Pt. 3
I don't care about theories, just reality. I'm OK with "theory" Gods but that's not the type of Gods who people use to change our reality.
Don't mistake what I'm saying here. I'm saying, one is said to exist, one isn't. That's the difference.
But quarks, etc, all make themselves known.
Quarks are theoretical entities and we've never empirically observed one. We theorize their existence via mathematics.
Plus, there is a certain tautology present in detecting quarks. We're made of quarks, using instruments made of quarks, to detect quarks?
Doesn't work that way. Like I said; and all of academia says for that matter; quarks are theoretical.
It's possible that we don't have the instruments yet to detect God. We could one day, I don't know.
We can't. Scientific instruments don't work outside of spacetime, as science only works on the physical (spatiotemporal).
I'm not a math guy but either mathematical objects describe reality (ex: Pi) or it's something way beyond me but I don't believe something like that is where gods would hide.
I'm not saying that. Hiding, or being located, is a spatiotemporal process. I'm merely stating that mathematical objects exist spatiotemporallessly, and so would god, if he exists (which I don't think he does).
It's certainly not in their nature based on the descriptions in various holy texts.
Well... classical-theism, and all of the greatest theologians of all time say otherwise (e.g. Aquinas).
Sure but note that it doesn't affect my life. I'd care a lot more if their conclusions were that SsurebreC is to blame and he must be killed. Big Bang, evolution, climate change, etc, are pretty much irrelevant to me in my daily life. This is unlike religious claims of Gods where, if they were true, I need to drastically change my life right now.
Fair enough; but you can rest pretty easily that all of religion is myth. Again, this is not a bad thing. In fact, myth is a good thing, but we've stigmatized it since the enlightenment. The truth is that myth helps us, the human species, understand certain things that science can't help us understand. It's a mode of communication. Think: children's books, with talking animals. Clearly myth, but they help us teach kids about morals and what not. Religion is myth for grown ups. It tries to explain things via "lies to children" aka "wittgenstein ladders."
As an atheist myself, I believe in an unactualized actual (a "first cause" but "cause" is the incorrect word); I think it is wholly natural, but I think I reasonably hold a belief that there is a naturally existing "thing" whence our universe boundlessly finds its "origin" (aka an atemporal beginning) in. It's possible that timeless/spaceless (and thus eternal) absracta such as mathematical objects and logical laws (etc.) are what physical reality is supervenient upon (and how it exists). It may be that these abstracta are anthropomorphized by theologians as "God," to help the general public understand morality in a more adult sense, while also allowing religious leaders to reach into the pockets of their followers, and answering other general questions that really have no answers, such as "why are we here?" etc.
But I won't bore you with my beliefs. They're not super relevant here.
Just a tip... I'm obviously not a philosopher, a scientist, or even much of a debater. Take it easy on me - you clearly could be writing books and giving lectures on this stuff, if you don't already.
Hahahaha. Damn, I laughed so hard at this. Thank you. I will take it as a compliment. Nope, just an avid reader and debater. That's all. And I'm not holding back with you because I've seen your posts, and you're clearly more than competent to respond in turn with me; and you've also proven to me that you can handle adult discourse- this is not the case for many users here (this is also the reason that a lot of the really intelligent redditors stay away from here more often than not, and find refuge in places like /r/philosophy etc.).
Well crap, I thought it was my idea. I'll look into him, though I will say that philosophy isn't a hobby of mine.
Ahahaha. Sorry, you're funny (and I say that earnestly). Truth is, almost any idea you've had has probably already been thought up -not to mention thoroughly refuted (but not necessarily disproved, just argued against)- by a philosopher. Trust me... I know that feeling.
Nah, this type of a discussion just isn't my thing. I've also been distracted by the real world so on one hand, I'm eating this up, but on the other hand, I have other things on my mind.
You're a human being. And I'm writing a shit ton to you because I like writing and debating and spending my days off from work on reddit. Do what you can, but don't feel any obligation.
The difference is that philosophy - as I know it - has ideas but there are no real wrong ideas.
Well... that's not a completely accurate picture of philosophy. In fact, any type of theorizing in science is technically philosophy, so every theory is technically "natural philosophy." You really can't divorce science from philosophy; and the only thing that makes science different than philosophy is empiricism, and thus it's theories are falsifiable by nature.
Philosophy is different in how its theories cohere. There are certainly philosophical positions (broadly speaking in a multi-discipline sense) that are more coherent than others: and that's the key: whose philosophical positions are the most coherent?
Science has plenty of wrong ideas. The testability, reliability, and predictability of scientific experiments gives me confidence that it is true enough.
True. In a sense, science is a little easier this way. In fact, the theoretical portions of science that are actually difficult, such as mathematics, are really just a form of philosophy (with a sprinkling of empirical science).
For some things, like gravity, we can prove it through repeated experiments.
As I said before, you can demonstrate it over and over, but you can't prove it.
For other things, like Big Bang or abiogenesis, it's possible we can't ever prove it. To me, anyway.
Right. But because these are scientifically philosophical theories/models of reality, we see which ones are the most coherent with our observations, and are the most parsimonious. These two happen to be part of that parsimonious coherency. But we want a really coherent, parsimonious picture of the world.
I think what you may not have realized is that philosophy CAN be (but not always is) about being contiguous with science. In fact, you may prefer analytic philosophy (which is essentially as sciencey as you can get in terms of philosophy) to something like "continental philosophy" which is usually just a way of saying "not analytic," but can refer to philosophy that isn't necessarily "metaphilosophically naturalistic," or in simpler terms: necessarily contiguous with science as an enterprise.