357 réponses à ce sujet

[Eternal Phoenix]

Rawgrim wrote...

Actually, why would christians want to support the chantry? The bible clearly states that you should only have 1 god, and thats the christian one

Well The Maker was technically based on God.

And besides supporting The Chantry (religious or no) is the right way to go because mages suck.

Mind you the templars split from The Chantry because they disagreed with their treatment on mages. I think I'll join the templars who wish to eradicate mages.

Edit:

In any case this thread should be redundant. It's confirmed that you're not serving the chantry and it was also confirmed that the character can't downright hate at religion and The Maker whenever someone exclaims his name (title?).

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 10 janvier 2013 - 02:24 .

[Rawgrim]

I`d like to play characters with all kinds of beliefs. Adds to the replay vallue. Even though I am an atheist in rl, I don`t mind playing religious characters in rpgs. I just want to decide for myself what kind of character I want to play.

[LobselVith8]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Concerning the DA universe and science need not apply to argue in favor of The Maker. We have the Legacy DLC seemingly supporting the Chant of Light which claims mages went to heaven and corrupted it and then we have the Ashes of Andraste where so-called lyrium does not explain the Guardian's immortality and ability to see into people's past (none of these abilities were reported with the powerful mage archons who consorted with demons so obviously there's something supernatural about the Ashes).

I felt that Corypheus contradicted the claims made by the Chantry, especially when he seemed to say the City was already Black. It gave me the impression the Chantry was wrong.

As for the temple with the Ashes, Oghren mentions the wall of lyrium is effecting everything in the temple, so we have an alternative explanation. I thought it was a valid explanation.

No different than the real world, where people can view things differently (possibly the same differing view that an atheist Warden and Oghren would have about the Urn and the temple, in contrast to religiously Andrastian companions Leliana and Wynne). As long as the discussion is civil, I don't see the issue.

[EpicTragedy]

Swagger7 wrote...

EpicTragedy wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

SweQue wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

SweQue wrote...

With that said, A catholic priest invented big bang-theory. But even that theory is a bit far fetched. Everything came out of nothing, and why did it do that on a Tuesday 07:27 etc.
Why did it wait an etnerity for it to come into existence, as Emanuel Kant said.


My point is, science is just as "magical" as myths. So maybe Dragon AGe has its own cool real story to creation beside a God in the end.

All of cosmology and astrophysics trembles before the firey logic of a dead philosopher and SweQue.  /sarcasm

I'm trying to figure out how Kant could possibly have commented on the Big Bang Theory since he died over 100 years before its inception.

Kant wondered why the universe took an enternity to create itself´, if it indeed came to existence one day.
He didnt know about the Big Bang theory as it is today, but the idea of an universe that came into existence or been here forever had been debated since ancient greece.
But nice try there

"Nice try", my ***.  The way you wrote it made it implicitly clear that you were relating the Kant quote to the big bang theory.  If you don't want to be misunderstood like that, try to be a bit more clear in your writing.

As for the time thing (why it waited an eternity) that is a ludicrous question.  The same question could be applied to the statement that a god created the universe.  Why did he wait an eternity to do so?  So the point is irrelevant.  In any case, physicists have known for quite some time that in the conditions that had to exist prior to the big bang the laws of physics would have been completely different.  Time may not even have existed, thus there wasn't any waiting.  It's sometimes confusing, but when the vast majority of experts in a field agree that the same hypothesis is likely true, and that same hypothesis passes peer review time and time again I tend to find it far more credible than the arguments of unqualified naysayers.

Even accepting your original intent with the Kant quote I still fail to see the relevance.  A philosopher is no more qualified to speak on a matter of science than a chef is qualified to fix computers.  In the ancient times, philosophy and science were similar fields and often overlapped, but that ended long before Kant.

EDIT:  If you have a legitimate interest in why the Big Bang is so universally accepted by physicists and the evidence for it watch this video:

I've attended this lecture and found it quite interesting for both beginners and those who already have a decent grasp of cosmology.  If don't care enough to watch it then perhaps you should learn not to speak about things you don't care enough about to understand.  (Look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect)

Ignoring how pompous you sound, the question of the "Big Bang theory" is just as much a philosophical question as it is a scientific question. One of the four antionomies of Kant doesn't specifically address the "Big Bang theory", but it does address the metaphysical question of the nature of reality with specific regards to the origins (or lack-there-of) of the universe.

Even if the Big Bang theory is 100% correct, this metaphysical antinomy remains problematic and unresolved. This is because the nature of the question is in fact beyond the scope of physics, being a philosophical one (specifically metaphysics).

The scientific nature of the question merely involves empirically determining that such an event occcurred, but it says nothing about whether such an event was the true "beginning of space and time" or not, or even if such a thing exists.

Also, if there was a beginning (such as a creator God), then it necessarily follows that he/she/it would not have waited an eternity before creating the universe so your criticism is mistaken. This is just a matter of logic. If there was a beginning, time cannot extend backwards infinitely.

Did you miss the part where I said that current models show that time may not have existed before the Big Bang?  This answers your point about time not extening backwards indefinitely.  Why wouldn't physics be able to answer the question of what came before?  It's always possible we might someday find ecidence to clarify that situation.  In any case, when there is no evidence there is simply no way of knowing.  Navel gazing philosophers
 have nothing to add.

Technically, nothing is beyond the scope of physics unless it doesn't involve any matter.  Even philosophy is the result of physical processes within human minds.  Needless-to-say, our physics haven't yet reached the point where we can fully understand the human mind, but theoretically there's no reason we won't be able to figure out such things in the future.

EDIT:  I forgot to address a couple of your points.  It's not that the scientific consensus and peer review make something correct.  It's that when there is a scientific consensus, that is the best possible conclusion to reach given what we know at the time.  Second, I reject your notion that "There are plenty of scientific theories that were once believed to be true by general consensus that have since been proven to be wrong."  Since the establishment of the Scientific Method very few theories have been proven wrong in the sense that they were rejected utterly.  (I can't think of any, but I threw in the very few just in case).  Scientific theories get refined and corrected.  I really suggest that you read the Asimov article I suggested, as it touches on this very subject.

Time in relation to motion, given that their would have been no motion prior to the big bang, would not existed. You still fail to answer both what caused the big bang, and even more importantly, how everything got to the state it was prior to the big bang. Big Bang Theory has no answer to either of these and there is nothing but speculation. Also, your "when there is no evidence, there is simply no way of knowing" is a very naive empiricist position dating back hundreds of years. Logical deductions through analytic truth require no empirical evidence whatsoever and neither do tautological truths. We know they are true by definition. When you insult philosophers in general, you just make yourself sound like a dogmatic religious scientist who most actual scientists would probably be ashamed of.

Plenty is beyond the scope of physics. Logical positivism died in the second half of the 20th century so you're still reciting decade-old scholastic views that have been falsified, refined, or straight up abandoned. Philosophy may (or may not) be the result of human minds and you may (or may not) be capable of physically explaining the totality of processes going on in the brain, but that is not philosophy at all. Philosophy asks different questions, and barring a few overlapping fields, no educated scientist is going to claim the pseudo-intellectual scientism position you have so much faith in that it is the all-encompassing holy grail of objective truth.

I don't know what your edit is talking about, I think you confused my post with someone elses because it isn't related to what I said at all.

[Swagger7]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...



The first people to criticize the theory were actually atheists because it pretty much said the universe had a beginning and was created which to them implied "divine creation" and in truth it does.

Citation? 

Roman Catholicism and Modern: A History - Page 163
Cosmology and Controversy
http://www.aip.org/h...eas/bigbang.htm (The Cosomological Debate section)

All that said was "Steady-state theory, denying any beginning or end to time, was in some minds loosely associated with atheism." 

That does not even say that it was atheists who associated the two.  It also cites no source, so we have no way of looking at who thought this.  I'll not deny that some atheistic scientists opposed the hypothesis, but most likely did so on an evidentiary basis.  Anyone who rejected the hypothesis solely because it seemed to disagree with their notions of the existance or lack thereof of a deity was not doing science properly.  Atheists can believe things for dumb reasons too.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

Well my character doesn't believe in the 'White Divine' version of the Maker because that's a faith founded by filth. Now my character does believe in the 'Dark Divine' version of the Maker because that is the one true faith.

*Troll Face*

But seriously have we ever thought that just maybe the Tevinter dragon gods may be an accurate faith? They are clearly more than a normal Dragon.

[Swagger7]

EpicTragedy wrote...



Time in relation to motion, given that their would have been no motion prior to the big bang, would not existed. You still fail to answer both what caused the big bang, and even more importantly, how everything got to the state it was prior to the big bang. Big Bang Theory has no answer to either of these and there is nothing but speculation. Also, your "when there is no evidence, there is simply no way of knowing" is a very naive empiricist position dating back hundreds of years. Logical deductions through analytic truth require no empirical evidence whatsoever and neither do tautological truths. We know they are true by definition. When you insult philosophers in general, you just make yourself sound like a dogmatic religious scientist who most actual scientists would probably be ashamed of.

Plenty is beyond the scope of physics. Logical positivism died in the second half of the 20th century so you're still reciting decade-old scholastic views that have been falsified, refined, or straight up abandoned. Philosophy may (or may not) be the result of human minds and you may (or may not) be capable of physically explaining the totality of processes going on in the brain, but that is not philosophy at all. Philosophy asks different questions, and barring a few overlapping fields, no educated scientist is going to claim the pseudo-intellectual scientism position you have so much faith in that it is the all-encompassing holy grail of objective truth.

I don't know what your edit is talking about, I think you confused my post with someone elses because it isn't related to what I said at all.

Oops, I did edit the wrong post.  Let me fix that, then I'll get to the rest of your response.

Alright, old post fixed, and ridiculous quote pyramid removed.

We have no way of knowing what happened before the Big Bang.  There very well could have been motion.  When referring to time physicists generally mean it in the sense of spacetime.  I'm not sure what that has to do with motion.  There's nothing naive about empiricism.  Demanding evidence as a precursor to belief is part of the logic you keep harping about.  The Big Bang Theory doesn't answer what came before or why it happened, because those are outside the scope of the theory.  As I explained, the physics beforehand were likely different, so we need new evidence to explain what came before.  The Big Bang Theory starts with the very first expansion and says nothing about what came before because that is unknown.
 
I never said nothing was beyond physics.  I only said that physics has something to say about anything concerning physical matter.  The things you cited as being beyond physics are things which have nothing to do with matter.  I never said philosophers were entirely useless, or that they didn't have something to tell us about logical absolutes, etc.  I'm just claiming that they have nothing to add to discussions about the physical nature of the universe.  Calling them "navel gazing philosophers" was hardly an insult by the way.  It merely implied that they use introspection, when examination is what's called for.

I briefly examined the Logical Positivism movement.  It seems to have very little in common with what I've been saying, especially since I had the same objections to it that I subsequently read about other philosophers having.  Would you care to explain how what I've been saying is an example of Logical Positivism?  Also, I never claimed that physics is the one source of objective truth.  For one my example of physics theoretically having applicability to philosophy was not intended to say that physics could do philosophies work.  It was merely a throwaway reference to how many things interact with the physical world and can therefore be studied by it in some way.

I agree that no scientist would claim "that it is the all-encompassing holy grail of objective truth." especially since that is nothing like what I was arguing.  I would say that there are certain spheres where science is the only source of real knowledge.  It is the application of philosophy within these fields to which I object.  This position is one to which most scientists I know would agree.  (Yes, I know scientists.  I am a geology grad student.  No, I'm not making an argument from authority.  I'm just saying that there are plenty of tenured professors, well respected in their field, who I've heard make these very statements.)

Modifié par Swagger7, 10 janvier 2013 - 03:56 .

[Ninja Stan]

And now it's gotten political.

End of line.