Ladies & gentlemen,
This is my last post in this forum.
I appreciate your tone and respect, and will comment some of your assertions.
“Strictly physical phenomena are all there is and all that I'm interested in. Logic and reason with no connection to reality, the physical world, is simply mental exercise.”
I don’t think that reality is strictly composed by the physical world, and think there are also non-physical realities. In example: are the axioms and deductions of logic and mathematics, or the laws of morality, a physical reality? No. We use them to live, and to explain reality, but are not “over there” as physical reality is.
“Things are not probable in metaphysics therefore the only useful metaphysics are those which are reality based i.e.: objectivism.”
The good metaphysics is reality based. My intention in this thread was to discuss what metaphysics is right: the one that affirms the possibility of a higher Existence or the one that denies this possibility.
”Do you call an interest in reality an "ideology"?”
No. Interest in reality is philosophy.
[Joel Català:] "Not exact: he said that in opposition to the randomness that had been theorized in quantum physics. A randomness that is a fundamental feature of quantum theory and that today has been proved to be in accordance with extensive experimentation." I know that.
”Quantum mechanical calculations have proved extremely accurate.“
“Einstein was talking about exactly what I said, nature is not capricious, there are underlying reasons for everything, things don't simply pop out of existence in one place and pop into existence somewhere else. This non-capriciousness of nature, I think, is what Einstein called god.”Not correct, Mike. Einstein was a determinist, and when he said his famous sentence he indeed was thinking about his distaste for the inherent probabilistic nature of quantum theory. He was definitely a genius, but nobody is perfect. The fact is that general relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally at odds. When Albert Einstein said God, he meant God.
Sarah, your post #46 is a sample of superficial thinking, swinging, mockery and contempt, and that’s a real pity.
Katdaddy, SOLO romance leader, I abhor ad homimens and definitely prefer to speak about ideas.
The only true parts in your sentence are that you did not listen, that I shunned Objectivism --everyday I am more convinced about that decision--, and that I do have an anti-Islam vision. Though with significant differences, I see both philosophical systems as wrong.
Now, before departing SOLOHQ, I will sketch my actual, current view about Theism here for the sake of clarity.
The metaphysical system which I understand as the most reasonable includes the following elements:
You may see that I don't find any incompatibility between science and Theism. A Creator is the only Existence “before/outside/above” space-time and its intrinsic laws. The universe will always evolve following the natural laws, which are a fundamental component of creation. Those laws and the universe were created in the appropriate way to enhance the Creator’s purpose for mankind.
The universe is intelligible so mankind can learn from the wisdom embedded in it. The way of learning from it is through resorting to the use of the intelligence and reason, with which we humans are endowed.
I also ascribe some moral elements to creation, which are not physically linked to the physical space-time:
The Creator also generated an absolute moral system, which provides mankind with an objective morality. That morality is the most appropriate to enhance meaning, pleasure, and happiness in human life, and is good for every individual, as every individual has a soul which requires morality. Our capability of free will guarantees that every human being can choose to follow His morality or do otherwise.
(Edited by Joel Català on 7/18, 3:14am)
(Edited by Joel Català on 7/18, 9:25am)