[QUOTE=Ziks;43481921]I am not certain that an intelligent entity did not create the universe, because to be certain would implicate that my perception of reality was perfect, my ability to reason was perfect, and my awareness of the entirety of history was perfect.
That being said, I would wager any amount of money, or even my life, on the non-existence of any god. May I make the assumption that you are also not certain that your god exists, but feel the same confidence as I?
[/quote] I'm glad my comment worked and you didn't just get mad at me for turning the question on to you.
Yes, and well put.
[quote]
Can you rule out the possibility that there exists a fundamental set of physical laws from which a universe such as the one we observe is inevitable? Surely the assumed existence of such a set of laws without cause evokes less complexity than the assumed existence of a sentient entity without cause? This is really the crux of the argument.[/QUOTE]
Existence as such includes any and all things which constitute the universe, laws are included.
By use of the Anthropic Principle, we may draw a few conclusions.
1- Since we require the right conditions to exist, we necessarily must live in world with the proper laws.
2- This induces the idea that there (could be) are other universes, not conducive to life, which we cannot observe.
3- If these other universes do not exist, then we live in the only universe, which luckily happens to be fine-tuned.
4- Though if we accept the multiverse, it too must require a fundamental basis for it's existence and order of information. For as said before, all things which constitute the universe (fundamental laws being included in this), are part of the existence. In light of the multiverse, the existence of our universe seems at first to be explained, but then becomes more complicated when considering the ordering neccesary to have a multiverse which has worlds exist and disappear within it (implying time, which returns back to the infinite regression argument)
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43481984] Obviously nobody is going to be able to persuade you because [B]you don't trust in evidence[/B], likewise you're not going to pursuade anyone with a lack of evidence - so why even bother? Surely whatever there is for you to learn, you are just going to keep ignore.[/QUOTE]
Evidence? I never denied evidence. I am debating religious philosophy which firstly doesn't operate in the same manner as empiricism, but secondly can use the observations gathered to draw conclusions and evaluate them. All I am proposing is a different world-view under the same observations. Never did I deny the variety of Darwin's finches, nor do I nix what Copernicus saw through a telescope. I hope you don't have the impression that I think fossils are some grand ploy by the devil or something.
Zenreon, you consistently make a few arguments that people have refuted. That the universe is 'fine tuned', that the universe can't be eternal (your deity is exempt from this?), and the first cause argument (that your deity is exempt from too?).
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43482093]Existence as such includes any and all things which constitute the universe, laws are included.
By use of the Anthropic Principle, we may draw a few conclusions.
1- Since we require the right conditions to exist, we necessarily must live in world with the proper laws.
2- This induces the idea that there (could be) are other universes, not conducive to life, which we cannot observe.
3- If these other universes do not exist, then we live in the only universe, which luckily happens to be fine-tuned.
4- Though if we accept the multiverse, it too must require a fundamental basis for it's existence and order of information. For as said before, all things which constitute the universe (fundamental laws being included in this), are part of the existence. In light of the multiverse, the existence of our universe seems at first to be explained, but then becomes more complicated when considering the ordering neccesary to have a multiverse which has worlds exist and disappear within it (implying time, which returns back to the infinite regression argument)[/QUOTE]
Precisely. If the multiverse exists, there should be a fundamental set of laws that govern the formation of universes. These laws should be simpler than the laws that govern our universe in particular, otherwise the universe may as well have just spontaneously popped into existence without cause or a containing structure. As these hypothetical fundamental laws of the multiverse have no explanations for their own existence they are a source of assumed complexity.
For the alternative, that this universe and its physical laws were designed and implemented by an intelligent entity, the existence of that entity is the source of assumed complexity because it is required but no explanation is provided for its existence. While you may claim that god has simplicity due to it existing outside of time and therefore being unchanging, be aware that it has extreme structural complexity. You may claim that the god has simplicity through some mechanic we cannot understand, but why can't a non-sentient explanation (a simple set of fundamental laws) also exploit that mechanic?
I can't think of an honest argument which would allow an infinitely intelligent entity with no causal explanation to be less complex than a simple set of fundamental minimalistic rules with no causal explanation, but perhaps you could provide one.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43482093]I'm glad my comment worked and you didn't just get mad at me for turning the question on to you.
Yes, and well put.
Existence as such includes any and all things which constitute the universe, laws are included.
By use of the Anthropic Principle, we may draw a few conclusions.
1- Since we require the right conditions to exist, we necessarily must live in world with the proper laws.
2- This induces the idea that there (could be) are other universes, not conducive to life, which we cannot observe.
3- If these other universes do not exist, then we live in the only universe, which luckily happens to be fine-tuned.
4- Though if we accept the multiverse, it too must require a fundamental basis for it's existence and order of information. For as said before, all things which constitute the universe (fundamental laws being included in this), are part of the existence. In light of the multiverse, the existence of our universe seems at first to be explained, but then becomes more complicated when considering the ordering neccesary to have a multiverse which has worlds exist and disappear within it (implying time, which returns back to the infinite regression argument)
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
Evidence? I never denied evidence. I am debating religious philosophy which firstly doesn't operate in the same manner as empiricism, but secondly can use the observations gathered to draw conclusions and evaluate them. All I am proposing is a different world-view under the same observations. Never did I deny the variety of Darwin's finches, nor do I nix what Copernicus saw through a telescope. I hope you don't have the impression that I think fossils are some grand ploy by the devil or something.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not, I think you seem like an intellectual being and I certainly don't think you come off as necessarily irrational, nor do I put it against you - that you're determined - because of what you think, and while I don't think you're right, I just don't think anybody should be as determined as you are when there is so little certainty and so many possible truths.
Moving on, your conclusions don't seem to point to any deity in my opinion; even if there are other universes, yes this multi-verse probably has to exist on some fundamental basis - but why does it seem unlikely to you that this basis is just another 'level' of physical laws?
[QUOTE=Jookia;43482212]Zenreon, you consistently make a few arguments that people have refuted. That the universe is 'fine tuned', that the universe can't be eternal (your deity is exempt from this?), and the first cause argument (that your deity is exempt from too?).[/QUOTE]
You have consistently shown that you do not understand my arguments.
First off, that last post was the first time addressing the Fine tuning argument by me in this thread, as far as I recall. I took the rebuttal (Anthropic Principle), and teased out it's consequences.
Eternal does not mean immortal, it means existing outside of time, or to put it another way, existing at every point in time in an unchanged manner. You ask me why the universe can't be eternal? It is because the universe changes, it exists within time. My deity doesn't change, and so can be eternal.
Lastly, the first cause argument applies to things which had beginnings defined by time. Since my Elohim does not change and exists outside of time, it is nonsensical to speak of him having a beginning.
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43482259]Absolutely not, I think you seem like an intellectual being and I certainly don't think you come off as necessarily irrational, nor do I put it against you - that you're determined - because of what you think, and while I don't think you're right, I just don't think anybody should be as determined as you are when there is so little certainty and so many possible truths.
Moving on, your conclusions don't seem to point to any deity in my opinion; even if there are other universes, yes this multi-verse probably has to exist on some fundamental basis - but why does it seem unlikely to you that this basis is just another 'level' of physical laws?[/QUOTE]
Because as I said, the multiverse contains the universes, it is not set apart. Furthermore if universes can appear and dissapear within it, then there most be something governing that, and that also implies time. The quality of having time is that you need to be explained. I exist in time. If you want to explain me I suppose you can go back in time to my mother and the many many many generations that preceded her, in whatever form you wish to picture them. And then finally to the constituent 'clay', and it's arrival in the timeline. Such is time
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43482283]You have consistently shown that you do not understand my arguments.
First off, that last post was the first time addressing the Fine tuning argument by me in this thread, as far as I recall. I took the rebuttal (Anthropic Principle), and teased out it's consequences.
Eternal does not mean immortal, it means existing outside of time, or to put it another way, existing at every point in time in an unchanged manner. You ask me why the universe can't be eternal? It is because the universe changes, it exists within time. My deity doesn't change, and so can be eternal.
Lastly, the first cause argument applies to things which had beginnings defined by time. Since my Elohim does not change and exists outside of time, it is nonsensical to speak of him having a beginning.[/QUOTE]
But time is not perfectly understood yet, the universe may very well be eternal because just like the big bang created the 3 spacial dimensions, it created the time dimension aswell - if time "began" with the big bang then the universe has been here forever because there was no point in time (and eternally refers to time) before time. The universe doesn't have to exist within time, time exists within the universe, it is the very structure of the universe. If your deity exists without time nor space, then I don't see any way for it to interact with our universe? So let's say the deity does not interact with it during it's existance, but has already created it and by creating it has then already made all the desired adjustments and interactions so that they are intangled in the time and space of our universe, what are the properties of this "creator" that make it into the deity you believe it is? Why is it not just some feauture to the multiverse that does not involve intelligence and divine feautures?
Why can't the multiverse exist outside of time, in the same way your hypothetical god does?
[editline]10th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE]You may claim that the god has simplicity through some mechanic we cannot understand, but why can't a non-sentient explanation (a simple set of fundamental laws) also exploit that mechanic?[/QUOTE]
Time is just like any other dimension, the only thing different about it is the arrow of time which is the fact that time always seemingly goes forward and never backwards, which is a mystery on it's own. If our dimension of time is not only a feauture of our universe but of the multi-verse too, which it certainly does not have to be, then that still does not favour a deity creating the universe over natural occurances causing the universe to occur.
[QUOTE=Ziks;43482255]
I can't think of an honest argument which would allow an infinitely intelligent entity with no causal explanation to be less complex than a simple set of fundamental minimalistic rules with no causal explanation, but perhaps you could provide one.[/QUOTE]
Let me put it this way;
I believe the simplest object in 'existence' which also has the property of self-causation, is the same as the most complex object in existence, as this is what is required to achieve the property of self causation, and by consequence the ability to give substance and existence to all else.
The number 5 has never done anything by itself, it is simply a description. If nothing start the ball rolling then all math is for nil.
JohnnyMo didn't get my analogy but I hope you will.
Imagine an infinite field of Dominos, each prepared to strike the next. Fallen ones represent events which have occured, and standing ones represent events yet unrealized.
Now;
How do you get it to start? You need the force of an agent.
So are you trying to say that something had to start it all? And are you also implying that if the universe had to start, even the multiverse had to start? And I'm using the term start in a way that does not necessarily involve our dimension of time. Is that what you're getting at?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43482488]Let me put it this way;
I believe the simplest object in 'existence' which also has the property of self-causation, is the same as the most complex object in existence, as this is what is required to achieve the property of self causation, and by consequence the ability to give substance and existence to all else.
The number 5 has never done anything by itself, it is simply a description. If nothing start the ball rolling then all math is for nil.
JohnnyMo didn't get my analogy but I hope you will.
Imagine an infinite field of Dominos, each prepared to strike the next. Fallen ones represent events which have occured, and standing ones represent events yet unrealized.
Now;
How do you get it to start? You need the force of an agent.[/QUOTE]
Why must that agent be sentient?
[QUOTE=Ziks;43482523]Why must that agent be sentient?[/QUOTE]
This was what I was eventually gonna come to, why does this starting agent have to be sentient? Because it has to be intelligent and sentient to have motives, but nothing in our universe implies any motive.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43482422]Time is just like any other dimension, the only thing different about it is the arrow of time which is the fact that time always seemingly goes forward and never backwards, which is a mystery on it's own. If our dimension of time is not only a feauture of our universe but of the multi-verse too, which it certainly does not have to be, then that still does not favour a deity creating the universe over natural occurances causing the universe to occur.[/QUOTE]
I consider the direction of time to be more of a perceptual thing - we define the future as the direction along the time dimension in which entropy increases, and conversely the past as the direction in which entropy decreases. Information is created as entropy increases, so the reason why we can't observe the future is because the information created in the future doesn't exist at the point along the time axis we consider to be the present.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43482283]You have consistently shown that you do not understand my arguments.
First off, that last post was the first time addressing the Fine tuning argument by me in this thread, as far as I recall. I took the rebuttal (Anthropic Principle), and teased out it's consequences.
Eternal does not mean immortal, it means existing outside of time, or to put it another way, existing at every point in time in an unchanged manner. You ask me why the universe can't be eternal? It is because the universe changes, it exists within time. My deity doesn't change, and so can be eternal.
Lastly, the first cause argument applies to things which had beginnings defined by time. Since my Elohim does not change and exists outside of time, it is nonsensical to speak of him having a beginning.[/QUOTE]
You're not really debating at this point, and as per the rules of this section I'm asking you to respond to your claim that the "Torah speaks for itself as testimony" as a justification for 'knowing' of some eternal being. I asked how you could justify using circular logic in both this and the other thread on this argument, and you did not defend it in these past posts, whatever you might take 'eternal' to mean.
If you still refuse to do so, then I must ask that you stop debating.
[QUOTE=Ziks;43482536]I consider the direction of time to be more of a perceptual thing - we define the future as the direction along the time dimension in which entropy increases, and conversely the past as the direction in which entropy decreases. Information is created as entropy increases, so the reason why we can't observe the future is because the information created in the future doesn't exist at the point along the time axis we consider to be the present.[/QUOTE]
You're right but it doesn't just seem to be us who percieve the time going forwards, it seems to be a property of time itself - other dimensions don't do this. I mean every "frame" of time is connected to the one previous one and the next one, they are always similar, meanwhile two points in the same spacedimension does not necessarily have anything to do with eachother.
[editline]10th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Megafan;43482550]You're not really debating at this point, and as per the rules of this section I'm asking you to respond to your claim that the "Torah speaks for itself as testimony" as a justification for 'knowing' of some eternal being. I asked how you could justify using circular logic in the other thread on this argument, and you did not defend it in these past posts, whatever you might take 'eternal' to mean.
If you still refuse to do so, then I must ask that you stop debating.[/QUOTE]
If you don't mind me giving my opinion on it, I don't really think this is necessary - just let him continue debating untill someone convinces him or either him or the other part decides that it is pointless and that there is no way to convince the other. Ofcourse I haven't read the whole debate that was going on before I jumped in, so I guess I can't defend that but if he takes up that argument again as a response to me or anyone else who hasn't been countered with it before then that shouldn't be a problem. If his circular logic is not defendable and he hasn't been able to defend it, that doesn't have to make his whole opinion invalid, unless that's exactly what it's centred around?
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43482565]You're right but it doesn't just seem to be us who percieve the time going forwards, it seems to be a property of time itself - other dimensions don't do this. I mean every "frame" of time is connected to the one previous one and the next one, they are always similar, meanwhile two points in the same spacedimension does not necessarily have anything to do with eachother.[/QUOTE]
The properties of neighbouring points in space are often related; for example if you trace a line of neighbouring points away from a source of mass the magnitude of the gravitational field decreases. There's some more I'd like to add to this but it's pretty frustrating typing on a mobile so I'll wait until morning.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43458491]Becausewhile to us it seems like a chronological progression, in the view ofeternity all his actions are done at once. He can have influence uponthis world, and being 'silly' as I am, I believe he revealed himselfthrough the Torah and Yahushua.[/QUOTE]
That's not evidence heexists the same way a science book isn't evidence of the big bang.The difference between the two being the latter is based on observable evidenceand analysed calculation that can be corrected and extended when moreevidence comes in and our understanding develops. What aside fromscriptures makes you so sure of “his” image? Why jump to theconclusion it was this specific god in particular (without biblicalcircular logic)? Why does the originator of everything have to besentient?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43455851]Isuppose in the end it's faith. Sorry.[/QUOTE]
Oh, theunfalsifiable trump card of faith, nevermind then. If that's whatyou're going to pull then there's no debate
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43482488]Imaginean infinite field of Dominos, each prepared to strike the next.Fallen ones represent events which have occured, and standing onesrepresent events yet unrealized.
Now;
How do you get it tostart? You need the force of an agent.[/QUOTE]
If we're using dominoesand an agent as an analogy for before the very start of everythingthen surely those dominoes didn't exist yet? This probably requires amuch more philosophically experienced mind than myself and I haven'tslept for nearly 2 days so whatever
what the fuck is going on with the text editor taking out my spaces
[QUOTE=Megafan;43482550]You're not really debating at this point, and as per the rules of this section I'm asking you to respond to your claim that the [B]"Torah speaks for itself as testimony"[/B] as a justification for 'knowing' of some eternal being. I asked how you could justify using circular logic.[/QUOTE]
I'm afraid you've misunderstood my stance.
First of all I did not make the claim "Torah speaks for itself as testimoy" I said;
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43458659]]If the word of the Torah is true, then it speaks for itself as far as testimony. [/quote]
This conditional statement was in response to your assertion that if a god did exist he would
[quote=Megafan;43458554]reveal himself at a point when it could be properly recorded[/quote]
My response was biblical and based around the specifics of the religion. This thread is not about the Christian God, even though that happens to be the one I am particularly supporting. Most of my points have been regarding a deity or otherwise complex object capable of self causation.
All in all I apologize if my debating standards have not been sufficient. Please let me know what points need further justification. I will however at some point need to draw a line as a foundation just as you need to draw a foundation line in asserting that we do in fact exist. We need to stop somewhere otherwise we can never get anywhere.
Furthermore I must insist that you refrain from taking my stance as "Torah -> Divine Being" The reasons for my theism, independant of details, has little to do with scripture. If I am asked to defend the internal consistency of scripture then I will, but to chastise me and assume that that is the foundation for all else I say seems unfair.
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43482565]If you don't mind me giving my opinion on it, I don't really think this is necessary - just let him continue debating untill someone convinces him or either him or the other part decides that it is pointless and that there is no way to convince the other. Ofcourse I haven't read the whole debate that was going on before I jumped in, so I guess I can't defend that but if he takes up that argument again as a response to me or anyone else who hasn't been countered with it before then that shouldn't be a problem. If his circular logic is not defendable and he hasn't been able to defend it, that doesn't have to make his whole opinion invalid, unless that's exactly what it's centred around?[/QUOTE]
I understand that, but his whole argument is hinging on this assumption. If that is not true or unsubstantiated, the whole thing falls apart regardless of what else has been said.
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43482865]I'm afraid you've misunderstood my stance.
First of all I did not make the claim "Torah speaks for itself as testimoy" I said;
This conditional statement was in response to your assertion that if a god did exist he would
My response was biblical and based around the specifics of the religion. This thread is not about the Christian God, even though that happens to be the one I am particularly supporting. Most of my points have been regarding a deity or otherwise complex object capable of self causation.
All in all I apologize if my debating standards have not been sufficient. Please let me know what points need further justification. I will however at some point need to draw a line as a foundation just as you need to draw a foundation line in asserting that we do in fact exist. We need to stop somewhere otherwise we can never get anywhere.[/QUOTE]
Well you're more or less splitting hairs about the Torah, my point was that if you're argument is 'if we assume [a] fantastical thing is true, then [x], [y], and [z] things are true', that doesn't work if you cannot show that [a] is true.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43481481]Like I said before, existing outside of time does not exempt you from being able to interact with it. The difference it makes is that you do all things at once, to us however it seems like a progression, or rather seperate events. By this many have come to believe in YHWH as opposed to Fireman Sam.[/quote]
Why him and not Fireman Sam? You made a large jump there. What makes you think its YHWH more than Fireman Sam?
[quote]YHWH revealed himself mostly in hebrew.[/quote]
So the true god is the Jewish god? Why not Fireman Sam or Thor or Jupiter?
[quote]I find the removal of all things Hebrew from 'christianity' ,just because some council declared it, to be folly. It doesn't match up with what he said, and it gives rise to various seeming contradictions. It's the sort of thinking that has convinced people that Easter and Christmas actually has anything to do with Ha Mashiach. Discarding all else, the name YHWH satisfies my concept of a final foundation of being. "I am that I am". Self existing, non-physical (independant of physical things).[/quote]
By what process or means does the Absolute interact with the physical universe? Where can one see examples of interaction and why would it be attributed to supernatural as opposed to natural causes?
[quote]Is there something wrong with preferring Hebrew?[/QUOTE]
The way you use the terms makes you sound more like an occultist than a philosopher.
[QUOTE=Megafan;43482872]I understand that, but his whole argument is hinging on this assumption. If that is not true or unsubstantiated, the whole thing falls apart regardless of what else has been said.
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
Well you're more or less splitting hairs about the Torah, my point was that if you're argument is 'if we assume [a] fantastical thing is true, then [x], [y], and [z] things are true', that doesn't work if you cannot show that [a] is true.[/QUOTE]
Right, but I thought we are only discussing Creation vs Eternal existence of a universe. My argument isn't at all that "we should assume a (based on torah)" and draw these conclusions. It actually kind of upsets me that I've failed so utterly in conveying that.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43482904]Right, but I thought we are only discussing Creation vs Eternal existence of a universe. My argument isn't at all that "we should assume a (based on torah)" and draw these conclusions. It actually kind of upsets me that I've failed so utterly in conveying that.[/QUOTE]
Well you cannot divorce your argument so easily from the larger questions that it implies.
My criticism was how you could know of any eternal being or its characteristics, and every answer you gave used circular reasoning.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43482904]Right, but I thought we are only discussing Creation vs Eternal existence of a universe. My argument isn't at all that "we should assume a (based on torah)" and draw these conclusions. It actually kind of upsets me that I've failed so utterly in conveying that.[/QUOTE]
It's more of a debate between eternal existence of a sentient entity external to the universe vs eternal existence of a non-sentient entity external to the universe. Perhaps you have misunderstood our position if you believed your summary of the topic was correct?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43482899]Why him and not Fireman Sam? You made a large jump there. What makes you think its YHWH more than Fireman Sam?
[/quote]
Fireman Sam is firstly a concept that requires appeal to earthly things, namely men and fires, and the relationship thereupon. To ask my why I choose YHWH is to ask my why I choose the term gravity over 'herp-da-derp'. One has more connotations and conveys the meaning intended better, the other does not. Fireman Sam does not seem to entail the property of self causation/existence
[quote]
So the true god is the Jewish god? Why not Fireman Sam or Thor or Jupiter?
[/quote]
Because Thor and Jupiter are cartoony as compared to a non-material eternal elohim.
[quote]
By what process or means does the Absolute interact with the physical universe? Where can one see examples of interaction and why would it be attributed to supernatural as opposed to natural causes?
[/quote]
He gives existence to all that is. Other than that you aren't going to catch me saying he suspends the laws of physics.
Two reasons for this;
-I don't know. I haven't read enough to properly articulate it.
-I kind of agree that he doesn't play with dice.
[quote]
The way you use the terms makes you sound more like an occultist than a philosopher.[/QUOTE]
Occult means "hidden". Most if not all the terms I use can be found in most Bibles, but hidden away in the annotations of the footnotes of the annotations. So in that sense I suppose so. Though conversely I must say that I have no qualm with sharing what I know and certainly have no intention of hiding it.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43482961]Occult means "hidden". Most if not all the terms I use can be found in most Bibles, but hidden away in the annotations of the footnotes of the annotations. So in that sense I suppose so. Though conversely I must say that I have no qualm with sharing what I know and certainly have no intention of hiding it.[/QUOTE]
I think you'll find no one here is concerned about you hiding what you think, and I believe his point is referring to any other equivalent god. For the sake of argument it could be Ahura Mazda, the primary god of Zoroastrianism. It certainly came upon monotheism before the Jews, and existed before Christianity, so why would that not be more legitimate.
Aside from that, does the fact that your argument relies so heavily on unprovable or circular assumptions not make you question the quality of that argument?
[QUOTE=Megafan;43482931]Well you cannot divorce your argument so easily from the larger questions that it implies.
My criticism was how you could know of any eternal being or its characteristics, and every answer you gave used circular reasoning.[/QUOTE]
And this is where I come back to what I've been saying the whole time;
At a certain point you need to say enough is enough.
At a certain point you need to stop the chain lest you become incoherent.
"Ramblings of mad man!" you might say. Well let me ask you this;
How can you, with certainty, assert the validity of your own observations without appeal to circular logic?
"This is skepticism! This is irrelevant!" You might say. Well I in turn would reply to you "Well you cannot divorce your argument so easily from the larger questions that it implies."
You see, there are two sides to every coin, and in each of our parts we have made base assumptions about the world, and each seem to do a good job of dealing with the world intelligently. I can't speak for my theists brothers who refuse medical treatment in hopes for divine intervention, nor can I speak for the atheist hedonists which make a mockery of traditional values. All I can say is that we are here, and that is strange in of itself. I know I can't make things exist, nor do I believe a temporal object can do that. Thus I am limited to a non-temporal object which has the property of causation which can act as the finger to the rest of the dominos. This object has properties that may be revealed using other arguments, but thus far ALL I AM CLAIMING IS that YHWH "I am that I am" exists. Something that can bootstrap itself.
My main argument was centered around the basis of the property of self existence. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483018]And this is where I come back to what I've been saying the whole time;
At a certain point you need to say enough is enough.
At a certain point you need to stop the chain lest you become incoherent.
"Ramblings of mad man!" you might say. Well let me ask you this;
How can you, with certainty, assert the validity of your own observations without appeal to circular logic?
"This is skepticism! This is irrelevant!" You might say. Well I in turn would reply to you "Well you cannot divorce your argument so easily from the larger questions that it implies."
You see, there are two sides to every coin, and in each of our parts we have made base assumptions about the world, and each seem to do a good job of dealing with the world intelligently. I can't speak for my theists brothers who refuse medical treatment in hopes for divine intervention, nor can I speak for the atheist hedonists which make a mockery of traditional values. All I can say is that we are here, and that is strange in of itself. I know I can't make things exist, nor do I believe a temporal object can do that. Thus I am limited to a non-temporal object which has the property of causation which can act as the finger to the rest of the dominos. This object has properties that may be revealed using other arguments, but thus far ALL I AM CLAIMING IS that YHWH "I am that I am" exists. Something that can bootstrap itself.
My main argument was centered around the basis of the property of self existence. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.[/QUOTE]
I'm failing to see how Megafans "observation" is making the use of circular logic?
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43483026]I'm failing to see how Megafans "observation" is making the use of circular logic?[/QUOTE]
His observation isn't, I'm making the point that no-matter the world view, unless you are an epistemic coherentist, you need a foundation which has no further justification whether it is that you can trust your senses, or that murdering is wrong.
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
In the words of Wittgenstein;
[quote]Before we disagree, we must first agree.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483054]His observation isn't, I'm making the point that no-matter the world view, unless you are an epistemic coherentist, you need a foundation which has no further justification[/QUOTE]
Are you talking about the "you can't prove that what you live/experience/see/whatever is real" and the like?
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43483066]Are you talking about the "you can't prove that what you live/experience/see/whatever is real" and the like?[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is global skepticism. And I am not saying everything is fake.
I am saying that certain things must be accepted in order to get anywhere (such as 'what you see is what you get'). These assumptions are up for debate, but they aren't neccesarily fully arguable. My assumption for example, holds that in order for anything at all to exist, something must exist which has the property of self existential causation. Essentially a complex object which satisfies the name "I am that I am"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
