|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,483 Year: 3,740/9,624 Month: 611/974 Week: 224/276 Day: 64/34 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: one step at a time | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5612 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Well no, but if you argue it from other causes or principles then that would inevitably undermine it's neccesity seems to me.
regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Ah but you see I happen to agree that the universe exsists, in said other place your arguments were from a rationalist perspective (i.e innate ideas) however I think you still have to justify them, the could be deceptions/delusions after all..... Seriously read some Descartes.... [This message has been edited by joz, 11-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i'm not saying it *is* necessary, only that for it to be true it must be either necessary, or contingent, or impossible
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: sigh... by saying it could be deceptions/illusions you doubt its factual nature... if you don't want to grant the universe exists and insist on proofs or justifications for its existence, this might not be the thread for you
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDanish Inactive Member |
quote: But what if I don't exist? What if I'm not really doubting my existance, but merely a machine spitting back what has been fed to me earlier? But, anyway, for the purposes of this thread, (at least for me) we can make the assumption that we're all rational, that we all exist, because we have no reason to believe otherwise, except for what we don't know, and drawing straws from what we don't know is pretty stupid, wouldn't you agree?
quote: Because Christians believe the Bible is the Truth, to deviate from that is not to be Christian -- many assumptions can be made based on what the Bible says, such as God exists; if you take Genesis 1:1 to be true, then God, the heaven and the earth all exist, for example. I could go into a deeper analysis, but again, I'm not really in this debate. Just kinda asking arbitrary questions, y'know? I know this is tangent to the thread, but you were the one that challenged my remark, and thus I submit my reasoning. Anyway, for the purposes of this thread (if I choose to continue), I shall assume that the universe exists -- I already conceded that in my first post, and I do it again here. [This message has been edited by TheDanish, 11-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDanish Inactive Member |
quote: The answer is in the quotation you derived from my post; I would simply be reiterating it to answer your question. Replace "universe" with "some thing," as you put it, and there's your answer. Oh, I see. You're saying that began to exist doesn't necessarily mean that it was created. Fair enough, but whether or not I say "created" does not deviate from my main point -- there's no logical or other method with which we can say how long anything has been around, besides that for which there is evidence, whether it has been for an infinite or finite amount of time. Edit: More spelling/grammar errors [This message has been edited by TheDanish, 11-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: ok then, why don't we try to find out whether or not your last sentence is true?... let's take as given: something exists - the universe is a thing.. i am a thing... so *some thing* can be accepted as existing... now then, leaving out specific 'things' for now, let's see if we can establish whether or not something (*anything*) has always existed, ok? if we can disprove any leg of a disjunct, and if both legs are valid, then whatever is left must be true of necessity, for either A or Bnot A B the question: has something always existed? there seems to be a limited number of possible answers to this, but i'll post them and stop, so we can discuss them if need be... a) some thing always existed... orb) there was a point when no thing existed are those acceptable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5217 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Who said that? ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Bud if you are going to build some rationalist (apologies if you aren`t actually one but your opinions so far sound pretty much akin to their ilk)argument from the basis that the universe exsists you really need to prove that it does first, otherwise however grand the structure you create some bugger like Hume might come along and knock it down.... [This message has been edited by joz, 11-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
since there seems to be no objection, we're here:
has something always existed? the possibilities are: a) some thing always existed... orb) there was a point when no thing existed remember, in any disjuntive if one leg can be disproven the other must be true... so if one of those two can be shown to be false, the other is true by default...A or B not A B let's look at b) above, there was a point when nothing existed... for this to be so, one of these must be true: a) nothing exists because all is an illusionb) something that exists created itself c) something that exists came from nothing first, what is "no thing?" no thing, nothing, is a complete state of non-existence, it has no attribute of any kind.. no size or shape, a complete and total absence of all attributes... examining the above, we can rule out a) since we've already agreed that something exists, namely "I" and "the universe"... so if something exists, a) is false how about b)? something that exists created itself... is this possible? to create itself it would have to exist prior to it's own existence, it would have to be here before it was here... it would have to both be here and not be here at the same time, which is a contradiction... b) is false how about c)? for that to be true, for something to come from nothing, there had to be a point when there was non-existence, a point when no attribute of any kind existed... but at least one attribute would be present if something could come from nothing, the attribute of being able to have something come from it... if that attribute exists, we aren't talking about nothing... so equivocation on the terms aside, c) is false from our original disjunct, a) something always existed, or b) there was a point when nothing existed, we've seen that b) is false... since:A or B; not A; B is valid, a) must be true... therefore, something always existed is it possible for the universe to be the something that's always existed? maybe... we'll look at it next
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: i)But there is an objection, namely that to build from the (putative) exsistence of the universe you have to prove it exsists forst.... ii)I think you are begging the question here, you already know you exsist or you wouldn`t be asking the question, a) should read something like "a)Nothing but me exsists everything else is a figment of my immagination.", lets call that neo a) for now... So you cant falsify (neo) a) because of your own exsistence and you are back where you started with only the knowledge of self exsistence derived from the cogito.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chara Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by joz:
a) should read something like "a)Nothing but me exsists everything else is a figment of my immagination.", lets call that neo a) for now... So you cant falsify (neo) a) because of your own exsistence and you are back where you started with only the knowledge of self exsistence derived from the cogito.....[/B][/QUOTE] I've been following this thread and recognize that I am not qualified to add anything to it, BUT I do have a question. It seems to me that if we're at "neo" that's where we're going to stay. Moving past that point is an impossibility ... so whats the point of anything? scientific investigation? faith?? magic? what's the diff?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Yep thats pretty much the pickle that Descartes found himself in.... He attempted to use God to pull himself up out of the mire, problem is he had to prove God first and his proof turns out to be circular.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chara Inactive Member |
quote: and the same would hold true for using science ... using magic ... etc.?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: i think i already answered you long ago on this... remember? if you want to deny the existence of the universe, i said, then maybe this isn't the thread for you... why not just leave it to those who *don't* deny the universe exists? that way you'll be happy, i'll be happy, and those who want to see where this goes will be happy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024