|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: one step at a time | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
this got bogged down in semantics before, so i think i'll try again, only slower this time... no jumping to the end of the book!!
givens:1) i exist 2) the universe exists now that's as far as i'm going till i see how many are gonna argue about it... if there's disagreement on those, i think i'll just hibernate for the winter
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graedek Inactive Member |
quote: i disagree. Your existence is falsifiable (robots and monkeys can type too hehe) lol ------------------*******sleeper********
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: hey!! and if nuff of 'em type for long nuff we'd have ... something... if my existence is falsifiable, i is here... proven to my satisfaction at least so where were we? ok, something exists... me and the universe (and whatever it contains)... now the question is, has something always existed or did it begin to exist? let's leave me out of this, i'm pretty sure i haven't always existed, tho i confess i only have my mom's word on this for 'something' to have always existed, what would have to be true? or false (that might be a better way to approach it)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: Better get your pyjamas on then buddy boy.... While I`ll grant you 1) for now (but only as it applies to me)(The cogito etc) why do you assume that the universe exsists? It could all be fantasy, the earth, the sun, flowers rain, John and I even LL`s rants..... I happen to agree that the universe exsists but I don`t think you can just assume it a priori without evaluating the alternatives....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
graedek Inactive Member |
if i am refering to myself, i don't consider myself to have a 'beginning'.....in an abstract way i am an extension or branch off of my parents
(maybe thats the 'likeness' to the father....no beginning or end ) I remember cs lewis descibing that as possibly god's view of mankind.......a vine continually splitting off and spreading out neat concept....leaves question about 'self' though anyway...i'm just being goofy nownot enough sleep hehe ------------------*******sleeper********
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDanish Inactive Member |
I know neither of those.
1) By a scientific process, I can evaulate that the most likely explanation for your supposed text -- and my supposed response -- is that we (or at least I) exist. That is a theory, however, as there is always the uncertainty that neither of us exist; that this is only a biproduct of a computer simulation, among other things.2) Again, I can only ascertain that as a theory for the same reason. However, for the purpose simplicity, I'm sure you'll be allowed to make those assumptions in a debate (unless you're arguing with the assumptions of a Christian, in which case that and a lot more is assumed). After all, any evaluation of collected scientific evidence only works with the premise of the latter "theory," and with each individual person believing the former "theory." Edit: Grammar errors. [This message has been edited by TheDanish, 11-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheDanish Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by forgiven:
[B][QUOTE] so where were we? ok, something exists... me and the universe (and whatever it contains)... now the question is, has something always existed or did it begin to exist? [snip] for 'something' to have always existed, what would have to be true? or false (that might be a better way to approach it)?[/B][/QUOTE] Neither way is answerable given current scientific evidence. To wit, we cannot say if something has always existed because there was neither anyone to observe it -- let alone its eternal existance -- nor any evidence to support its existance. However, if false, then there is the ultimate question "whodunit?" Again, scientifically, there is currently no evidence to support anything but the (supposed) age of the universe. At t=lim(t->0-) where t is the age of the universe, assuming there is such a time, there is no explanation for anything happening. We can only work with the evidence we have, and we cannot assume anything about before the beginning of the universe unless there is some property of universe creation defined by evidence found in the assumed universe's existance. In short, we can't test an environment unless we can change it -- play with its variables -- and so far, it doesn't look like there are any quick ways out of the universe to test it from the outside. It's the same reason we can't independantly test gravity or atoms for how/why it works -- there's nothing that we know of that doesn't have it. We can explain it very well, but we cannot ascertain its roots. Disclaimer: I'm neither in this debate nor a scientist. That's just how I feel. [This message has been edited by TheDanish, 11-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: ok, so "I" exist (as it applies to you)... fine... then everytime you see "I" just assume it's talking 'bout you... now then, if i exist and i believe the universe exists, why do i believe that? am i assuming its existence a priori or do i *see* it? nah joz, you can't have it both ways... in another place you said you only accept things you can hear, taste, smell, see... the universe falls into that category eh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: sighhhh... this is the kind of semantical thing that got started last thread... i do not *care* "when" you began to exist (yet)... but one of two things is true... either you did begin to exist or you've existed forever... you are eternal... now go to bed! *grin*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheDanish:
[B]I know neither of those. 1) By a scientific process, I can evaulate that the most likely explanation for your supposed text -- and my supposed response -- is that we (or at least I) exist. That is a theory, however, as there is always the uncertainty that neither of us exist; that this is only a biproduct of a computer simulation, among other things. [/quote] a theory eh? you say there is always "uncertainty" about your existence.. you doubt your own existence... as descartes said (more or less), the very fact that you doubt is logically untenable for a non-existent entity... you have to think to doubt.. you can doubt other things if you want, but you must exist to doubt that you exist... we aren't allowed to contradict ourselves while retaining a semblance of rational discussion... if you don't exist, you can't doubt your existence... if you do exist, merely saying "i exist" proves that existence
quote: i challenge the remark about christians... why can a christian not have rational leeway in a discussion? the statements "i exist" and "the universe exists" are true or not, what difference does it make who utters them? i'm assuming nothing so far... i'm moving slowly for a reason
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheDanish:
[B] quote: but what if it can be answered, logically? what if it can be proven? besides, you've jumped where i've not pointed... i made a statement that is logically valid... the argument is sound:i. A or B ii. not A B in the words of my statement above:i. the universe began to exist or always existed ii. not (one of the two goes here) therefore (what's left goes here)... now this is true all the time, given the truth of the first two premises... so if i can show that the universe did or did not always exist, it must have begun to exist but i'm not there yet... first we need to ascertain if *anything* "has always existed" or if *everything* "began to exist"... quote: where do you get this? nobody's even come close to mentioning that, we're wayyyyy back to trying to determine if some thing has always existed or began to exist...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5580 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Those are not givens in "Creatio ex nihilo"
First there is God whose existence is transcendent.Then you have nothing, most neatly expressed by a mathematical zero. Then you have the universe, including you. That nothing exists while at the same time the universe exists, makes the existence of the universe an uncertainty. That nothing still exists while the universe exists also makes it possible for new things to be created within the universe. In between nothing existing and the universe existing, there is what ought to exist. There is no morality or freedom possible in a universe that "just" exists, a universe that doesn't do anything to merit it's existence. This sort of thing is popular among catholics, when they talk about the universe being all just a dream, in referring to the uncertainty of the existence of the universe. It also is connected to modern science in theories where things only exist "on average". regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
hello syamsu... where did creatio ex nihilo come from? sheesh, no matter what i do people won't stick to the topic.. so far we're wayyyy back on post # 1... nobody's talking about creation or causation or anything except "i exist" and "the universe exists"... we aren't even talking about God yet... one step at a time
quote: even if so, so what?
quote: ok, yes the universe includes me.. i'll take this to mean you have no problem with either "i exist" or "the universe exists"... both of those show that some thing exists... we're now on the subject "has some thing always existed or did it begin to exist"... i'll attempt by disjunctive syllogism to show one or the other to be true...
quote: ok, for any thing to exist it must do so:1) necessarily 2) contingently 3) impossibly since you say the existence of the universe is an uncertainty, does that mean you think it only exists contingently? no, don't answer that.. we've moved too fast, we've yet to determine whether or not a thing can have always existed...
quote: anyone can make statements like that, but a little reasoning would be appreciated... what new things?
quote: by stating the above you deny the possibility that some "thing" has always existed... are you sure you want to take that stance?
quote: huh?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5580 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
Actually God in this line of argument is just "the neccessary existence", there aren't really other attributes of God in this example except for His neccessary existence.
So to rephrase there is a neccessary existence, there is nothing, and there is the universe's existence. It's not a possibility that there is a neccesary existence, since neccessary and possible are mutually ecxlusive terms. You just have to assume the neccessary existence, you can't argue it from other causes or principles. regards,Mohammad Nor Syamsu
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
forgiven Inactive Member |
quote: why? have you examined all arguments that exist or will exist to determine the above, or do you have some insight whereby you don't need to see/hear all such arguments?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024