Dawkins can't make his mind up whether the universe came from "literally nothing" or "something mysterious" What do you guys think?
Dawkins can't make his mind up whether the universe came from "literally nothing" or "something mysterious" What do you guys think?
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
With youIt has to be "literally nothing," because "something mysterious" just pushes the problem down a level.
Not with youOf course, there may be no difference between something and nothing.
How do we know that the concept of "absolutely nothing" is coherent? It sounds interesting, and it's fun to try to imagine it, but it might not be a thing.Not with you
It might not be coherent but it is absolutely nothing by definition. Either it exists or it doesn't, it cannot be something.How do we know that the concept of "absolutely nothing" is coherent? It sounds interesting, and it's fun to try to imagine it, but it might not be a thing.
~~ Paul
By "might not be a thing" I meant that it might not be a coherent concept. We can define it, but we might be defining something that cannot be.It might not be coherent but it is absolutely nothing by definition. Either it exists or it doesn't, it cannot be something.
Hmmm - are you even sure this discussion is coherent? IMHO, this is exactly the sort of topic which should be tackled primarily by philosophers!By "might not be a thing" I meant that it might not be a coherent concept. We can define it, but we might be defining something that cannot be.
~~ Paul
Probably so, though I have no idea how they could determine whether something is the same as nothing. Heck, many of them have given up on free will!Hmmm - are you even sure this discussion is coherent? IMHO, this is exactly the sort of topic which should be tackled primarily by philosophers!
Hmmm - are you even sure this discussion is coherent? IMHO, this is exactly the sort of topic which should be tackled primarily by philosophers!
David
That's why they put the P in PHD. How much of the "science" we are told is actually nothing but philosophy?Hmmm - are you even sure this discussion is coherent? IMHO, this is exactly the sort of topic which should be tackled primarily by philosophers!
David
I believe that because I can't believe anything elseSometimes philosophers think too much ;) ... seems pretty obvious that nothing is no-thing and I choose to believe that because I have free will.
The real point here is that it is possible mathematically to have a model in which time stops at the big bang. I remember reading Stephen Hawkins' book "A brief History of Time", in which he speculated that time should be treated as complex near the singularity of the big bang - so time didn't exactly stop, but curved away from the real axis!Probably so, though I have no idea how they could determine whether something is the same as nothing. Heck, many of them have given up on free will!
~~ Paul
In general terms, how does one recognise when a scientific discussion has turned into a philosophical one?Hmmm - are you even sure this discussion is coherent? IMHO, this is exactly the sort of topic which should be tackled primarily by philosophers!
David