Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Religion

trotsky

(49,533 posts)

31. Natural laws are just our own tools of thinking.

Reply to LTX (Reply #28)

Wed May 9, 2012, 11:12 AM

May 2012

They aren't a realm unto themselves. If humans disappeared tomorrow, so would the concept of a "natural law." Another "realm" should exist regardless of whether humans are around to think about it, right?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Case for Naturalism [View all] rug May 2012 OP

I can't watch the video (being throttled by Verizon, but that's a different story), but cbayer May 2012 #1

It's a good video (10:39). rug May 2012 #3

The idea of Naturalism has one thing that religions do not have. cleanhippie May 2012 #2

What do you think about his preference for the term Naturalism? rug May 2012 #4

Another idealist with a desire for superiority, painting atheism as a negative in order to get to it darkstar3 May 2012 #5

A Senior Research Associate in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology, rug May 2012 #9

That position negates the possibility of one being an idealist? darkstar3 May 2012 #15

Sean Carroll could use his own Princess Elizabeth. Jim__ May 2012 #6

Are you trying to say edhopper May 2012 #7

I am saying that Sean Carroll claims that if we put an atom into any set of circumstances, ... Jim__ May 2012 #10

So you don't want to answer my question edhopper May 2012 #17

No, you didn't ask what I think. You asked what I was trying to say. Jim__ May 2012 #18

Given that so far you have claimed that every reply to... eqfan592 May 2012 #20

Nowhere in this subthread did I say anyone misinterpreted my original post. Jim__ May 2012 #22

Posts 13, 18 and 19 would disagree with you. eqfan592 May 2012 #25

Posts 13 and 19 are not in *this* subthread; and post 18 is not about my original post. Jim__ May 2012 #26

They are subthreads of your original post. (nt) eqfan592 May 2012 #29

The whole is greater than the parts. rug May 2012 #8

That may be true. But based on Carroll's own words ... Jim__ May 2012 #11

So you're saying that the "animal spirits" of Descartes are on equal footing... eqfan592 May 2012 #12

No. That's not what I said. Jim__ May 2012 #13

No, he's saying that he believes we must allow for a god of the gaps. trotsky May 2012 #14

Your entire second paragraph is ridiculous on its face. laconicsax May 2012 #16

Your post is ridiculous on its face. Jim__ May 2012 #19

From your post: eqfan592 May 2012 #21

The sentence states it is "based on that claim". Jim__ May 2012 #23

Just because you say it is based on that claim... eqfan592 May 2012 #24

He is responding to Elizabeth's objection that she doesn't understand how the mind communicates ... Jim__ May 2012 #27

*sigh* (nt) eqfan592 May 2012 #30

Nice comeback. laconicsax May 2012 #34

No it isn't. Jim__ May 2012 #36

"[S]omeone who believes that there is only one realm of reality, LTX May 2012 #28

Natural laws are just our own tools of thinking. trotsky May 2012 #31

So in your view, mathematics is invented, LTX May 2012 #32

You're gonna need to lay down some definitions before I walk into that trap. n/t trotsky May 2012 #33

I don't think it's a trap. LTX May 2012 #35