George Ellis - What Does an Expanding Universe Mean?
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 12. 2015
- The expanding universe is humanity's monumental discovery. Beginning infinitesimally small, the universe has become majestically large.
Click here for more interviews on the expanding universe bit.ly/1U59xzS
Click here for more interviews with George Ellis bit.ly/1ScbbRX
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
Brilliant man. I'm very proud to say that he was my lecturer at UCT.
What a WASTE of a COLLEGE COURSE... You could have better spent that time & money on a COURSE learning something that would bring you some use to your life.
@Tony Maurice Atheism claims to know with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that which cannot be known... and furthermore, its 'KNOWNS' are claims that which are the least likely (mathematically & Scientifically) and probable.
Ultimately then Ellis takes a theistic approach to understanding the whole shebang-the physical universe and human experience. I'm on the same frequency with Ellis.
I have to chuckle at how reluctant scientists are to use the name of God in discussing the universe. In place of God they use "theistic explanation". I have the impression that they fear being exiled to a small desert island by the scientific community if the blurt out the name of God. It is really quite humorous.
George Ellis, I really like this guy. Much of my thoughts mirror George's on this subject.
Thanks for the clear setting of the problem at 3:15 minutes: „The universe for me is everything that exists. I dont like the word multiverse. “
This man is awesome
Cosmologist, the modern way to name a guru, that at the limit of his knowledge just speculates.
I agree. Clear, precise and to the point...the very initial,dense,hot point of the big bang!
Thank You
Proof for intentional fine tuning of fundamental constants would be the worst surprise we could get. Good luck figuring out the origin and inner workings of THAT.
At the end of time, when we have explained everything explainable and deconstructed everything to the core truths, no scientist should be happy to find unfathomable complexity.
is it possible to have an infinite Universe within a finite sphere as long as the sphere is continuously expanding? This can be visualized in fractal geometry where we have infinite diversity on the boarder of a finite geometrical object.
4:43 i ask this question of my science teacher in high school he did not get it. i'm 50+ now. the teacher thought oh ya if you look far enough you see the back of your head... i thought no if you look at a galaxy 2 billion light years in one direction you may see it 12 billion in another ... there must be a means to test this i am sure.
Beauty is not intrinsic to the universe, beauty is human construct of the mind in that when we observe something we get a dopamine release in turn get pleasure response to what we just observed, we then define that as beauty. The universe could care less. Just because we find something beautiful does not prove the existence of god.
1.) The fact that “beauty,” in as general a form as you state, gives us this dopamine release should give us pause. Why should that be? Try to argue that away in evolutionary terms and find yourself utterly lost. Eventually, at the least, you will concede some abstract form of objectiveness.
2.) Are human constructs not the same emergent phenomenon as biological complexity or chemical polymers? The universe contains within it the capacity for these phenomenon. Does this not say that these various emergent properties are reflective of the nature of the universe itself? The problem I constantly see amongst the atheist crowd is that they somehow believe that the universe is *only* defined by the mindless gasses and subatomic particles contained within. Earth, humans, and consciousness are just as much a part of the universe as anything else. Cumulatively, these reflect the nature of the universe. When you dig down towards the bedrock, you see the bubbling potential for these to emerge. This is no different in kind than say, a quantum fluctuation in vacuum space. It is merely a difference in category.
Human construct arguments ate bullshit. Is gender a human cosntruct as well? Shit, the entire animal kingdom is engaging in the patriarchy as well! since moat animals are defined by a gender binary. Arguments such as these have no content. Whats next, is logic a human construct as well? What about gravity? And if not, why not.
You missed the point of the argument from beauty it stems from the existence of people to ding beauty
He forgot about the expansion of space or messed up the terms. Either way, the radius of the observable universe is about 14 billion parsec, which is a lot bigger than 14 billion light years.
+Alexander Christiaan Jacob Dekker
They say it's more like 46 billion light year observable radius, or 92 billion light year diameter.
But how do they calculate such things? How can they tell how fast the universe is expanding?
+Arch Hades they can tell how fast it is expanding by observing type 1a supernovae that explode with a consistent brightness . when observed in distant galaxies they can measure the red shift and know the distance and speed of recession. this is how they figured out the expansion is increasing in speed.
light only comes from 14billion light years to us from all angles. not 96billion years
And what DIFFERENCE will that make to a Dust Spec of an Organism like you whose lifespan will be extinguished in a nanosecond in comparison to the age of the Time & Space?
annoyboyPictures the same difference it will make to you
"What Does an Expanding Universe Mean?" Hey, I got it: It's expanding!
7:55 ....the only other alternative is some sort of a theological answer..... What is that Mean? Can someone says?
Balloon inside balloon theory talks of ever re cyclic, re bounce giving a set of laws in every bounce and this goes on infinitely. It is possible that in one epoch ,we see tuned laws for our existence by chance and probability.
I like the term multiverse i hope it is true
If its TRUE, how will that benefit you?
@@annoyboyPictures theory opens doors to biblical possibilities. i think he is talking about reincarnation. believe me i am not a fan of repeats but that might happen somehow. your existence might be suck in a loop of infinity. same applies for all things.
personally i don't believe that. but creation will continue.
but you can discount it because when you die your brain is not functioning, so you don't know what mysterious stuff is or isn't allowed.
Time
When scientists say something like 'I am of a theistic nature' I get a case of the shivers for two reasons. Firstly, surely it is plain that postulating a 'god' who 'intended' the universe to be the way it is in order to explain how the universe came to be able to support life (as opposed to postulating a multiverse) explains exactly nothing since you are still left with explaining how the 'god' came about. If you are concerned about how to explain the unique universe without having many of them then you will be equally hard put to explain 'god'. Secondly, this sort of statement introduces the idea of religion into the argument (though he may not have intended this) and gives a toehold for those who believe in the god who makes rules and who intervenes in the universe. In this case, to say 'I cannot understand how it is that we have got this universe that works' and therefore to postulate an intervening god who maybe doesn't like women wearing 'men's clothing' and all of the other paraphernalia of many religions is an unwarranted step way too far.
Let's just be honest if we don't like the multiverse and say 'we don't know' acknowledging that we should add 'yet' because the history of our scientific endeavors is precisely that 'we don't know' but that we roll up our sleeves and (usually) find out.
If there is a CREATOR, you're pretty F**KED... if there isn't, you're just DUST... Wishing there isn't a CREATOR and operating on this planet as if there wasn't one will be of no BENEFIT to you, other than just engaging in NIHILISTIC Behavior and FAILING as an organism because you and your CIVILIZATION debased and destroyed itself because you all lived for the moment.
8:43 - But "wanting it really really bad" isn't a proof.
The ancient Egyptians would tie 12 knots on a rope with equal distances between them. They used this method to construct right triangles. 3 knots on one side, 4 knots on the other, and five knots on the the long side. This is an approximate value, but not correct. Later civilization learned A²+B²=C². I feel we are in the ancient Egyptian era of physics and cosmology. We are close, but off just enough to be wrong. Whether the equation was discovered by the ancient Sumerians or the ancient Greeks makes no difference, because it took the Arabians to get it to the scientific minds of the enlighten period Europeans. TOE just might end up the same way... resting on a self waiting to be rediscovered, because these scientists in all these interviews are no closer to solving the mystery than I am without an PHD or grant money or tons of free time to think stuff up.
Is it possible to have too much tea?
I've had a lot of tea in my life and still haven't had too much.
So, is it even possible to have too much tea??
PURE SPECULATION is now known as "MODERN SCIENCE"... great, glad I checked.
Multi universe is unprovable
His take is reasonable enough (except for the size error as has been pointed out) until the end when he abandons scientific rigor by claiming understanding must embrace the 'metaphysics of the universe' and then waffles on about human invented concepts of beauty, morality etc. This reveals that he has allowed his intellect to become subservient to and dominated by psychologically comforting anthropocentrism in trying to make the universe conform to cultural concepts invented by the human mind.
The salient lesson of the scientific enlightenment is that the universe must taken as it is found to be without our understanding being polluted by trying to force fit into it our innate preferences and intuitive concepts to make it more human-friendly. Even if the universe is structured at some fundamental such that the appearance of consciousness is a statistically inherent probability it would be ludicrous and pathetic to ascribe this possible aspect as the basis for belief in some manner of deity invented by ancient ignorant superstitious peasants. His stated leaning towards a theistic explanation of the universe is a sad example of how intellectual integrity can be corrupted when psychology is allowed to triumph over reason.
Believing in 'extra factors' is fine as long as the extra factors are grounded within the same or at least within the nature of a conceptually compatible framework as prevailing paradigms. For example string theory with its extra dimensions is mathematically grounded as a conceptual refinement to the standard model.
God is not a credible extra factor because God has no basis in or relevance to any objective explanation of the world as described by mathematical modeling and validated through empirical verification. So God indeed is a hangover of an invention from the minds of ancient ignorant superstitious peasants.
We have a natural motivation to sate the innate urge to understand the world. Ancient cultures could only do so from the psychological and intellectual straightjacket imposed by the tiny anthropocentric world in which they found themselves, a world consisting of a small patch of land around the Med.
In a reality understood this way it would have been natural to consider humans of central importance and treat the world as just a backdrop for human affairs. Hence an explanation based on an anthropomorphic god entity made both psychological and intellectual sense.
Today however the concept of a god interested in humans is patently absurd. It is calculated there are at least some 10^22 stars in the observable universe not mention however many there are beyond the hubble volume, not to mention the possibility of a multiverse of some description.
Although intellectually ludicrous, however, belief in a god still has immense psychological appeal because it panders to sating basic psychological drivers which is something an objective understanding of the universe clearly fails to do. Belief in God is grounded in and consists of a psychologically comforting product of human imagination.
If 'historical arrogance or temporal chauvinism' is an implied criticism of a perspective based on 'we know better now' then the criticism is invalid. Such a perspective manifestly consists of neither arrogance nor chauvinism but is founded on a vastly superior (but far from complete) understanding of the reality in which we are embedded than ancient cultures could even have conceive of.
What the Enlightenment bequeathed to us is not any 'historical arrogance or temporal chauvinism' but the realization that the way to understand the world is through objective investigation. It has been through use of that premise as a foundation for gaining understanding that has led, indeed forced, us to face the fact we have no special place within universe, contrary to accepted beliefs of ancient human cultures.
Rather it is this unambiguous recognition of advanced understanding available to us now that makes it clear ancient anthropocentric explanations grounded in ignorance and superstition are invented mythologies from eras of humanity's intellectual childhood. As such these mythologies are no more intellectually credible than imaginary worlds dreamed up by children before they start to mature and see the how the world actually is.
What does seem outrageously arrogant to me is believing that humans are of special interest to some all powerful being who serves as a super-parent. While this was not unreasonable in ancient times dominated by ignorance about the nature of the world it is preposterous today as there is not the slightest credible evidence supporting the existence of any god tuned in to us on our infinitesimal spec within the universe.
I find it amusing when theists accuse atheists of arrogance when it is atheists who have no problem admitting they do not have an explanation for the universe (it's wip) while it is theists who claim they do in fact know the explanation, namely some version or other of a god, usually the version that dominated their childhood indoctrination.
Humanity deserves better than remaining psychologically imprisoned by irrational ancient belief.
*****
By all means feel free to challenge anything I say, as long as you can demonstrate you understand what I say and then specifically articulate how you consider your challenge undermines my position. Your failure to have achieved the former has negated the relevance of what you offered as the latter.
My views are based on use of reason to reach rational conclusions grounded in objective evaluation of evidence. As such my views have nothing to do with whatever you think are urban myths about religion. In numerous exchanges with theists I am continually confronted with the cosmological argument (Kalim seems popular these days) as a basis for belief there must be a causal god which is a quasi-scientific explanation, albeit one that is manifestly intellectually specious.
Atheists do not perpetrate myths about theistic belief but instead are only responding to arguments for belief that theists present. So your view about atheism resting on urban myths about religion perpetuated by atheists is wholly wrong.
The answer to your question about questions and natural explanations is this: there can be be many interesting questions, speculations and ideas about all manner of things because these can be formulated without any constraints from 'reality' (other than constraints of human imagination which ultimately is grounded in the natural world).
The fact that there is no constraint on such questions means that even though they may be meaningful from a human perspective, in and of themselves there is no reason to treat them as meaningful in respect of the reality beyond a human perspective. This is because there are no criteria for evaluating if any of them can validly claim to refer to any external correlate beyond the human mind and hence if they are fundamentally anything other than a product of human imagination.
Indeed no matter how interesting we may find such speculations and ideas, it is that unconstrained freeforall all that has generated such a bewildering myriad of conflicting and competing menagerie of speculations and ideas - all of which are unverifiable - about god, and much else as well.
Natural explanations, however, while initially generated by human imagination are subject to objective verification beyond human imagination which is why, unlike the mishmash of divergent religious and philosophical beliefs, natural explanations converge to a communal consolidated position.
So it is not the case that speculations, ideas etc are not interesting or unallowed but rather they are now, unlike was the case centuries/millennia ago, recognized as irrelevant in an ontological context. Nor is it the case that I am suggesting you shouldn't ask any questions you want.
I am asserting that questions about 'reality' without any credible means of validating possible answers are essentially in and of themselves worthless, although they may serve as springboard for additional questions capable of testing by objective verification.
The principle I suggest is that in general, one should not subscribe to any belief which lacks credible evidence in support. Specifically, one should not subscribe to any belief about the reality in which we are embedded without evidence supported by some manner of objective verification.
Definitely keep an open mind that beliefs should be treated as provisional and will need to be altered in line with whatever evidence may arise. This is in stark contrast to theists who keep their minds firmly closed so they can continue to believe that the world is as it was imagined to be thousands of years ago by superstitious ignorant peasants rather than how it found to be today through objectively verified mathematically framed theory.
"Remaining psychologically imprisoned by irrational ancient belief" is not a principle but an (implied) assertion. It is trivially empirically verifiable by the fact there are many conflicting and competing religious beliefs that are patently not credible (god, heaven, hell etc.) not only because they are not supported by reason and evidence but they actually defy reason and evidence.
Yet for many people psychological imprisonment by these irrational beliefs means they accept as fact such patently imbecilic evidence-defying beliefs that, as one example, the world is 6000 years old. Indeed there are much worse examples where some some belief cults use irrational beliefs to justify committing atrocities.
Your whole piece is essentially one extended multi-part strawman as it is based on arguing against a collection of misrepresentations of my views as I have pointed out above. I know from experience that the strawman is a consistently common device used by theists to deflect having to deal with views with which they disagree but against which they have no credible defense.
In respect of advocating 'better philosophical thinking', I have a degree in philosophy along with a personal library of over 100 books on philosophy and am quite confident I can hold my own in any philosophical discussion.
Most of philosophy and especially discussions in respect of 'reality' (ontology) are just elaborate words games because they can only reach presumed or admitted 'seems like' conclusions based on arbitrary definitions / assumptions / inferences without any verifiable relationship to the world at large. This is why theists (like Craig) often use 'metaphysical' arguments because such arguments are not grounded in the real world and hence are by definition immune from real world falsification.
If there is one overriding important lesson to be gleaned following on from the intellectual blossoming of the enlightenment it is that the universe does not 'care' in the slightest about what humans think about how it is or how they would like it to be which is why speculations and ideas that humans find interesting cannot be taken as a credible reason as being relevant for understanding the universe.
The first step in 'better philosophical thinking' is to grasp the magnitude of the gulf between the word and world and thereby spare yourself from the mistaken thinking that arises when appreciation of the dichotomy becomes blurred.
*****
No need to apologize as I wasn't offended.
You are confused and mistaken about the requirement for a philosophical basis to hold a belief. The principle I espoused is clearly not a philosophical idea nor does it require grounding in any philosophical idea - that is the very essence of the principle.
The basis of the principle (it is really more of an heuristic) is that it derives credibility by being repeatedly demonstrated as objectively validated by and in concert with empirical reality and does so wholly independently of and without regard whatsoever to any philosophical position held by anyone. That is the point. Confirmation in the real world is all that is required and philosophical considerations or underpinnings are simply irrelevant.
By contrast there is no objectively credible reason (although there may be psychological reasons) for holding beliefs that do not have that basis for their support. Indeed it is the very fact that missing the fundamentally essential component of belief verification not only allows for but effectively encourages generating all manner of conflicting and competing arbitrary beliefs. This is why there is a plethora of philosophical and religious beliefs but one communal consolidated belief about the empirical world.
Note that basing beliefs on real world verification is not even a matter of philosophical underpinning based on inductive reasoning. There is no dependence on assumed future success because if it stopped working then it would simply be modified accordingly or abandoned.
QM is an example of this approach to belief - early investigations defied the prevailing philosophical basis that the world operated in ways compatible with human intuitive reasoning and theoretical understanding but experiment demonstrated that it didn't. Hence new beliefs were adopted because they were supported by real world experience despite their egregious defiance of the prevailing philosophical underpinning for holding beliefs about how nature had been confidently assumed to operate.
As I said before, philosophy is essentially just a word game and per se has no relevance to the real world. This is why treating beliefs held about the real world as credible only requires the beliefs are supported by real world verification. Philosophy is wholly and utterly irrelevant.
Just to be clear, philosophy can have relevance in matters that are solely within the human domain such as morality or aesthetics. Beliefs about these are arbitrary and hence suited to the arbitrary formulations of philosophy without requirement for objective empirical world verification.
You have it completely back to front - you are trying promote the primacy of the word above the primacy of the world. I suggest you reread and try to digest more thoroughly my previous note as you don't seem to have grasped any of it at all.
*****
I appreciate the effort you've put in to your response but your reply simply confirms the magnitude of your confusion and misunderstanding about the relationship between philosophy and the real world.
The empirical world is whatever it is regardless of any words or philosophical constructions we invent to describe it. Hence labeling philosophy as essentially a word game is not a philosophical judgement about the status of philosophy but a fact based on empirical observation affirming the chasm of the dichotomy between word and world.
Here is example of your confusion and misunderstanding regarding science and truth. Science is an evidence based methodology and as such neither does nor can make any claim about truth. This should be trivially obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of science.
Also, I have made neither mention of nor claim about truth which is for the simple reason that truth used in any function other than as an operative label for objectively verifiable is nothing but an arbitrary abstraction without any claim for relevance to the real world. Anyone who claims to have found truth about the real world without empirical foundation is deluded.
I am often confronted by theists wallowing in their smug arrogance claiming the truth of their belief, seemingly undeterred by the blatant idiocy of such claims in the face of a host of competing belief cults each making their own incompatible (and unverifiable) claims about truth.
You cannot confirm any fundamental truth about the real world although you can construct mathematically framed models supported by objective evidence that accurately describe the world at a good enough level of detail for most practical purposes.
Philosophical truth has no value or credibility whatsoever about the real world because its determination of truth is based on nothing more than one arbitrary collection of words used to validate some other arbitrary collection of words. If you think you can reach some truth about the real world through philosophical reasoning alone absent objective verification then you really need to go back to page 1 of a beginner's philosophy book to understand what philosophy is.
Here is another example of your confusion and misunderstanding regarding words and philosophy. You speculate that I might think philosophy is a word game because of the words philosophers use but this has no bearing whatsoever on why I do so. I have explained the reason several times before which you have repeatedly failed to understand.
So I have explained yet again above in the hope if not expectation that you might finally be able to make a breakthrough of comprehension and actually understand the point I make. Until you are able grasp what I'm saying you will be stuck bouncing around endlessly and aimlessly in your self-constructed semantic hall of mirrors.
Here is another example of your confusion and misunderstanding regarding words and philosophy. Your analogy that words are tools for philosophy in a similar way a telescope is a tool for science again clearly demonstrates you have utterly failed to grasp the point I've repeatedly made explaining why philosophy is essentially a word game . Philosophical constructions about anything are based on packaging collections of words consisting arbitrary definitions, assumptions and inferences. This means philosophical positions can be constructed by anyone in any way about anything as history clearly shows has been the case.
A telescope however as an example of a scientific tool cannot be used in the unconstrained way that words can. A telescope can only observe and record what it's pointed at in the real world (universe) and has no scope for unconstrained invention like words do. That is the crucial and unbridgeable difference - philosophy is free to construct any version of the world without constraint but a telescope can only construct a version of the world that is supported by its own objective empirical verification.
You stated that words are not the subject matter of philosophy but the tools used by philosophy. However I have explained the subject matter consists of nothing but words because there is no objective verification there is anything beyond the words - that is the point.
You beg the question by the naive assumption that there is something beyond the words (subject matter) but are unable to justify this claim. Unless this claim can be validated then there is no credible reason to justify considering the subject matter to be anything more than words fashioned by the human mind to make sense of the world in a way that is compatible with evolved human innate thought patterns and psychological drivers.
You seem to consider yourself a philosopher which I find, to put it politely, utterly astounding as from what I see your understanding of philosophy is superficial and untutored as you have not been able to grasp such an elementary point about the fundamental chasm between philosophy and the real world despite the numerous times I have explained it to you in detail. I'm not sure if your reference to 'games' relates to my calling philosophy a word game or an allusion to Wittgenstein but if so you need to reread him (PI).
However if do you consider yourself a philosopher then you need to get a grip on what philosophy actually is, and in your case especially the corollary which is much more important, what philosophy isn't as you are clearly deeply confused about the two.
As you say philosophy poses questions that are of interest to humans which is correct but it then results in philosophy providing numerous incompatible answers to these various questions. No problem with that but it is the nature of philosophy through its genesis and historical development that it asks questions and produces answers that are compatible and in concert with evolved human innate thought patterns and intuitions.
However we now know through objective investigation that reality at fundamental levels is constructed in a way that is utterly alien to human innate thought patterns and intuitions as QM and GR/SR unambiguously demonstrate. Hence while philosophical questions and answers may seem sensible, reasonable, comforting and/or reassuring to humans unless such answers are supported by empirical verification they are worthless and irrelevant as explanations for anything other than sating human psychology.
Projecting an external world that conforms to human-compatible explanations is what ancient ignorant superstitious peasants (naturally) did and the invention of god(s) is the clearest example of this.
You say philosophy makes life more interesting by pointing out some deeply intractably puzzling intellectual scenery and in so far as that goes, I agree. However as I explained immediately above what you continually and it seems obsessively fail to grasp no matter how any times I explain it to you is that while philosophy addresses human interests and curiosity it does not address the real world. Indeed you seem to acknowledge as much (although in so doing fail to grasp the implication) by stating philosophy makes the intellectual scenery interesting.
Just as an artistically untrained person might draw all manner of things on a bank canvas that seem interesting there would be no justification for taking what has been drawn to represent anything other than a product of the person's imagination unless objectively verified to do so.
You said that words are tools for philosophy but as I explained above they should be considered more as paints in that they can be assembled and displayed in many combinations that have human appeal. The only way to determine if they reflect anything about the external world is through objective verification.
Abstract art might be interesting but has no relationship with representing the real world - subject matter here is nothing more than arrangement of colours just like philosophy subject matter absent objective verification is nothing more than arrangement of words. That's why philosophy absent objective verification is and can only be essentially a word game.
I can accept philosophy is an honest endeavor to address matters of interest to humans but I consider it at best risibly naive if not outright dishonest to claim philosophy in and of itself absent objective verification does or even can tell us anything about the real world.
Philosophy in its various guises is often used by theists to try and construct excuses for belief in god. Philosophy of course can do this because being essentially a word game it is free to invent anything without any constraints imposed by the real world. The most egregious example of this intellectual travesty is the ontological argument where god is reified into existence from semantic construction.
Philosophy is an interesting pastime because, as essentially a word game where you invent your own rules, it has potential for generating unlimited interesting answers to any question that might be posed. The numerous answers arising from that potential of unconstrained use of words accounts for philosophy's enduring appeal but it is the very fact that philosophy is based on unconstrained use of words that disqualifies philosophy from being considered as a guide to the real world beyond human the human mind.
*****
***** I do not write with rage (believe me if I did you would know) but with a combination of amusement and frustration at your repeated inability to grasp a straightforward and obvious point. I have assumed this is primarily due to your being a theist which at least for thinking theists of some intellectual capacity necessarily requires a means of rationalizing belief devoid of any demonstrable basis in the reality we experience.
As philosophy is unconstrained it enables semantic concoctions to be constructed that attempt to imply if not prove a justification for belief in some version of other of an imaginary being invented by ancient ignorant superstitious peasants. As I have explained in detail numerous times, these semantic constructs absent objective verification can neither be demonstrated nor assumed to have any relationship with the real world.
But if this semantic ploy is taken away from thinking theists, they have nothing left to fall back on other than abandoning any pretense of intellectual integrity and instead resort to 'faith' as the basis of their belief. So philosophy provides the intellectual escape route.
I recall (I think...) that this exchange started with your response to my comments about ignorant superstitious peasants and so while it has drifted or been steered into more of a philosophical arena the theism aspect is still highly relevant.
My posts are about philosophy because that is what being discussed, specifically from my point of view, your naive belief that philosophy by itself can tell us something about reality presumably by manufacturing 'philosophical truth'. I have explained numerous times in great detail why this position is untenable and have easily refuted your attempts to defend your position, attempts I find quite intellectually feeble which is why I questioned your core understanding of philosophy.
I am not attacking philosophy or philosophical thinking as such but their misuse when trying to justify anything inherently outside of their domain of applicability.
That you don't accept my position about the inherent nature and hence corresponding value of philosophy is not a problem but it doesn't seem to bother you that you can't refute my position other than your fall-back generic cop out of claiming my views are philosophical. In so doing I assume you think that means it somehow justifies your view and discredits my own what you deem to be 'anti-philosophical' position. At least that is what little sense I can make out of what you say.
I don't think philosophy is useless because as I said before it can pose questions and provide answers we find interesting. However as I have explained in detail many many times now the fact that we find this to be the case is wholly and utterly irrelevant as a valid criterion for assessing whether these questions and answers connote or denote the existence of anything beyond the human minds dreaming up the questions and the answers.
This point is so trivially obvious to me that I can only assume your failure to grasp it is more caused by psychological unwillingness rather than intellectual ability.
My statement about disqualification of philosophy in respect of reality for me is not or only trivially philosophical in any meaningful sense (just about anything can be classified as philosophical if the definition is stretched far enough but that negates the value of the defining anything as philosophical).
My statement says nothing about reality per se (reality considered as the natural world without any consideration of our ideas or description about it) but rather says much about our motivation and one method for trying to understand reality.
Indirectly though, my statement does say something about reality - it says reality can only be understood by objective investigation and not by arbitrary collection words dreamed up by human minds who imagine what reality is like or what they wish it were like.
You mention irony, well even if you consider my statement as philosophical it still has nothing to say about reality.
I am not attacking philosophical thinking but rather defining the scope and relevance of its domain but in so doing that requires engaging in philosophical thinking to some degree as otherwise there is no common platform for communication.
I have no idea (or interest for that matter) what your philosophical credentials are because I take what you say at face value. From what I've seen my view about the inadequacy of your understanding the fundamental nature of philosophy stands and indeed and what you have written above does nothing to alter my assessment.
I have no idea what kind of people you have encountered but my thinking about philosophy and much else (including theism) is quite clear and articulated as such. If all you can do is assert that people think philosophically even if they don't realize it and that somehow validates your views about philosophy then my assessment of your understanding of philosophy is not only accurate but generous.
If you consider I've been unclear then why don't you try actually addressing the specific points I raised in my last note and demonstrate where.
I love listening to COSMOLOGICAL BABBLE. Just don't ask me to pay for it in UNIVERSITIES.