How do you know you have Sensus divinitatis?

[boatsnguitars]

Calvin proposed the idea: that like sight, he had a sense that was used to feel God.

Of course, there is no God, so it can better be explained that Calvin had a feeling of something, thought he was super special, and he wanted to murder people so he pretended there was a God and used his religion to murder Servitus.

The issue for debate: why do people think that if they feel like Dracula is in the room with them, Then it's true that Dracula is in the room, and if you don't believe it, Dracula fans will kill you?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #131

This why a postulated nothing was called potential/numerical value. Because of physics (quantum physics in this case) the numerical potential to produce matter was there without needing creation. Just as the square, circle and right angle were always potentially there to describe matter and didn't need to be created.

In other words, since in a postulated nothing there would be no physics to make anything happen, there would be no physics to stop anything from happening, so anything could happen.

Even then, it happens without physics.

Let's look again at Krauss' own definition of Nothing, in the second clip I linked to: "no space, no time, no particles, no radiation.....nothing". Another question raised by his suggestion that the laws of physics came into existence when the universe itself began is that if physics was itself part of what was created, how can physics be what was doing the creating?

Didn't we already do this? Physics like mathematics or indeed the potential of time is there before there is any matter to make such potentials a reality. They do not exist but do not need Something to create them. Your effort to force a God that has to create these things like 'Dem Laws' (1) but then, who created the intelligent will to write down "Nature shall abhor a vacuum" just produces two problems instead of one. No, No. This is just trying to wangle a gap for a god (name your own) that merely multiplies logical problems in Cosmic origins.

(1) Stuck in my mind a film or vid about talking to people in the street and some traffic cop shouting "Who made dem Lors, anyways?"

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "Didn't we already do this? Physics like mathematics or indeed the potential of time is there before there is any matter to make such potentials a reality. They do not exist but do not need Something to create them"

And then you talk about a cameo from a film.

All this is retrospective gooblygook, T.

That thing that is there now( ie time, math, etc) was always there and didn't need making for it to have always been there. And you, mortal T, have figured this out and written it down. That would be as difficult to disprove as it would be to disprove God talk.

In your logical construct...

Gods who are made and not made were always there whether they are now made or not. There is the perfect pair of shoes for Cinderella , out there somewhere!
You have hit a ceiling of thought. It happens us all.
I enjoyed it, Thanks!

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "Didn't we already do this? Physics like mathematics or indeed the potential of time is there before there is any matter to make such potentials a reality. They do not exist but do not need Something to create them"

And then you talk about a cameo from a film.

All this is retrospective gooblygook, T.

That thing that is there now( ie time, math, etc) was always there and didn't need making for it to have always been there. And you, mortal T, have figured this out and written it down. That would be as difficult to disprove as it would be to disprove God talk.

In your logical construct...

Gods who are made and not made were always there whether they are now made or not. There is the perfect pair of shoes for Cinderella , out there somewhere!
You have hit a ceiling of thought. It happens us all.
I enjoyed it, Thanks!

You fall flat on your face,chum. I do not make this stuff up. I quote it when people more qualified than you or I come up with it. The Cosmic origins debate goes way back first with the Big bang and then of course the God -apologists realised that the Stuff from which the BB was made had to be there already so who made that stuff? 'Cosmic origins'. Something from nothing was the debate before anyone started listening to me (if they ever did). I might credit myself with arguing that something from nothing was the only coherent alternative to infinite existence or a god from nothing making stuff from nothing else.

But anyway, our pal athetotheist posted the Colbert clip where Krauss explained what we had already heard, 'nothing' produces virtual particles and no 'god'is necessary. You fail by trying to make out that this is something I just made up.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

Do you believe in reason? What is it, T?

logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) in ancient Greek philosophy and early Christian theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

Do you believe in reason? What is it, T?

logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) in ancient Greek philosophy and early Christian theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.

I can give my take on both. Reason hardly applies to the cosmos, but physics, which is what is stable and reliably repeatable. What is unstable does not exist.

And reason in humans. Problem solving evolved in order to enable species react in ways that ensure survival (1). It's astonishing how rodents can problem -solve. In humung beans, it becomes, like communication, art, society and moral codes, more complex and sophisticated to be fit for a more complex society. I might point to indicators of the puzzle of natural forces (particularly those that threatened food production if not human survival) and how to understand and even control these. Superstition (or religion as it is called) skipped the What and got onto the How, usually essaying a trade of something valuable for being excused whatever divine retribution the suppliant had coming.

Others tried to work out What. For instance, astrology tried to work out what the universe was planning. In time, this lead to astronomy and the relegation of the superstition to scammers and joke 'Stars' in the daily rag. Like the apologists say - the great old scientists believed in a creator. They did, but their work in time debunked a Creator.

This is human reason, a mix of curiosity and a need to understand and handle the environment. cue appeal to flawed morality (which is irrelevant).

The rules and laws of logic and investigation is reason, and the reason it does not work with religion is because that is based on a fallacy and so (logically) can never give a logically valid answer.

(1) of the tribe, if not the individual, as any honey bee or ant will tell you, if you ask it nicely.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Do you believe in reason? What is it?

logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) in ancient Greek philosophy and early Christian theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.

Thanks TRANSPONDER, for responding to my enquiry. It is open to all. The history of this concept is fascinating. I am not trying to steer this anywhere in particular, I promise.

Is human reason a limited tool or is it an ever giving resource, freely available to prompt us?TRANSPONDER mentions the vulnerability and folly of effort that is predicated on fallacy. I agree with this, generally ...Question

If we use human reason to attempt to achieve something that is beyond it's range, is that endeavour going to produce nonsense based on a fallacious process.

If we set out on a quest to know everything with the aid of human reason alone, is that then , a folly?

Simple Question and do not mention theism please, a general enquiry, this be. I feel that we need to explore other , less cognitive , intuitions. Do you disagree?

[alexxcJRO]

See post #112.
That's that interview and is what is said. Colbert was trying to insist on Something that needed creation and Krauss is saying no, a nothing that doesn't need creation can itself produce virtual particles because mathematically, it must.

Krauss when its says Nothing means lowest state of quantum fields that produce only virtual particles that last a very short period of time->quantum fluctuation.

In Inflation Theory we have an inflation field and a serious quantum fluctuation causes the field to get in a certain state to produce a kind of "inflation particle" which is billions times smaller then a proton which then inflated very fast(Dark Energy) till the field "calmed down" and then we had Big Bang.

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello

Do you believe in reason? What is it?

logos, (Greek: “word,” “reason,” or “plan”) in ancient Greek philosophy and early Christian theology, the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning.

Thanks TRANSPONDER, for responding to my enquiry. It is open to all. The history of this concept is fascinating. I am not trying to steer this anywhere in particular, I promise.

Is human reason a limited tool or is it an ever giving resource, freely available to prompt us?TRANSPONDER mentions the vulnerability and folly of effort that is predicated on fallacy. I agree with this, generally ...Question

If we use human reason to attempt to achieve something that is beyond it's range, is that endeavour going to produce nonsense based on a fallacious process.

If we set out on a quest to know everything with the aid of human reason alone, is that then , a folly?

Simple Question and do not mention theism please, a general enquiry, this be. I feel that we need to explore other , less cognitive , intuitions. Do you disagree?

Human reason applied to wot we know not is ok, so long as we know it is speculation and hypothesis. If we recognise the limitation, it'so k; we won't be misled. There can me all sorts of guesses and science may get some ideas about howto research.

Philosophy is great for this, and places where science doesn't reach. It is when philosophy tries to do the job of research science that it comes a cropper.

[TRANSPONDER]

See post #112.
That's that interview and is what is said. Colbert was trying to insist on Something that needed creation and Krauss is saying no, a nothing that doesn't need creation can itself produce virtual particles because mathematically, it must.

Krauss when its says Nothing means lowest state of quantum fields that produce only virtual particles that last a very short period of time->quantum fluctuation.

In Inflation Theory we have an inflation field and a serious quantum fluctuation causes the field to get in a certain state to produce a kind of "inflation particle" which is billions times smaller then a proton which then inflated very fast(Dark Energy) till the field "calmed down" and then we had Big Bang.

Thank you. That's good clarification. However, I have to say that Krauss did see virtual particles as evidence that something from nothing was a viable alternative to an act of magical creation.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "Human reason applied to wot we know not is ok, so long as we know it is speculation and hypothesis. If we recognise the limitation, it'so k; we won't be misled. There can me all sorts of guesses and science may get some ideas about howto research. Philosophy is great for this, and places where science doesn't reach. It is when philosophy tries to do the job of research science that it comes a cropper."
----
This creates a torrent of questions for me.
Do you attach equal kudos or prestige to philosophy and theology. Are they equally valid avenues of enquiry. If not then why?

You suggest a process whereby intellectual speculation and conjecture (philosophy), helps focus scientific research to move in specific directions. How does this work?

Surely it descends into a kids game of leap-frog where philosophical thought , influenced by scientific developments feels further encouraged to prompt towards something previously unconsidered.
Eg - fire is good - contain fire and cook- wow, steam, explosions, wow, combustion, wow, power, fusion,
wow!

This combination of evolving conjecture and tenacious development gathers an acceleration that is not reversible or controllable, in any real sense. The open agenda and the lack of a specific remit at the start causes catastrophe.
We are learning by accident, if you like, and we will go where it takes us. Add greedy opportunism and exploitation to this free for all and you get what we got.

Imagine if we exercised caution by recognizing our limitations, both cognitively and in our genetics, and had a philosophy of caution and control. Imagine if we took ,one step at a time.

Imagine if you were not allowed to catch or eat a fish until another one was there to replace it. Trawler and net developments on hold while research becomes focused on regeneration of depleted stocks. etc, etc. Just a simple example that would eminate from a defining wisdom.

The philosophy science partnership, that you articulate, just characterizes fallacious endeavour without recognizing it as such. I personally think that we need more than this reasoned approach to 'reign' ourselves in.
It is not working as an approach and please do not interject that it is the best we have, even if that may well be true.
Thanks