God has all perfections, existence is a perfection, therefore God

[SGOS]

That's the trap one must avoid. Logic is a useful and powerful tool when used correctly, as long as one remembers that a premise, any premise, must have empirical evidence to support it. That was the scientific revolution that came around in the 17th century, and change life forever.

This is interesting.  We know of the scientific revolution, but I don't think I've read anything that defines exactly what a scientific revolution was.  Most people probably have a vague and generalized notion of what the scientific revolution was:  "Well you know, the scientific revolution was like when people started to get interested in 'science" and when suddenly scientists got real important, and they started pushing science on the government and everyone, and they called it science.  You know, "Science" like when you use test tubes and laboratories to invent stuff."

Silly, right?  Maybe not, considering what a lot of people believe about science.  But requiring a premise to be verifiable seems like the heart of it.  Would you say that requiring a verifiable premise might be the primary requisite of science?  Is this what distinguishes science from the ramshackle knowledge base of the prophets, channelers, and influential mystics that preceded science.  In fact, would this actually distinguish science from ordinary formal logic?

[stromboli]

Many insights have been found thru mind altering substances ... but not my personal style.  Anybody read Ram Dass?

I read "Be Here Now" years ago. I was a Christian then. The woman that lent the book to me was told by a medium (for a fee of $300) that she was evil in a previous life, which was the reason for all her (mostly imagined) "troubles". She also believed her son was psychic, and apparently convinced him of it also. Needless to say I took the book in the spirit of a rather disturbed individual and personally think Ram Dass was more interested in making a buck (he charged like $100 for a group session, which is where she got the book) Ram Dass is a fat guy that sits there and beats on a drum while imparting his wisdom. Everything I have seen or read about him since then has not convinced me he actually believes what he preaches.

[gentle_dissident]

Everything I have seen or read about him since then has not convinced me he actually believes what he preaches.

Have you read Bruce Lee?

[stromboli]

Have you read Bruce Lee?

Actually I think I have a book on Jeet Kun E Do or something, and I know Bruce Lee was a philosopher of sorts, but no not really. I got the book for my son but he said "meh" and went the Muai Thai route instead. But unless you are yanking my chain, I respect Bruce Lee because he was an atheist.

[SGOS]

Ram Dass is a fat guy that sits there and beats on a drum while imparting his wisdom.

OK, I was skeptical at first, but beating on a drum ups his credibility enough to warrant a second look.

[gentle_dissident]

Actually I think I have a book on Jeet Kun E Do or something, and I know Bruce Lee was a philosopher of sorts, but no not really. I got the book for my son but he said "meh" and went the Muai Thai route instead. But unless you are yanking my chain, I respect Bruce Lee because he was an atheist.

Bruce spouted excellent psychology that looks like philosophy. Some people need it framed that way. I only know Bruce through my GF. It seems to me that Bruce was all about living in the moment. It's all we really know. My GF thought Das Energi was a little harsh, but she now eats up Bruce. She was just into his fighting style, but she's finally gotten into his advice. This has been a fantastic improvement to our relationship.

[josephpalazzo]

This is interesting.  We know of the scientific revolution, but I don't think I've read anything that defines exactly what a scientific revolution was.  Most people probably have a vague and generalized notion of what the scientific revolution was:  "Well you know, the scientific revolution was like when people started to get interested in 'science" and when suddenly scientists got real important, and they started pushing science on the government and everyone, and they called it science.  You know, "Science" like when you use test tubes and laboratories to invent stuff."

Silly, right?  Maybe not, considering what a lot of people believe about science.  But requiring a premise to be verifiable seems like the heart of it.  Would you say that requiring a verifiable premise might be the primary requisite of science?  Is this what distinguishes science from the ramshackle knowledge base of the prophets, channelers, and influential mystics that preceded science.  In fact, would this actually distinguish science from ordinary formal logic?

I don't know if this is still available but I would suggest getting your hands on  Jacob Bronowski's Assent of Man from the BBC. He takes you from very early civilizations right through the scientific revolution of the 17th century. You learn more from that series than any other book on the market. Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ascent_of_Man

As pertaining to your question: In fact, would this actually distinguish science from ordinary formal logic? Absolutely, it's what started the Modern Era. It's when natural philosophy as taught in universities diverged from mainstream philosophy to be known as science. It's what launched the Industrial Revolution, first in England, then throughout the globe. It's what gave Europe an advantage in the military department... for better or for worse. It's what shaped the world as we know now. Previously, what dominated the universities and academia were philosophers trapped in their ivory tower, disconnected from the real world, where people tried to conform the universe to their ideas, rather than the other way around, conform your ideas to the real world, which is what science basically did - it turned things around 180⁰. First gather observations (facts) then explain the facts. The success of science was to wed logic with empiricism.

[SGOS]

I don't know if this is still available but I would suggest getting your hands on  Jacob Bronowski's Assent of Man from the BBC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ascent_of_Man

I'm familiar with the title.  I'll look it up

]
As pertaining to your question: In fact, would this actually distinguish science from ordinary formal logic? Absolutely, it's what started the Modern Era. It's when natural philosophy as taught in universities diverged from mainstream philosophy to be known as science.

OK, that feels right.  I always considered science as an extension of logic, which was an extension of philosophy.  Now it does seem very much like logic, although a far cry from most philosophy I've taken.  In fact, I would have liked to make science and logic [almost] synonyms, but I was never able to reconcile that nasty rule in logic about accepting the premise as true, because if any link in the reasoning fails, the logic fails, and the premise can't really be excluded.  It's the same flaw as saying, "Everything has to have a cause, except God doesn't have a cause."

So I sloughed it off with assuming that the premise had to at least be reasonable enough to justify itself, but that doesn't quite work either, because that can end up making an argument almost kinda' reasonable, rather than air tight.

[Baruch]

Bronowski is even more awesome than Sagan ... and that is saying a lot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om8jCuesURk

[T7ven]

Zeus was also depicted as perfect by the Greeks. You don't see him around often, do you?

[Baruch]

Zeus was also depicted as perfect by the Greeks. You don't see him around often, do you?

The gods of Olympus were always trying to outdo one another.  But mostly they were caricatures of Greeks.  And the Greeks are still around ;-)

[aitm]

.  But mostly they were caricatures of Greeks.

The similarity to the Jews is not so quietly obvious

[Baruch]

The similarity to the Jews is not so quietly obvious

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob never claimed to be gods.  Moses spent some time on a mountain with G-d, but otherwise was pretty much a loser.  If you can find a Jewish person who manifests as a burning bush ...

It is common to think that the Jewish patriarchs are paragons ... but I take most of them as mistakes to be avoided.  My favorite was Joseph ... Vizier of Egypt sounds better and better.

[gentle_dissident]

Oh, I thought aitm meant that G-d is like 1 big Jew.

[Unbeliever]

How could God be so perfect, when He's obviously in great need of as much money as he can get His spokespersons' hands on?