Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,576 Year: 4,833/9,624 Month: 181/427 Week: 94/85 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   one step at a time
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5668 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 16 of 64 (23914)
11-23-2002 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by forgiven
11-23-2002 11:22 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 11:22 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 1:25 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 64 (23916)
11-23-2002 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by forgiven
11-23-2002 7:04 AM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 7:04 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 1:28 PM joz has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 64 (23931)
11-23-2002 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Syamsu
11-23-2002 11:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
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

i'm not saying it *is* necessary, only that for it to be true it must be either necessary, or contingent, or impossible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Syamsu, posted 11-23-2002 11:58 AM Syamsu has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 64 (23932)
11-23-2002 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by joz
11-23-2002 12:03 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
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....

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by joz, posted 11-23-2002 12:03 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by joz, posted 11-23-2002 11:52 PM forgiven has not replied

  
TheDanish
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 64 (23962)
11-23-2002 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by forgiven
11-23-2002 7:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
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

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:
Originally posted by forgiven:
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
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 7:25 AM forgiven has not replied

  
TheDanish
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 64 (23964)
11-23-2002 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by forgiven
11-23-2002 7:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quote:
Originally posted by TheDanish:
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.

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...

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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 7:35 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 6:40 PM TheDanish has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 64 (23966)
11-23-2002 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by TheDanish
11-23-2002 6:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TheDanish:
quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quote:
Originally posted by TheDanish:
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.

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...

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]

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 B
not 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... or
b) there was a point when no thing existed
are those acceptable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by TheDanish, posted 11-23-2002 6:06 PM TheDanish has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5273 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 23 of 64 (23967)
11-23-2002 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by forgiven
11-22-2002 11:03 PM


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
Who said that?
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by forgiven, posted 11-22-2002 11:03 PM forgiven has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 64 (23993)
11-23-2002 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by forgiven
11-23-2002 1:28 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 1:28 PM forgiven has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 64 (24090)
11-24-2002 4:25 PM


since there seems to be no objection, we're here:
has something always existed? the possibilities are:
a) some thing always existed... or
b) 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 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
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by joz, posted 11-25-2002 5:18 PM forgiven has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 64 (24280)
11-25-2002 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by forgiven
11-24-2002 4:25 PM


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.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by forgiven, posted 11-24-2002 4:25 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Chara, posted 11-25-2002 5:24 PM joz has replied
 Message 30 by forgiven, posted 11-25-2002 8:05 PM joz has replied

  
Chara
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 64 (24283)
11-25-2002 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by joz
11-25-2002 5:18 PM


[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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by joz, posted 11-25-2002 5:18 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by joz, posted 11-25-2002 5:42 PM Chara has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 64 (24288)
11-25-2002 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Chara
11-25-2002 5:24 PM


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.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Chara, posted 11-25-2002 5:24 PM Chara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Chara, posted 11-25-2002 7:24 PM joz has not replied

  
Chara
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 64 (24301)
11-25-2002 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by joz
11-25-2002 5:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
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.....

and the same would hold true for using science ... using magic ... etc.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by joz, posted 11-25-2002 5:42 PM joz has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 64 (24310)
11-25-2002 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by joz
11-25-2002 5:18 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
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.....
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by joz, posted 11-25-2002 5:18 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by joz, posted 11-25-2002 9:06 PM forgiven has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024