Him?
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
January 29th, 2020 at 4:32:38 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Quote: FrGamble
If you believed in God would you think it possible to be overly dependent upon Him?


It's a fact that it's hugely
encouraged, that's the issue.
Got a problem, give it to god,
turn it over to god, let god
decide, pray before you do
anything. There is no god, you're
the one making the decisions,
get rid of the god middleman.

Xtionity keeps you permanently
in a state of juvenile emotional
dependence. You have to constantly
get your parents/gods permission
to act. It's exactly where the Church
wants you, a basket case without
them.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.