Observer
In contrast the scientific community has proffered theories which
indicate , objective reality to be unfettered by purpose, intent, the
bounds of time( as experienced in our Hubble sphere) or even by the
limiting concepts of intelligence, (allowing for near infinite degrees
of freedom), within which and of which are extended all phenomena .
[quote]
A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some
aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been
repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2]
Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been
corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to
test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge,
scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic
propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.
[3][4]
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of
phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make
falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are
improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction
improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain
further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as
inventing technology or curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive
form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from
the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is
unproven or speculative.[5]
[\quote]
>
> It is worth reflecting for a moment on what a remarkable (and beautiful!)
> undertaking this is.
Observer
Such an undertaking sans, the formulation of scientific theory, (as
described in the above quote )is neither remarkable, nor beautiful as
it tends not to edification but are ,rather simply, wild ass
speculations and extrapolations made there from.
Normally, existential claims don’t follow from
> conceptual claims. If I want to prove that bachelors, unicorns, or viruses
> exist, it is not enough just to reflect on the concepts. I need to go out
> into the world and conduct some sort of empirical investigation using my
> senses. Likewise, if I want to prove that bachelors, unicorns, or viruses
> don’t exist, I must do the same. In general, positive and negative
> existential claims can be established only by empirical methods.
>
> There is, however, one class of exceptions. We can prove certain negative
> existential claims merely by reflecting on the content of the concept.
> Thus, for example, we can determine that there are no square circles in the
> world without going out and looking under every rock to see whether there
> is a square circle there. We can do so merely by consulting the definition
> and seeing that it is self-contradictory. Thus, the very concepts imply
> that there exist no entities that are both square and circular.
>
> The ontological argument, then, is unique among such arguments in that it
> purports to establish the real (as opposed to abstract) existence of some
> entity. Indeed, if the ontological arguments succeed, it is as much a
> contradiction to suppose that God doesn’t exist as it is to suppose that
> there are square circles or female bachelors. "
Observer
It is necessary to combine all the tools of human cognition,ever to
have been established as reliable, in order to examine objective
reality with any reasonable expectation of edification, lacking one
one might as well lack all.
Ontological arguments
[quote]
The first critic of the ontological argument was Anselm's
contemporary, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers. He used the analogy of a perfect
island, suggesting that the ontological could be used to prove the
existence of anything. This was the first of many parodies, all of
which attempted to show that it has absurd consequences. Thomas
Aquinas later rejected the argument on the basis that humans cannot
know God's nature. David Hume offered an empirical objection,
criticising its lack of evidential reasoning and rejecting the idea
that anything can exist necessarily. Immanuel Kant's critique was
based on what he saw as the false premise that existence is a
predicate. He proposed that, as it adds nothing to the essence of a
being, existence is not a predicate (or perfection) and thus a
"supremely perfect" being can be conceived to not exist. Finally,
philosophers including C. D. Broad dismissed the coherence of a
maximally great being, proposing that some attributes of greatness are
incompatible with others, rendering "maximally great being"
incoherent.
Biologist Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, rejects the
argument as "infantile". Noting that he is "a scientist rather than a
philosopher", he writes: "The very idea that such grand conclusions
should follow from such logomachist trickery offends me
aesthetically." Also, he feels a "deep suspicion of any line of
reasoning that reached such a significant conclusion without feeding
in a single piece of data from the real world."[56]
[\quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_Arguments
>
>
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ont-arg/
>
> For my part, considering ontologically, I find a problem is that God is
> higher, more exalted, and nobler than all of my best conceptions about Him.
> He's simply too wonderful, mighty, good, and holy than my best thought
> regarding Him can ever capture or represent. :)
Observer
You delve into the extremities of undisciplined, imagination and
ascribe, presumptuously, to the * fictive *subject matter thereof,
a , counterpart in actuality.
How very amusing.
Psychonomist
> Kind Regards!