Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Today at 08:24 AM

What music are you listen...
Today at 03:46 AM

Nostalgia, nostalgia...
Today at 03:33 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
Yesterday at 06:25 PM

Qur'anic studies today
January 19, 2021, 03:27 AM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
January 16, 2021, 10:56 PM

Reading stabbings
January 15, 2021, 10:32 PM

Coronavirus crisis
January 15, 2021, 12:20 PM

Hello
January 09, 2021, 07:46 AM

Paris murder
January 08, 2021, 07:50 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
January 07, 2021, 03:21 AM

The Lady of the Heaven., ...
January 04, 2021, 05:10 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Kalam cosmological argument.

 (Read 9022 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #60 - February 06, 2015, 09:14 PM

    Quote from:  Other thread
     
    In this way, the burden of proof is related to the informal fallacy of ‘argument from ignorance’. It’s important to understand when this charge is actually a fallacy, and when it is not. Whether it sticks will depend on who has the burden of proof, which will depend on known background information. When intelligent design proponents claim that everything in the genome has a designed function and we just haven’t found it yet, that’s a fallacy. When the evolutionary biologist claims that there has never been found an instance of an intelligently designed biological organism, therefore ID is false, it is not a fallacy. The evidence is clearly on one side.

    Now a hard-nosed skeptic will perhaps reply that science isn’t complete, and we don’t know everything, so how can we categorically rule out the existence of things? But this is again to confuse ontology with epistemology, to treat knowledge as absolute truth rather than a provisional assessment of truth.


    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #61 - February 06, 2015, 09:23 PM

    Quote
    logics are just axiom systems which live in the space of all possible axiom systems.


    Here's an elaboration: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/918354/stephen-wolfram-on-axiomatic-systems

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #62 - February 06, 2015, 09:24 PM


    Qtian you may enjoy reading     Stephen Weinberg

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #63 - February 06, 2015, 09:32 PM

    Have you read the blog post by Sean Carroll Yeez, what do you make of it?

    I can't read too much of that word document, the formatting is hurting my eyes :(

    Quote
    Now we have the frustratingly annoying critique. Because: duh. If your criterion for “being interesting or important” comes down to “is useful to me in my work,” you’re going to be leading a fairly intellectually impoverished existence. Nobody denies that the vast majority of physics gets by perfectly well without any input from philosophy at all. (“We need to calculate this loop integral! Quick, get me a philosopher!”)


    Before Cosmology was accepted as a science, it found its home in Philosophy. Philosophy can be a useful auxiliary when exploring topics such as underdetermination.

    I'll raise your Weinberg and give you an Einstein:

    I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61-574)


    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Kalam cosmological argument.
     Reply #64 - February 06, 2015, 09:57 PM

    I'd have to say that this is my favourite video regarding the explanatory value of "God".
    This is why Bayes' theorem is useful.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI

    My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
  • Previous page 1 2 3« Previous thread | Next thread »