quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
as for a) you seem to be saying that if the definition of universe is as i stated earlier, "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated," then including "I" in it begs the question... but is that true? john objected to the definition, but by his failure to offer his own his objection is merely a groundless assertion...
now you say including "I" in the above begs the question but don't show how... so unless you mean to say it begs the question because the definition of universe isn't as i offered, you seem to be equivicating on the terms
as for b), it assumes transcendental entities aren't themselves included in "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated"... but on what grounds is this assertion made? it appears that for a transcendental entity to fall outside the definition it needs to be defined as "supernatural"... if that's how you want it defined, i'll do that... and in that case, you'd be correct *if* "I" am in fact transcendental
Yes it begs the question because if you didn`t exsist you wouldn`t be asking the question in the first place would you....
Also it only proves the special case where "I = universe" the exsistence of anything else is completely unverified....
quote:
"the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated,"
Seems to me this is a 2 edged sword, afterall I can postulate transcosmic magenta gerbils, they don`t exsist and they are by your definition part of the universe thus the universe (as defined by you) doesn`t either....
So it looks like we have to do away with the postulated part leaving "the whole body of things and phenomena observed" which means that unless we observe these transcendental buggers they are not included in the definition of universe....
Seen any lately?
So now the big question is how do you know that you aren`t one of these supernatural transcendtal buggers?