Onifre writes:
Whats there? You are talking about a point in reality which is not understood by any standards, you are just musing. Philosophical musing if fine, but to call something axiomatic requires more than just your thoughts on the matter.
It is unserstood that things exist now. It is for all intents and purposes irrelevent what was or was not there, before, during or after your so-called BB. I do not need to know what it was, or if it was or was not there. The axiomatic truth is applied to the existence of things. You are speaking about strict empericism at this point. There again is no philosophical musing about the reality of this axiom.
It seems as though without saying it you are now attempting to say you believe it came form nothing. If not the explanation that we simply dont know wont assist your position. The key to cavedivers statement is IF, there was no time or spcae. "If" does not help your situation. You are being very contradictory in the respect that you are trying to maintain that we dont know, then later you try to imply that there was no this or that, atleast choose a position for the sake of argument. You are trying to play both ends against the middle. If you dont know then stay with that.
The matter being eternal thing I take issue with because you have not established what you mean by matter. In quantum fields particles come in an out of existance neither requireing anything to bring them in nor are the particles eternal. Unless you can better define it, it is still not an axiomatic truth by those standards. However, like I have said before, if you're speaking philosophically then I can accept matter being eternal because then eternal really does not need to be defined
Watch this first you say that there is no way we can know then you turn right around and state unequivocaley that particles come in and out of existence, neither ANYTHING REQUIRING to bring them into existence. How in the world can you make such a categorical statment, already having stated you dont know. You are not being consistent even in your argumentation techniques, how could I trust that you could understand the principle of an axiom.
Again I do not need to speak philosophically to speak about the fact that things exist now. The axiomatic truth applies itself against that reality, not what I dont know. Why is it that you cannot even thoorize another possibility. You are ignoring the force of the argument and axiom by the rehtoric about what was there or what it was like and soforth.
Explain reality to me in a quantum world, what would you say is an axiomatic truth about it? And remember quantum worlds exist in our reality, we just can't see it.
The quantum world is etiher real or not real. If it is real as you clearly admit, then it will have the only two possibilites of the axiom that are applied against it. None of this side stepping will change this reality, you are simply desperately attempting a solution that ignores both reality and reason. Unless you are now going for the "it came from nothing" proposition.
Straggler writes
You are supplying case specific scenarios. Not axioms.
Are you saying each individual situation requires it's own axiom? Are your "axioms" infinite?
What is the actual "axiom" in your example?
So now you have redefined an axiom as a case specific scenario. This is another way of avoidng the force of the axioms I am presenting, you simply hope no one will notice, clearly any thinking person will. Please by all means tell me what a case specific scenario is and how it is different from an axiom. Geez.
Since there are no such things as generalised axioms and I have demonstrated there are axioms, I will continue to ignore the fact that you are simply repeating yourself.
If your methodology is valid it should be universal.
axioms are universal not me or my methods, I follow the method of the axiom itself, see the diffrernce. When you understand this simple point you will understand my method.
Stile writes:
It doesn't really matter, I agree with both. Everyone does. They're tautologies (in the simplistic sense that we're discussing them in, anyway).
Thanks for the agreement, however, tautologies are applications of axioms, or the ability to simple acknowldge them over and over. The axiom is what it is by itsef.
The universe was created by a natural method (has supporting, verifiable evidence)
The universe was created by a supernatural method (only exists in imagination)
The universe is eternal and is entirely based on natural methods (has supporting, verifiable evidence)
The universe is eternal and is entirely based on supternatural methods (only exists in imagination)
Thanks again for these admissions it shows objectivity, Stile. But you will notice these are all a part of the only two possibilites, the axiom itself.
The interesting part is sorting through the various options that actually have a chance of being a part of reality (that is, they have verifiable evidence supporting them and do not only exist in the imagination) and then discovering which ones should be eliminated or focused on.
More objectivity truely impressive. As you proceed with the above type of investigation it will lead you to the axioms that are such that you cannot avoid thier conclusions
There are never "other solutions" to tautologies. That's what makes them so fun, and useless..
Stile look up the word Tautologies in the dictionary and see if it describes an axiom, it does not. A Tautology is the APPLICATION of language to a certain idea, word, phrase concept. It is different than what makes an axiom what it is in the first place. Trying to equate axioms with tautologies is nothing short of silly..
straggler writes:
But that is not what is usually meant by the term "axiom"........
Please by all means give us a dictionary definition of the word axiom, lets see what its actual meaning is without your interpretation.
No testing of conclusions is required. No hypotheses need be formed. They have their conclusions and they are valid. As far as they are concerned.
Only a person void of all reasoning abiilites would make such a nonsensical statement. Testing your conclusion against the properties of reality and seeing that there are no other solutions is the height of empericism. It involves the testing of conclusions and hypotheses are naturally formed to come to a conlcusion that cannot be avoided.
Its necessary however, for you to claim such to avoid the fact that you cannot provide anyother solutions. In debate its called a 'smoke screen'. Its a tactic to avoid the responsibility you have in this discussion to provide those other solutions. Or as PaulK calls it, 'misdirection' Hey, 150 posts and you have yet ot provide other solutions, as I predicted.
Bertot may never get it. I doubt he ever will in fact. But geting into the usual "you have no evidence", "but you have no answer", "but you have no evidence" etc. etc. etc. etc. argument over a specific conclusion is not really the point I hoped this thread would make.
Tell us then what you hoped this thread would take given your title and OP? This is interesting, you require emperical evidence for everything and everybody else, which is fine, but when I do point out that you have no solutions or answers, you say that doesnt matter, there is no way to know and who cares anyway. This is the most ignorant way to proceed assuming direct and demonstratable evidence must be provided by everyone else, but when it comes to you, you say, it doesnt matter. It demonstrates that you will use any tactic to avoid your responsibility.
So my advice, for what little it is worth, is don't let Bertot turn the discussion in that specific direction.
Why Straggler, so you can avoid your responsibility? You are unbelievable.
If his methods are nonsense then it follows that his conclusions are almost certainly bollocks.
You methods as Ihave demonstrated are fraught with contradiction, the amazing conclusions of which from yourself, amount to, we cant know, why try and it doesnt matter anyway and you call that debating.
Coyote writes:
In this, creation "science" is methodologically the exact opposite of real science
Really, please tell me how "real science" is counterfactual to any of the axioms or ideas I have set out. I guarentee you that not one could be provided to demonstrate it otherwise. Or is this just another categorical assertion to fill a post. Give me a break You cant even provide other solutions much less demonstrate it is not science.
When people watching read this kind of tripe you have just stated above, it is hoped that they will stick around to watch your attempts. In the face of what I have presented, yours and others has been one of failure and retreat.
Stile writes:
I think I've made my point well enough for any reader to understand, so I'll stop dragging Bertot in that direction. Besides... it's highly likely that an infinite number of my posts wouldn't get Bertot to admit his "axioms" are useless tautologies. Or, well, useless for what he's trying to use them for, anyway
.
If you honestly believe that tautologies are reality and axioms are not, then you are correct, no number of posts will accomplish this task. Have you actully looked up the word in the dictionary? Remember retreating to a nonsensical response or position is not the same as an alternative or another solution.
PaulK writes:
Part of my point is that Spock said nothing about an inability to receive. The only inability he mentions as a possibility is a inability to respond
Will Admin and PaulK please forgive me for the following statement,please. This is one of the most ignorant and completely rediculous statements I believe I have ever witnessed, sorry I had to. Now I told you earlier that he had involved himself in an assertion from which he could not extricate himself and now he is demonstrating it, without a doubt. If Mr Spock STATED that they (aliens) were either unwilling or unable to respond, that would mean that the ENTERPRISE was unable (inability) to RECIEVE the message.
you will not be able to extricate yourself from your earlier false assumption that UNWILLING AND UNABLE had only meaning to the aliens. I would just quit trying, you are digging a bigger hole.
And here's a little exercise in real logic for you.
If the two propositions denoted by A and B are both TRUE, what is the truth value of
~A v ~B ?
And if you're feeling really clever you can try to work out the relevance of it, too.
Anyone who really understands logic would have no problem.
Exercise in logic? We are talking about axioms.
Right. Logic has the ability to be both theoretical and subjective at times Axioms however, are based in reality, as such they will not be subjective and will demonstrate that they are free from contradiction.
Huntard writes:
No it isn't, it's just goes into everything we see as functioning normally, but these are aliens, not normal human beings. I again state that this is the way the aliens work, when they are able to do something and willing to do something, they don't. thus Spock was wrong and your "axiom" is proven not to be an axiom at all. (which it wasn't in the first place anyway)
Hence, Unable. The axiom and UNABLE AND UNWILLING apply to both parties in the scenario. So the enterprise is unable to recieve the maessage regardless of the aliens methods or inability to do things the way we do. the reason/s do not and will not mater to unsettle the axiom. Looking for reasons is subsidiary to the reality of the axiom itself and have no application to it as the axiom is itself reality
Straggler writes:
Agreed. But our perception of reality is limited to subjective empirical experience. That too is indisputable.
This is a nonsensical statement when reality carries you to the limits of its possibilites and will not allow you to evenimagine other theoretical possibilites, as I hav eclearly demonstrated.
How can we "prove" anything? We can discover what we believe to be reality but given our subjective outlook and the fact that we cannot experience all of the empirical evidence how can we ever be sure that what we know is a true reflection of reality?
We thought we understood time. Until Einstein changed all the "axioms". For example.
Axioms are not subjective in any respect when you admit this and quit avoided the force of it, you will be sure that what you have is reality.
If the axioms of reality are not limited by empirical reality what are they?
Now watch this simple illustration to demonstrate how contradictory Straggler is becoming. First he says you cant know anything in reality then with the same breath tries to imply that emperical is reality. What?Emperical is a method Staggler, it means "based on observation". An observation of reality against an axiomatic truth, will demonstrate unavoidable conclusions,the likes of which are non-contradictory, Thats what an AXIOM is my friend.
That is why neither you nor Bertot have actually been able to state an "axiom of reality" after 140 posts of opportunity to do so.
We have and you are just avoiding the force of it by refusing to offer other solutions that will not fall withing the two examples. Every example that has been offered in the unable and unwilling demonstration has and can be reduced to the two, as I have demonstrated.
Cavedicer writes:
Given that time is an integral part of the Universe, the Universe has always existed whether it is has finite or infinite extent into the past. So your statement is not particularly informative.
You do realize that your above attempt falls squarely within the nature of the axiom, correct. Further would you please prove the above assertion from an emperical manner, this should prove interesting. No notice friends he is not just suggesting this, it is a categorical statement.
You can state this is an axiom all you like, and you are welcome to take it as an axiom for your own belief system - but it is obviously false - why not eternal AND created? And why does not eternal imply created? Hint - it doesn't... if you think it does, perhaps you might like to prove it? And if you want it to be accepted as an axiom, proof is what you will need - not mere evidence.
Notice friends more assertions by himself, that are a combination of the only two possible expalnations, he simply rearranges them, in a nonsensical way hoping no one will notice. I might add that created and eternal form a rational standpoint is both silly and nonsensical. let Cavediver demonstrate how something could be created and eternal at the the same time. "Proof is what you will need not mere eveidence". What does that mean? Cavedicer, pick up a dictionary. Evindence: "proof or testimony"
I'm sorry, Bertot. This reply more than adequately demonstrates your complete inadequacy in this discussion. You may go now.
Perhaps you would like to tell me what "existing outisde time" means?
Eternality, duh.
Ah, so your god is incapable of creating a universe that is eternal? Interesting...
Reality and existence are eternal CD. You do realize that time is a concept we ascribe to properties and that it is not an actual thing correct, like hate , love, anger, etc, etc. Properties and what you describe as time exists withing eternality. Trying to find a source for physical properties is the goal not time.
You are assuming he would need to create a universe or anything that is eternal, how does any of that preclude his existence, as Hawking clearly corroborates.
Given the above statement I would say once again that you are already GONE or your tank is running low again.
Onifre writes:
Me personally I would simply say "It exists" and it "came into existance" from a previous, not yet fully understood, state. I believe these are axioms AND supported by empirical objective evidence.
ICANT writes:
I can agree with this statement: "Me personally I would simply say "It exists" and it "came into existance" from a previous, not yet fully understood, state. I believe these are axioms".
If they are "supported by empirical objective evidence", that is fine.
If they are not it does not change the axiom.
There you go. The only problem you fellas are having is avoiding the force andreality of the axiom, that Bertot, that myself have put forward in this thread. Acreator is clearly one of the only two choices.Then theist will say. ok. Then God is the universal observer and determines all outcomes.
803 writes:
Then the athiest will say, no no no!! The universe is not completely deterministic, there is caos and uncertainty as well.
On and on we go, talk about circular arguments.
No no no 803. What you have just described is an axiom. The frustration you are experiencing in your post is the observable reality of so-called rational people trying to avoid its force and reality. Please stay tuned.
This seems a good place for me to stop and respond to Rrhain, since he complains about not only axioms but the way I write and debate as well. Oh yeah I forgot he is supreme in the website, give me a break. Ill be with you in just a few minutes Rrhain, Peter Pan, whatever. CALM DOWN, IM JUST KIDDING, its just a joke to lighten things up, I respect you greatly.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Relying on dictionaries for your definitions again? So you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof? And you're here desperately trying to show yourself as an expert on logic 
™ Version 4.2
(1)