The speed of light speed limit is one of the best empirically established facts in science — Devans99

Not if there's empirical evidence of things moving faster than the speed of light.

I didn't realize I'm not allowed to express my opinions on a message board.

But I can't do anything with a "functional/creative" distinction and "it's impossible to live creatively" otherwise. It just sounds like nonsense.

This a great mystery. The mechanism of expansion is unknown. What we do know is distance galaxies have redshifts of greater than 1 (the speed of light) and we need a mechanism to account for it that does not involve FTL. — Devans99

Why re the part I bolded? As I said earlier, if we have evidence that things are moving faster than the speed of light, then "Things can't move faster than the speed of light under any circumstances" is obviously incorrect. It's a problem to worship theories, so that we figure the theory must be correct, so that recalcitrant evidence must be accounted for some other way (whereupon we make up some incoherent nonsense in order to not have to retool our theories).

So it's forbidden to define a term then? We have to just guess what people might be referring to, and interpret them however is required to make what they say insightful/correct? (And if so, why didn't you give me the same courtesy?)

Do you have a beef with the speed of light speed limit by any chance? — Devans99

I have a beef with us positing nonsense under the rubric of science. Nonsense like "nothing can move faster than the speed of light" while we also say "X is moving faster than the speed of light"

Or nonsense like "space is nothing" while we also claim that space is doing things like inflating.

Space is space - nothing - so I don't think it can be said to be moving. — Devans99

If space is nothing, how is it doing anything, such as inflating?

Again, I asked how he defines "creative/creativity." If someone is going to make a distinction between "creative" and "functional" and say things like "it's not possible to live creatively," aren't we allowed to wonder just what they're claiming, whether what they're claiming has any merit, etc.?

No the galaxies don't move, space inflates. — Devans99

I've not once said anything about galaxies per se.

Is space moving?

Yeah, it really is.

I am at a loss as to why you think not.

How can it be anything but a blind guess? — Frank Apisa

How would you defining guessing. where you're distinguishing it from other things?

So Collingwood is using Wilde's definition? And he's saying that there's a distinction to be had between "merely" functional living and "completely useless" living ("completely useless" to most people), while Heidegger and Spengler are saying that "completely useless" living (to most people) isn't possible at present for some reason, whereas it used to be?

" inflating apart from each other " isn't motion?

How are they defining "creative/creativity"? (And in contrast with "functional" would be helpful)

nothing is moving. — Devans99

So if nothing is moving, how is something moving faster than light?

You wrote "Parts of the universe are moving apart from each other atfaster than the speed of light. "

What does that have to do with whether stretching is moving?

The medium (space) is stretching. The things in the medium (the galaxies) are not moving. — Devans99

What I asked is if stretching is moving

It is a blind guess. — Frank Apisa

Nope.

the band stretches — Devans99

Isn't stretching moving?

You are going against what all of the astronomers tell us. — Devans99

You don't go with what someone tells you non-critically. Anyone can say something wrong. You need to critically assess anything anyone tries to sell you.

But "there are no gods" is nothing more than a blind guess. — Frank Apisa

No, it's not. Repeating that like a mantra doesn't make it so.

It's pretty simple, really. If there's evidence that something in the universe is moving faster than the speed of light (relative to something else, of course, but all motion is relative), then the speed of light isn't actually a universal speed limit. That idea is wrong.

If it's instead a matter of some mathematical theory suggesting that things would move faster than the speed of light, then either that theory or the theory that nothing can move faster than the speed of light is wrong.

Parts of the universe are being stretched apart at FTL maybe? — Devans99

Which would be moving faster than the speed of light. Unless we're somehow trying to argue that "stretching" isn't "moving"?

Nothing is moving faster than the speed of light. — Devans99

Then we can't say that parts of the universe are moving apart from each other at faster than the speed of light, lol.

It's ridiculous how simple this is.

Imagine a rubber band with two dots on it (=galaxies). When you stretch the band, the dots/galaxies do not move (relative to their immediate surroundings) but the distance in-between them increases. — Devans99

Either something --some part of the rubber band, say, is moving faster than the speed of light or it isn't.

Basically, we're either positing something--some existent, that's moving faster than the speed of light or we're not. Whatever we're focusing on re motion. Again, we can't have it both ways.

It's not the galaxies that are moving; it is the metric of space expanding — Devans99

Is it moving faster than the speed of light? If so, then something can move faster than the speed of light, and the speed of light isn't actually a universal speed limit.

(which isn't to mention the incoherence of positing "the metric of space" as something that exists abstractly somehow)

If governments controlled disposable income of the .1 %, would poverty end? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Not necessarily. We might wind up simply with government employees buying islands, buying homes made of diamonds, etc.

So nothing breaks the speed of light limit but things on the opposite side of the universe are moving apart faster than light. — Devans99

If nothing breaks the speed of light limit then nothing is moving apart faster than the speed of light. If something is moving apart faster than the speed of light, then something breaks the speed of light limit. We can't have it both ways. It's a simple contradiction.

BUT...there also is no way to assign likelihood to whether there are gods or not. — Frank Apisa

I agree with you on that, because of what "likelihood" is, and considering that I'm a frequentist. I don't buy Bayesian probability.

Nevertheless, it's easy to know there are no gods. That's not a "guess," and it doesn't have anything to do with probability.

Parts of the universe are moving apart from each other at faster than the speed of light. — Devans99

First, if this is the case, the speed of light is not actually a (universal) speed limit.

You seem to be thinking that a case can be made that one side or the other is more likely. — Frank Apisa

No. I'm not saying anything about likelihood. Empirical claims are not provable. To wonder if we've proved some empirical claim, or to ask for proof, is to commit a category error. And even in the realms where proofs are pertinent--mathematics and logic, proofs are simply a matter of whether something follows from the rules of the system in question, as we've constructed the system.

There are reasons to believe one thing over another. We can simply talk about those reasons. This has nothing to do with "guessing." You seem focused on certainty (which is why you'd use the term "guess" in counterdistinction to it), which is a complete waste of time.

the merely functional abyss in which we live today? — räthsel

What are you referring to there, exactly?

I guess that is fair to say that I am not doing a good job proving God's existence, for my arguments, although not yet proven in this thread, are illogical, incoherent, and delusional. — SethRy

"Proof" is a red herring on both sides. How about just giving compelling reasons for belief?

What evidence is there that this is not the case? This question is much more important. — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't know if it's the case or not. The claim was that it is. So I'm simply asking for the supporting evidence for it. It's a fairly simple empirical claim, but we'd need to actually do the survey to know it.

My point in this tangent is that I was wondering what the evidence was for "At a physical level, morality is not a unified concept yet free-will seems to be"

In the context of philosophical discussions, I'm often skeptical of various claims that are made. So I'll inquire into that as the discussion goes along.

You said, "At a physical level, morality is not a unified concept yet free-will seems to be"--which you just quoted again above.

I asked you what a "unified concept" would amount to. You answered: "it would be something that is generally agreed upon within the scientific community."

So in other words, "At a physical level, morality is not a generally agreed-upon concept within the scientific community, yet free will seems to be."

So I asked what the evidence was supposed to be for that. What's the evidence that morality is not a generally agreed-upon concept within the scientific community, whereas free will seems to be a generally agreed-upon concept within the scientific community?

The answer to that isn't "Hey, read these 100 books given in the article's bibliography. The evidence must be in them somewhere. The article is peer-reviewed, after all."

No need to get so specific. Just post a list of 100 books and I'll read them all on the remote chance that any of them actually provide the evidence I'm asking for.

The belief in naturalism, what I'm hearing you put forward (reading) is synonymous with "atheism; PHYSICALISM; causal closure; epiphenomenalism; intertheoretic reductionism (exactly what you're arguing against here!); functionalism; behaviorism; & determinism (Causal; motivational; & hedonistic). Some people also lump in "mechanical" determinism. I have a complete list if you want? — Daniel Cox

You know what would be cool? If what you typed there had something to do with anything I've said. That's certainly a list of words, though.

Who has more authority than a physicist? — Daniel Cox

Physicists are only authorities in physics, only in their field of physics--not in other fields, and arguments from authority are fallacious.

You do not understand how science works, do you? — Merkwurdichliebe

Are you suggesting that we don't need evidence of an empirical claim?

The expert in philosophy, Dr. Dennis Polis, Ph.D. (Physics) — Daniel Cox

Aside from the fact that you appear to be suggesting an argument from authority, you wrote, "The expert in philosophy... PhD (Physics)" haha

Unless you have a history of mental illness accompanied by severe delusions, or you've been talking some serious drugs, it's pretty safe to say the fridge is real. — whollyrolling

Which is aka asserting a belief. The belief is likely true and justified. Hence you know it; it's knowledge.