>there ought to be a prime mover that is the cause of everything
>>876239
>just cause something happened in the past doesnt mean its gonna happen again in the future
Shit posting aside how come Hume isnt more reviled by people for destroying the logical foundations of the scientific method?
>>876239
>if ought to know something, then you basically already know it while you don't even know it yet since you don't really know anything anyway
>>876239
>>there ought to be a prime mover that is the cause of everything
Muh argument from personal incredulity.
>the universe had a beginning
>therefore
>it had a cause
>this cause has a conscious will
>it's a singular cause
>it first showed itself to a pagan named Abraham
>then it gave laws to an obscure Jew named Moses
>then it became a Jewish carpenter, became a preacher, died, then lived again
>then it helped another Jew named Paul write a book
>then it helped a council of men pick the right bits to compile an even bigger book
>and finally it wants you to worship a guy called a pope, who is its representative
>mfw
Hume inspires such butthurt in both fedoras and crusade LARPers, I love it
>>876252
Because he didn't.
>>876266
spooky spookster
>>876266
The Universe had no beginning, and therefore cannot end. There is no form, and therefore has no edge or limit.
The spectrum of magnification,as it is known, has no minimum, and no maximum.
Time exists only in the mind. The time is always now.
>>876239
>you can't derive ought from is.
>>876239
>and that prime mover may as well be nature itself, why extrapolate beyond necessity?
>>876324
>ought
>cause
>>876239
Is that an actual Hume quote?
Sounds like something Aquinas would say.
Either way:
>there ought to be a prime mover that is the cause of everything
>implying everything needs a cause
If it's such a sin to derive an ought from an is, then why do ethicists still exist? Humefags like to say "muh black swan" "muh ought" as if it hasn't been centuries already.
>>876405
The fact that ought and cause are there should clue you in.
Why was he so fat?
>>876405
>implying true vacuums even exist
>implying anything has ever occured without a cause
>>876405
>implying everything needs a cause
What doesn't need a cause?
>>876558
He spent a lot of his time getting shitfaced, playing pool while shitfaced, and banging whatever bar maid he stumbled upon.
>>876610
Why would a barmaid do someone as fat as him?
>>876607
>implying things have causes
>>876306
Wrong on pretty much all counts, but good on you for so accurately aping the pseudoscience bestsellers that peddle "scientific" spirituality to the masses.
>>876674
>muh uncaused cause
>REEEEEEEEEE, fucking Hume
>>876642
Because he's loaded.
>>876275
How does destorying causation as principle based on empiricism not that?
>>876405
Just a long line of Christians who thought God was the absolute to everything. They still came up with interesting philosophical ideas, but ultimately failed to speculate beyond god.
This applied to hume, descarte, locke, berkeley, etc They couldn't apply their ideas to the God since it was innate to their belief. A shame really, things would have advanced quite further if they really did.
>>878712
Maybe they just didn't want to be burned as a witch
>Contemporaries considered him to be an atheist, or at least un-Christian, and the Church of Scotland seriously considered bringing charges of infidelity against him
>>878986
This never happened
>inb4 muh galileo
>inb4 we culd b exploring the galaxy rite now nigguh
>>879050
On the 400th anniversary of Bruno's death, Cardinal Angelo Sodano declared Bruno's death to be a "sad episode". However he added that people should not judge those who condemned Bruno and maintained, despite the historical facts, that the inquisitors "had the desire to preserve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life."
Remember Bobby McGee? “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose”?
>>879050
Pretty sure Bruno and Vanini were directly executed by the inquisition because "atheism" and "blasphemy"
>muh galilili
>it was only house arrest
>retrograde motion really doesn't prove anything
>he could still talk about it as long as he said it wasn't true
>they would have accepted heliocentricity if he flew a rocket out in space with a camera to record heliocentic movements to produce concrete evidence
>>879161
>Bruno
Atheists can't seriously claim this guy for themselves, can they?. I don't understand why he's in Cosmos.
>all these N00bs that don't understand the key word in OP's quote
>>879192
Bruno was a Hermetic
>>876674
>Wrong on pretty much all counts, but good on you for so accurately aping the pseudoscience bestsellers that peddle "scientific" spirituality to the masses.
Yeah that pesky presocratic Parmenidies was totally a new ager
Wasn't Hume a massive fedora tipper though?
>>879192
Bruno was for blasphemy and heresy.
>muh church was a good church n dindu nuttin
>>879323
Much more civil than the continent.
>>876642
Big dick and charisma.
>>876579
>implying you can back your claim that particles can't pop in and out of existence without cause
>>876433
>If it's such a sin to derive an ought from an is, then why do ethicists still exist?
If it's such a sin to kill people, then why do killers still exist?
lol
>>879507
>it looks causeless, so it must be
Fedora of the gaps
>>879521
I didn't say they must be, I said you have no good reason to ascertain that it mustn't. Your claim is unsubstantiated.
>>879526
>I didn't say God exists, I said you have no good reason to ascertain that he doesn't. Your claim is unsubstantiated
>>879561
*God must exist
>>879308
So new-agers are good at aping dead Greeks.
What of it?
>>876239
YOU
>>876239
CANT
>>879561
>>879564
If you take God as the supra-logical being that some people believe in, sure, I have no reason to believe he doesn't. I also have no reason to believe he does.
I take the most parsimonious route.
So, I don't believe everything must have a cause, nor that the universe has an "unmoved mover", a cause without cause - a model with both premises is just too contrived for me.
>>876239
>the sun might not rise tomorrow
>>879708
You do realize if you are far enough north/south of the equator this is true.
>Muh billiards
>>879730
#autismspeaks
>>879730
then change it to "if I drop this ball it might fall up or maybe sideways of maybe it will just levitate, who knows!"
>>879894
Which might be true if the ball is a piece of rubber filled with helium, or a magnet.
>>879905
But it is an example of correlation being confused with causation.
You think the fact that it is a ball causes it to fall down.
>>878513
Because scientists aren´t really looking for that.
>>879515
False equivalency, desu
>>879630
Nah its more a case you of just lumping all anyone who argues for pantheism into one disliked group.
>>876252
Because Popper sort of solved it. And it isn't really a problem for scientists as long as it just works for whatever pragmatic use you want to use it for. A carpenter don't need to have studied university-level classical physics, and the fact that quantum physics became a thing didn't change his job. Same goes for philosophy of science and science itself.
Philosophy of science, a field that's mostly made up by high level scientists for obvious reasons, can tinker under the hood to help the methodology but that doesn't mean whatever they're studying won't have a pragmatic value no matter what philosophical position they have.
>>880142
Yes, I can see you're trying to speak, autist. What's your point? Use words like a normal person.
>>880489
So are scientists all consequentialists?
>>876239
Who's the prime mover's mover?
>>880997
No, but a lot of scientific work get valued after their pragmatic value, especial from non-scientists and politicians.
Case in point is NASA, arguably one of the most important scientific agencies in the world, yet people want to withdraw funding from it because they find it useless.
If you're going to ask for funding (and this is true for both natural and social sciences) you have to be able to argue what good and practical knowledge comes out of it.
>>881420
>Nassholes and Astronots
>important
LOL.
>>881420
>If you're going to ask for funding (and this is true for both natural and social sciences) you have to be able to argue what good and practical knowledge comes out of it.
Not him, but this is actually interesting tbqh.
How does the average consequentialist deal with epistemic uncertainty? One of the best arguments against consequentialism of any sort, is that it's impossible to fully know and understand the consequences of certain actions because the variables are too great, and yet a lot of law and politics in general are based on it.
>>881433
>How does the average consequentialist deal with epistemic uncertainty?
For social sciences it's mainly about new phenomena erupting. Your old information about people's behaviour can be outdated because a change in law or demographics, meaning that the basis politicians and bureaucrats otherwise risk to make more bad than good. In a way, social science is basically doing chores that needs to be done once in a while.
I don't have enough personal experience from natural sciences and how they argue for funding to make an educated guess, but I suppose their arguing comes from showing practical applications such as "we don't know what this is but if we did we could probably build pretty sweet stuff with it".
>>881455
Thanks for the info m80.
>>876239
why?
>>876405
It actually goes back to Aristotle (and somewhat Plato)
This is why you niggas need to start with the Greeks
>>883378
Because that's what religishits say every time someone equates god to a unicorn
>>879910
>You think the fact that it is a ball causes it to fall down.
No it's more the fact that when someone says "if I drop a ball it will fall down" only an autist would respond with "nuh-uh! what if it was a rubber ball full of helium?!"
>>884076
Are you an autist?
Tomorrow the Earth will not orbit the sun.
>>884087
Why not?
>>884096
You can't know nuthin.
>>878712
You do know that Hume was an atheist, right?
