So what and where was god before he created himself ? This is a rhetorical question; I require no answer.
Threw the collective consciousness and belief of God, humanity will manifest the God that creates us. Maybe.
A Closed-Timelike Path, is when a particle travels in a path which leads them to the starting point... so the end is essentially the beginning, as much as vice versa. It can also been that the beginning of everything, was also the end, so there is an infinite loophole, and essentially removes the paradox of where everything came from. God is what made this loophole, and much as the loophole created God.
Myles: LOL. Philosophy has not been overtaken by science even in the least. Science requires philosophy to even function. See: Philosophy of Science. The paradigm under which science functions is metaphysical. I don't know what you're talking about. Neurophilosophy (the proper term is Philosophy of Mind) does not ape neuroscience. The most important concepts in Philosophy of Mind hav ecome from Dualists (Searle and Chalmers). LOL AGain. Stop being so sensitive and go look for the neuroscientific foundations of a sense of fucking humour, you twit. Also, neuroscience has found no foundation for homosexuality being innate. For one, the evolutionary disadvantage of homosexuality is tremendous. Secondly, exclusive homosexuality is a myth of the 20th century, refuted by the history of hetero or bisexuality throughout history. Your ignorance is hilarious on this matter. Science is premised on metaphysical assumptions of empiricism premised on the principle of sufficient reason.
Philosophy of science is for those who want to talk impressively without producing any resuts other than more topics to discuss ad nauseam. You are putting the cart before the horse. No science, no philosophy of science, which is an analysis of and commentary on science. I suggest you tell Patricia Churchland , who describes herself as a neurophilosopher, that she must re-define herself. If you regard innate homosexuality as a myth, you are beginning to sound like Phelps and his ilk. No doubt metaphysics and Bible studyu has a cure for this condition. I notice on another post of your where you refer to lesbianism as being a sign of our degenerate society, or wordfs to that effect. You have all the judgmental certainty of the ignorant. I can see that your background is in philosophy, except you never got as far as the bit that would have told you that resorting to ad homs. is a sign of someone who has nothing left to offer. Try finishing part one of the course ! As far as metaphysics is concerned you clearly have no Greek. Meta = beyond and as I said it originally referred to Aristotle's later work. Sorry about my lack of humour. I enjoy a bit of banter but I draw the line when it come to dealing with bigots. I shall not reply to any further posts of yours on this topic, so feel free to give full rein to your penchant for ad homs. and wild statements about homosexuals.
Myles: The scientific method is itself philosophy of science. Science depends upon the scientific method, ergo, science depends upon the philosophy of science. Gladly. Do you have her academic e-mail? I was referencing the absurdity of claiming a relationship with a transwoman consitutes "lesbianism". That we are now beginning to accept the ludicrous claims to being "female" by people who have an inverted penis butchered by doctors of loose ethics is a sign of our degenerate society. We live in a time of decadent decay, where we cannot even laugh at the insane. Also, I am not a Christian. Do you even know what metaphysics means? Because I am getting the impression that you do not. Actually, I am pursuing my Ph.D. in the subject. I am fully aware of the etymology of the word. It comes from the Library of Alexandria's cataloguing of Aristotle's works to be sudied "after physics".
Myles, since you have been so generous as to test the logical hypothesis of my posts, I think I will return the favor. Every scientific endeavor is based off of a philosophy. In fact, our leaps and bounds in science can be linked to a result of philosophy of science; that is scientific positivism, sound familiar? It's the belief that we can actually know anything. Unfortunately with the rise of post-modernism, positivism is fading out. Now our science is slowly evolving according to practical uses and not discovering overarching principles. Granted this is an overgeneralization but it is an example of a philisophical undercurrent affecting the way we do science. And in fact, if you want to find how all science is based off some philosophy, look up philosophy of science on wikipedia, as was suggested by the noble Prince James, defender of all things good ;]
Noone Special: For your recognition of my greatness, I give you a boon. Speak and it shall be given to you.
A boon? Well if you have a cream puff I should thoroughly enjoy a cream puff. A twinky would also do, or one of those lemon flavored things that resembles a twinky.
It systemizes and makes humanly intelligible the findings of scientific research. Properly employed, it blocks certain tendencies to error. Without its proper employment, people like B F Skinner or T D Lysenko or Edward Teller take over scientific endeavor. The current global warming controversy, for example, is a philosophical discussion with notably practical consequences, regardless of its conclusions.
Myles: Mathematics Politics Language Logic (in fact logic is a sub-division of philosophy) Computer science Ethics both in general and in specialized contexts Law Science (as established and specifically in the study of the mind) Furthermore, "practical" is not a prerequisite for philosophy. I'm not a physicalist, so I tend to avoid too much of her type of literature when I don't have a need to see it. But I'll send her off an e-mail, perhaps. A culture and civilization must have the ability to make a line of delineation between acceptable behaviour and beliefs and non-acceptable behaviour and beliefs. Letting people butcher themselves and then pretend to be the opposite sex is one of those things that ought to be construed as laughably unacceptable and any doctor which performs these butcherings should not be allowed to practice medicine. Better that we put these people in freak shows, as you suggest, than sanction their behaviour. Phelps is Christian, just also insane.
You are not a physicalist. Maybe yoy should have taken account of that before rushing to dismiss "neurophiloophy". You are too full of your own self-importance to recognize that you may be mistaken. An ideal mindset for a philosopher ! In another post of yours you expressed doubt about the existence of free-will. On the balance of current evidence, I am unclined to regard free-will as an illusion. However, unlike you, I do not rush to judge others because I live by what I believe in. You do not. Otherwise why not accept that what you call degenerate people are the way they are because they have no choice in the matter. So it seems that you have a long way to go to sort yourself out. With a bit of luck, you may succeed. I know all too well that practical is not a pre-requisite of philosophy. Neither is it a pre-requisite of doing crossword puzzles. I'll go with hard science which does some good in the world. If I have a disease. I go to a doctor, not a metaphysician. Please mention my name if you contact Patricia Churchland. I have met both her and her husband, Paul and they seemed to understand where I was coming from. Over and out
Myles: Regardless of whether I am a physicalist or not, the right term for philosophy of mind is...philosophy of mind. In that same thread I pointed out that I am a compatibilist. In every meaningful sense, people are free. As such, they are open to judgement. Their activities result from themselves and from their mindset, nature, upbringing, genes, inclinations, et cetera. As such, they are both praise worthy and blame worthy in every normal sense. Doctors are closer to being engineers than scientists. Their efforts are not to determine generla principles for the sake of knowledge (science), but to cure problems of the body (technology/engineering). As such, they are sort of human mechanics. What's your name?
Would that be a good thing though, a collective consciousness in the belief of God? Isn't that when a religious leader usually steps up and gets people to kill the other just because they believe in a God with a different name? Or get some gullible people to drink from the "Kool-Aid" of the collective?
The easy bit first: My name is Myles, just like it says on the can. They will r4member me. And now to the main event. Having read a number of your posts you come across as an obnoxious twit into hanging, regarding Africans as inferior. intolerance of homosexuality to name a few. You are prime material for the KKK or some other white supremecist group. In civilized company you would be regarded as an asshole and that is my perception of you. Your posts are a testament to your character. Like all vain twits, you justified yourself by telling us you were working towards a Ph D. What response did you expect ? Pray silence for Prince James who is about to impress us with his unique insights.It never occured to you to ask about my background because you were pre-occupied with preening your feathers. You even went as far as to doubt whether I knew what metaphysics meant, ha ha. Well, my obnoxious friend, you have had your chain well and truly pulled. So who is the twit now ? Next time you mouth off about degenerates, sub-human Africans and so on, please adduce some evidence to support your views. Explain why we should see things your way, or accept that you are expressing an opinion with which others are at liberty to disagree. I shall now put you on ignore. Go peddle your shit elsewhere.
Myles: I am vaguely impressed by your ability to to weave a complex sentence around. Did they teach you this at the day care? Blahblahblah. Whinewhineshine. Go learn the neurophilosophical foundation for a clever wit for once, won't you? Yes. They are of steriling quality and I am of sterling character. I'm quite the grand peacock, aren't I? Also, you quite apparently do not, as you seemingly were up a philosophical creek without a paddle when you attempted to show that philosophy was useless, metaphysics in particular.
