Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wolsty" data-source="post: 17888" data-attributes="member: 175166">@ 2oldI'm not an atheist.&nbsp; I refuse to accept the label, since it implies that there is a being of which I deny the existence.&nbsp; However, I'm not an atheist for exactly the same reasons that you are.&nbsp; William of Ockham is, however, undoubtedly turning in his grave at the idea of his principle being used to deny the existence of a supreme being.It's abundantly clear, though, that if one dispenses with the concept of a god created in man's image, then life becomes much simpler and understandable.&nbsp; We don't have to engage in the sophistry of, for example, debating how and why an omnipotent, omniscient God permits to exist the misery and horrors perpretrated by a humankind possessed of free will or inflicts, apparently randomly, Alzheimer's, Motor Neurone Disease, flood and famine.Doesn't solipsism cause hair to grow on the palms of your hands?If we are living in a simulation, how would we ever know?&nbsp; Isn't this what logicians would call an unknowable proposition?One of the problems of Western philosophy (what little I know of it, anyway) seems to be the issue of there being only three states of being, ie true, false, unknowable.&nbsp; Some Eastern philosophies have, I understand, more states, eg true but unknowable.&nbsp; Perhaps we have to accept the infinite regression hypothesis which, as I understand it, translates as 'the more you know, the more you find out you don't know.&nbsp; The search for fundamental particles is a good illustration of this.&nbsp; Just as you think you've found the indivisible unit of matter, protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, strings, membranes appear.&nbsp; It's all very puzzling.On the question of philosophers, I'm beginning to come round to Feynman's way of thinking - he disliked and mistrusted them all.What is the sound of one hand clapping?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wolsty, post: 17888, member: 175166"] @ 2old I'm not an atheist. I refuse to accept the label, since it implies that there is a being of which I deny the existence. However, I'm not an atheist for exactly the same reasons that you are. William of Ockham is, however, undoubtedly turning in his grave at the idea of his principle being used to deny the existence of a supreme being. It's abundantly clear, though, that if one dispenses with the concept of a god created in man's image, then life becomes much simpler and understandable. We don't have to engage in the sophistry of, for example, debating how and why an omnipotent, omniscient God permits to exist the misery and horrors perpretrated by a humankind possessed of free will or inflicts, apparently randomly, Alzheimer's, Motor Neurone Disease, flood and famine. Doesn't solipsism cause hair to grow on the palms of your hands? If we are living in a simulation, how would we ever know? Isn't this what logicians would call an unknowable proposition? One of the problems of Western philosophy (what little I know of it, anyway) seems to be the issue of there being only three states of being, ie true, false, unknowable. Some Eastern philosophies have, I understand, more states, eg true but unknowable. Perhaps we have to accept the infinite regression hypothesis which, as I understand it, translates as 'the more you know, the more you find out you don't know. The search for fundamental particles is a good illustration of this. Just as you think you've found the indivisible unit of matter, protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, strings, membranes appear. It's all very puzzling. On the question of philosophers, I'm beginning to come round to Feynman's way of thinking - he disliked and mistrusted them all. What is the sound of one hand clapping? [/QUOTE]

Verification