one step at a time

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
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

---

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....

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
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?

---

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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
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

---

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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
i)since there seems to be no objection, we're here:

​

ii)
a) nothing exists because all is an illusion
b) 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

---

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.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chara:
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?

---

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.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
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

---

Lets put it this way, do you believe the universe exsists or do you know that the universe exsists?If you know, how?If you don`t know that the universe exsists don`t you think that that is a weakness in your arguments?I`m just trying to make sure you build it on a good foundation rather than an assumption....

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
knowledge *is* belief

​

... knowledge is the true, warranted belief of a properly functioning mind... can all that passes for knowledge be empirically verified?

---

John has already addressed a lot of the points I would have however I would like to point out that saying that knowledge is "true warranted belief" merely rolls the question back a stage to become how do you know its a belief that is true and warranted.....So?

Your definition begs the question by including yourself in the universe....More than that it is based on an assumption of materialism, after all you might not be part of the universe you might be one of your transcendental entity thingamabobs, the only way you can include self in universe is if that self is material....Guess whats next....How do you know that you aren`t one of thos transcendental buggers?So your definition a)begs the question, and b)fails to account for that transcendental possibility....

Buddy boys post where he defined the universe as including his self...

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?