Thread 24546739

While I myself am very much an atheist-leaning agnostic, I still see a lot of value in theological and philosophical explanations of nature, even if they're not scientifically demonstrable or valid in that way.

This is where someone like Richard Dawkins and I diverge in our views regarding religion. I am not nearly as anti-religion as he is, but then again, I didn't grow up in such a religious environment as he did.

In a word, is there a way to reconcile the beliefs of past philosophers and theologians with our modern understanding of the world?

picrel, someone I look up to.

>>24546739 (OP)
wow you look up to a anglo cuck whose life's biggest contribution was proving 2+2 = 4 and getting mogged to oblivion by wittgod. Really fascinating, tell more about yourself

>>24546739 (OP)
science being attacked by leftists

>>24546739 (OP)
Philosophical explanations that are genuinely philosophical do not compete with natural science at all they just consider its grounds. If Aristotle says that form is prior to matter, or if Kant says nature is phenomenal, that has nothing to do with natural science. Again if Kant says purposiveness is a merely subjective maxim, and Aristotle says it's the actuality of living things, that has no bearing on the science of biology. You claim to "see a lot of value" in philosophical explanations of nature but you don't even seem to know what philosophy is. If you're sincere, follow the meme course and start with the Categores + Plato's Dialogues. Work through Aristotle and Plato together, which will take at least a year if you're actually studying and thinking through the books, then move on to the medievals, early modern sophists, and the idealists. But you're probably some mealy-minded STEMfag who is not actually smart enough for philosophy. On the off chance that you are, that's how you go about it in an intelligent way.

>>24546739 (OP)
Interesting question but this isn't the board to ask it on, there are no serious philosophers here. Used to be some knowledgeable anons but they left years ago.

>>24546806
>Used to be some knowledgeable anons but they left years ago.
I refuse to use /his/ and /sci/ is too autistic for me
what do

>>24546739 (OP)
fag

>>24546739 (OP)
The "Enlightenment" tradition from Bacon, Hobbes, and Descartes to the present era of scientific philosophy, is essentially Luciferian in that it has misled generations of minds into turning away from the One and toward the Manifold in seeking the ground of reality. Many in the current generation will experience ontological shock upon learning what they are about to learn.

>>24546739 (OP)

Kek. Good b8

>filename
bait

>>24546739 (OP)
They deal with different subject matters. Science is not really at odds with theology

>>24547788
>Science is not really at odds with theology
Are you sure about that

>>24547816
Yes

>>24547816
There are four aspects of any single thing in terms of which one can give an account: (a) its nature, (b) how it interacts with other natures, (c) what it is made of, and (d) what is its nature directed toward. Science literally confines itself to only (b) and (c) because only those are *quantifiable* and thus subject to control. It ignores (a) and (b), and to the extent that it asserts that they don't exist, as it so often does, then it exists in unreality, in FANTASY LAND.

>>24547571
Have you read any classical German philosophy? It is entirely about the unity of thinking and being and relating everything to an absolute One, though obv they treat it in different ways.

>>24547907
>It ignores (a) and (b),
I meant here (a) and (d).

>>24547907
yes, science only looks at material and efficient causes. which is dumb because the formal cause is literally what makes anything quantifiable, since mathematics is purely formal and anything measurable in the physical sciences is made thus and so precisely by a formal resemblance (a morphism) with the a priori forms of mathematical objects.

>>24548067
and the dreaded final cause that scientists hate so much. guess what, Aristotelian causes aren't necessarily temporally sequential. the final cause is embedded in the actualization of anything that exists here and now. 'purpose' and 'telos' are just terms that obfuscate from the reality that the final cause is the intelligible whole towards which the efficient cause is actualizing to, and that's every efficient cause, ie. insofar as anything exists in actuality, its actualization is made intelligible by its final cause at that exact moment.

>>24546771
The coping and seething over Russell's achievements is endlessly hilarious. Bertrand Russell will still be admired and venerated long after your entire existence has been expunged from human memory. Sweet dreams!

>>24548620
Yeah? So shall Lizzo live on long after I've coomed to my last anime feet pic. Doesn't make her accomplishments great.

>>24546739 (OP)
Read Lakatos and Feyerabend.

>>24548623
Jewish Pop Culture =/= Real Academic Achievement

>>24547021
>>>/lgbt/

>>24546739 (OP)
>vs
Absolute NPC tier thinking

>>24546739 (OP)
Read Gödel's life & world; it's a complete refutation of Bertrand Russell and Logical Positivism. Gödel was a magnitude higher in intelligence than Russell despite the latter being a magnitude higher in status (in his time).
Incompleteness was a wrecking ball on anti-theistic secularism and idealism since it confirmed that man-made axiomatic systems of understanding Nature will never-be completely self-contained and self-understood (Nature is ultimately incomprehensible on it's own). We'll never make up a perfect metaphysical explanation for the how/why this place and we exist without a hyper-complete explanation (God); hence the importance of a posteriori revelation/epistemology; there's away a first describer of Holy Fire to his fellows as incomplete as it first is.
Remember, man didn't create this place ourselves.

>>24546739 (OP)
>vs
>atheist-leaning agnostic
>not scientifically demonstrable
>This is where someone like Richard Dawkins and I diverge in our views
>In a word, is there a way to reconcile the beliefs of past philosophers and theologians with our modern understanding of the world?
>picrel, someone I look up to
Either excellent bait or OP is the biggest midwit NPC on the board.

>>24548880
Bertrand hated Gödel for implicitly proving God must exist.
Every smart person above ~180 IQ knows this.

>>24548884
I was bored and made this post and left it unread for 18 1/2 hours

I didn't think this bait would stay up for so long

>>24548893
and there's nothing more humbling to a smart ass pretender (e.g. Russell) than realizing they aren't God/Masters of Metaphysics.
it means his ass has to go sit in church instead of at the lecture hall

>>24548893
and there's nothing more humbling to a smart ass pretenders like Russell than realizing they aren't God/Masters of Metaphysics.
it means he had to go sit his ass in church instead of standing in front of the lecture hall

>>24548880
tired of people who don't understand mathematics talking about the incompleteness theorems. fuck off already.

>>24548880
>Gödel
Literally who

>>24548893
Theists coping over Russell's decimation of their worldview is extremely amusing. Please continue, and add in some seething if you wouldn't mind.

>>24549689
>it's afraid

>>24548884
I'm leaning towards the former

>>24546739 (OP)
Why are you guys popping up everywhere? Go away, fag

>>24549545
tired of midwits who don't understand the philosophical implications beyond the mathematical/formal logic ones.
remember, there's a layer of people way smarter than you; the epistemic/phenomenological difference between feeling and knowing you know something. if you can't tell the difference... then mind the gap.
there's a huge chance I'm smarter than you; way bigger than non-zero.
there's also an ever bigger chance you are a massive faggot

>>24552080
didn't read, nigger. fuck off to >>>/x/

>VS
Tribalism is a fucking mistake.

>>24551420
>>24551434

Sure. Take what we know of the real world, then overlay whatever belief system you like. You won't ever agree with every single thing a particular philosopher or theologian says, so just trimp out what is conflicting and create your own worldview. Your personal philosophy isn't dictated by others, and you can shape and form it to your own needs. Read some atheist philsopher, read some theists. You can read Camus and Aquinas and find value from both. Create your own individual reconciliation because you will find no purpose in life if you do not design your own and acknowledge the lack of an objective purpose.

>>24552736
I would rather the while board be filled with chatgpt jeet slop than the anti-Christian vermin

>>24546771
You type like a 14 year old who just discovered 4chan.org

>>24549686
Read more

>>24552582
Unfortunately its the basis of civilization

>>24553763
You fell for a cult 2,000 years after the original con-man died. Amazing.

Poor Russell. Everyone's so hard on him.

>>24553882
Though silly that anon is correct about Russell. His contributions to analytical philosophy are very minute and have been made irrelevant long ago. He was also a midwit who could hardly refrain from sublimating his annoyance with continental aesthetic impulses in philosophy because he was just bereft of the necessary intuition, hence he detested Nietzsche etc…

>>24548880
Uhm you’re very confused anon. Incompleteness absolutely has no theological implications and is just a theorem of axiomatic systems. What you’re thinking of is his ontological argument for God which is heavily disputed in contemporary analytical philosophy and is likely unsound imo.

>>24555285
no I read it correct. reduce and apply it to formal complex binary systems. same principles apply to Information Theory as they do to Set Theory.
again, don't lecture me on something I clearly know more about than you; you're just parroting cautionary smart people lines "Uh achkshuly schrodinger's cat is about..."
we don't need more of you people.
we need more smart people that can go above and beyond shit; not fakers in the cult of IQ.

>>24555310
Alright anon is you’re so well versed in the formal sciences present me a sound argument, in syllogistic form, concluding that if it is the case that incompletess is true then God exists and then by modus ponens God exists, I won’t even dispute the latter because incompleteness is likely a true account of axiomatic systems. I just want the conditional. You can continue to spout horseshit or just be the good pretender that you are and produce the argument. In both cases I’ll make sure you embarrass you.

>>24555317
and go read a book btw.
this is a /lit/
here's a free lesson but it has an IQ filter.

>>24555310
Alright anon if you’re so well versed in the formal sciences present me a sound argument, in syllogistic form, concluding that if it is the case that incompletess is true then God exists and then by modus ponens God exists, I won’t even dispute the latter because incompleteness is likely a true account of axiomatic systems. I just want the conditional. You can continue to spout horseshit or just be the good pretender that you are and produce the argument. In both cases I’ll make sure to embarrass you.

go to church, I don't gotta prove shit to some sophisticated nihilistic; you'll become "one with nothing" soon enough as you will/wish
>>24555321
and go read a book btw.
this is a /lit/
here's a free lesson but it has an IQ filter.

>>24555320
If this is the kind of shit that you read its already established that you cannot operate a syllogism, you’re a midwit juvenile goofball who just discovered formal logic and is all in adolescent hysteria about it but you’ll grow out of it I eventually. At any case you’re clearly not on my level so I’ll just leave you to your ramblings.

>>24555331
and you're a self-sophist of the lowest of cunning.
moralfagging on 4chan the way you are... for shame

>>24546739 (OP)
God, who cares. There probably isn’t a way to ubiquitously reconcile religion and modern science. I mean, the cosmologies of ancient religions are obsolete and nobody has found a violation of a physical laws (save differences in scale - which are still comprehensible) which invalidates the quote unquote “supernatural”. But I’m tired of science obsession and the religious reactionaries who counterbalance this obsession. I don’t think it’s a good thing that the only valid aspects of life are objectified abstractions and reductions or subjectivisms which are essentially meaningless.

>>24555329
Anon ive read this horseshit book before your coming into literacy. Its all commercial bluff and pseudo rigmarole, trash journalese accounts akin to those of of the degrasse tyson nigger.

>>24555340
ok. but is he wrong about the applications of meta set theory?

>>24555334
Deep conceptual confusion lurks within your cranium.

>>24555344
i.e. the set of that includes the set of itself [A(A)]

>>24555344
Yes. And besides the info you’ve memorized from wikipedia articles on mathematics and logic you hardly know what those theories are, so stop using words you dont grasp sufficiently and read more.

>>24555340
and yes, I think his general goofiness and allegories suck throughout the book. we all thought of better ones/jokes while reading the lames ones.

>>24555351
please don't project.
i'm not you.
this isn't solipsism and we all don't exist to relate to YOU.
I exist more than you.
clearly.

>>24555351
feels tough being small.
doesn't it?

>>24555354
I honestly dont know what the fuck you’re saying now. It seems that you are in hysterics so I’ll leave you to it.

>>24555358
4 seconds smarter than you anon...

>>24555358
>muh syllogism
if incompleteness is correct, then all anthropological man made formal axiomatic systems (like this one used on itself) is incomplete and can't ultimately self-justify itself on an epistemic level and never will. thus all stupid little philosophies and ideologies built on their own little axioms are too incomplete and thus terrible spiritual substitutes; marxism will never lead to a utopia and the technocratic will never figure out what makes man tick.
man need God more than God needs man.
you lose.
God wins.
You're not describing reality without God; doesn't work.
It'll always be Incomplete.
Creation + God = Sense

>>24555437
>>You're not describing reality without God; doesn't work.
and this is a fact on the most basic, fundamental, mathematical, logical first order level.
that's metaphysical ground you walk on.

>>24555329
>go to church

>>24555437
You seem to be very saturated by the confusion that lurks in most internet apologetics and have likely never read any serious piece of work on contentions about theism. Are you presenting some form of the transcendental argument? i only asked for a syllogism so that I can look at your premises without much of the dimwit ramblings in wall text.

>>24555448
Yes, it does work. What piece of data naturalism fails to explain but theism does? This is all I need to evaluate the hypothesis plus some other peripheral considerations