What Is Your Definition of "God"?

[sage]

canute said
"Atoms, neutrinos, quarks, superstrings, vibrating branes in 28
dimensions, it's turtles all the way, as Terry Pratchett would say,
either that or ex nihilo creation. If you try to explain matter by
reduction then you get an infinite regression and no end to the
explanation. This is the problem."

the turtles end at Planck length.it has to for obvious reasons. what is happening at plack length is the central problem of physics and there are various theories competing with each other offering different views of Planck scale phenomenon. future will tell us which of them will succeed. but that is not the point. the point is thesequestions are scientific questions and not metaphysical ones(in fact there are no metaphysical questions).

canute said
"
These are not scientific questions. Questions of ultimate orgins and
the nature of essence are metaphysical questions (according to
scientists). "


once again what is essence? why are the questions metaphysical? what is
wrong with the explanation i have given, are those exlanations not scientific?
which theory says that science cannot answer them? i do not care if some
scientists believe that the questions are metaphysical,what i care about is
whether science has justified such a belief.there is a difference between
scientists and science the former being a human being all of whose opinions
cannot have basis in proofs or observations and hence cannot be scientific.
so canute you must justify your assertion before i accept it.

canute said
"What is matter' is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.
This isn't my opinion, it follows from the unfalsifiablity of
idealism and the undecidability of the problem of attributes"

a bit more elaboration will be welcome.

canute said
"In fact there is no
scientific evidence either way. It's a metaphysical question,
defined as such by science (not by me)."

i am going to dispute your claim vehemently. having read 2-3 scientific
books on free will, consciousness etc. i am not prepared to accept your claim
that science has declared free will as beyond its bound.knowing nothing what
so ever about materialism i am going to pass this on to anyone more knowledgeable
about this.

regarding macginn, i will try to find the book. a brief note on what you
have understood from it will be welcome in the meantime.

 

[Canute]

canute said ...snip

the turtles end at Planck length.it has to for obvious reasons.

What do you mean by obvious reasons?

what is happening at plack length is the central problem of physics

A fact that I take to slightly support my suggestion that science has to turn to metaphysics at some point in explaining matter.

and there are various theories competing with each other offering different views of Planck scale phenomenon. future will tell us which of them will succeed. but that is not the point. the point is thesequestions are scientific questions and not metaphysical ones(in fact there are no metaphysical questions).

I think you'll find it's not easy to imagine a complete scientific explanation of matter. As soon as you say that it's made out of 'x' you can ask what 'x' is made out of.

I sort of agree about metaphysical questions but not completely. It seems clear that such questions have incorrect assumptions built into them, as a logical positivist would argue, and that this is why thay are unanswerable. However the question then becomes one of which of these assumptions are false, which amounts to an equivalent metaphysical question.

For instance the question of idealism/materialism is undecidable. The question is not obviously meaningless so it must therefore embody a false assumption. But where is it?

once again what is essence? why are the questions metaphysical? what is wrong with the explanation i have given, are those exlanations not scientific?

Essence is what things are made out of, the 'ultimate substrate' of everything. It is beyond scientific investigation and thus is deemed a 'metaphysical substance'. Kant called it the 'noumenal', the 'thing in itself', others call it the 'absolute' or 'ultimate reality' etc. Plato said it was what lay outside his allegorical cave.

which theory says that science cannot answer them?

There's no theory, it is simply entailed by the (modern) definition of science that metaphysics exists, and that metaphysical questions are unanswerable by science.

i do not care if some scientists believe that the questions are metaphysical,what i care about is whether science has justified such a belief.there is a difference between scientists and science the former being a human being all of whose opinions cannot have basis in proofs or observations and hence cannot be scientific. so canute you must justify your assertion before i accept it.

I'm only agreeing with nearly everyone else. Perhaps 'Objectivists' deny the existence of metaphysics, but I'm not sure even they do.

canute said
"What is matter' is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.
This isn't my opinion, it follows from the unfalsifiablity of
idealism and the undecidability of the problem of attributes"

a bit more elaboration will be welcome.

You'd be better reading a decent general book on philosophy, but in a nutshell - if idealism is unfalsifiable then we cannot prove that matter is fundamental. We therefore cannot complete any scientific 'ontological' explanation of it. The problem of attributes is slightly different. It entails that whatever matter is made of, in the final reductionist analysis, it must be something with no external attributes. Such a substance is clearly beyond scientific investigation. Both problems are the really the same. (This relates to the scientific 'problem of consciousness' and the 'hard problem', but I won't go there).

i am going to dispute your claim vehemently. having read 2-3 scientific books on free will, consciousness etc. i am not prepared to accept your claim that science has declared free will as beyond its bound.knowing nothing what so ever about materialism i am going to pass this on to anyone more knowledgeable about this.

Science hasn't declared it beyond science, and I don't suppose it ever will. However there are logical reasons for supposing it is. Some of them are here:

http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/montreal.html

regarding macginn, i will try to find the book. a brief note on what you have understood from it will be welcome in the meantime.

It's really an autobiography focsusing on his intellectual development, so does not go into anything deeply. However its simplicity is what makes it worth reading. Some writers have the knack of simplifying (unlike yours truly).

 

[Kerrie]

i think this thread has gone long enough, it doesn't seem that we are defining "god" in a philosophical manner too much.