one step at a time

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 existsnow 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

quote:

---

Originally posted by graedek:

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

---

​

i disagree. Your existence is falsifiable
(robots and monkeys can type too hehe)

​

lol

---

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 leastso 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 thisfor 'something' to have always existed, what would have to be true? or false (that might be a better way to approach it)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:
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....

---

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?

quote:

---

Originally posted by graedek:
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 now
not enough sleep hehe

---

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*

[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:

---

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."

---

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

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheDanish:
[B]

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.

---

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
Bin 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 existbut i'm not there yet... first we need to ascertain if *anything* "has always existed" or if *everything* "began to exist"...

quote:

---

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...

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:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Those are not givens in "Creatio ex nihilo"

---

even if so, so what?

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

That nothing exists while at the same time the universe exists, makes the existence of the universe an uncertainty.

---

ok, for any thing to exist it must do so:
1) necessarily
2) contingently
3) impossiblysince 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:

---

That nothing still exists while the universe exists also makes it possible for new things to be created within the universe.

---

anyone can make statements like that, but a little reasoning would be appreciated... what new things?

quote:

---

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.

---

by stating the above you deny the possibility that some "thing" has always existed... are you sure you want to take that stance?

quote:

---

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

---

huh?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
You just have to assume the neccessary existence, you can't argue it from other causes or principles.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

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?

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

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

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, foreither A or B
not A
Bthe 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 existedare those acceptable?

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 existedremember, 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
Blet'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 nothingfirst, 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 falsehow 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 falsehow 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 falsefrom 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;
Bis valid, a) must be true... therefore, something always existedis it possible for the universe to be the something that's always existed? maybe... we'll look at it next

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

​

Lets put it this way, do you believe the universe exsists or do you know that the universe exsists?

​

If you know, how?

---

knowledge *is* beliefi really try to build arguments one step at a time, which explains the earlier thread entitled 'knowledge'... knowledge is the true, warranted belief of a properly functioning mind... can all that passes for knowledge be empirically verified?assuming for the sake of argument that my mind is properly functioning, ie i have no mental or physical deficencies that might result in a belief i hold, do i have warrant to believe the universe exists? obviously so, unless not only my senses but the collective senses and evidences gathered via those senses of millions of others with properly functioning minds, is thrown out the window...now it's true that the number of people, even if each have properly functioning minds, who hold a belief doesn't a priori make that belief true, it's also a fact that for the converse to be true (a requisite for knowledge) the burden of proof is on the ones holding the converse viewi can argue for the existence of the universe on intuitive, inductive, and deductive grounds, but to the person who insists all is illusion, all will remain illusion... you might be a huge brain in a universal vat imagining all of this, and if you believe that to be so nobody can convince you otherwise... but could you be said to hold that belief from a properly functioning mind? and would you be warranted in holding that belief?Universe: def. ('juni,ves) n. 1. the whole of all existing matter, energy, and spacenow i'm aware of other theories, the multiverse one for example, but look at the definition above... the *whole* of all, etc etc... if, as you affirm, "I" exist (cognito) then there is energy or matter or space, correct? and if "I" happen to be all that exists, then "I" am the entirety of the universe... correct?so no matter how you look at it, the universe exists... some might differ on what it is ("I" only), but that's another question

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
i really try to build arguments one step at a time, which explains the earlier thread entitled 'knowledge'...

---

​

The weird part to me is that you insist on skipping the first step. No offense....

---

what first step? and none taken [quote]

quote:

---

knowledge is the true, warranted belief of a properly functioning mind...

---

Sorry, no dice. I'm not buying your buddy Plantinga's epistemology. It is a house of cards. Is this the thread where we were discussing that?[/b][/quote]no, diff thread i think... but john, before you accept or reject my buddy's epistemology, he really has some excellent books out.. now it's true you may share my preference for internet-based resources, but they can't really do justice to his philosophy... not saying your first take is in error, merely that there's far more to it than either i or the web can supply [quote]

quote:

---

assuming for the sake of argument that my mind is properly functioning

---

Just a note, I think Plantinga's 'properly functioning mind' is the assumption of something that doesn't exist. 'Properly functioning' is a very very hard thing to pin down. [/b][/quote]maybe so... depends on how properly one's mind functions *grin*... just kidding... it is far deeper than i've portrayed [quote]

quote:

---

i have no mental or physical deficencies that might result in a belief i hold, do i have warrant to believe the universe exists?

---

What if you do have mental or physical defects that MIGHT result in a belief you hold? How do we know THAT these defects do in fact result in the belief you hold? How do we know your belief's are a function of the part of your brain that works? [/b][/quote]now now, i stated "assume for the sake of argument" and you didn't so assume!! tsk tsk [quote]

quote:

---

obviously so, unless not only my senses but the collective senses and evidences gathered via those senses of millions of others with properly functioning minds, is thrown out the window...

---

This is weird to me, because this 'truth' is fluid across cultures, assuming you look outside of christian/greek/roman derived cultures. Cultural anthropology ought to cure this ethnocentrism but noboby bothers to read the cultural profiles.[/b][/quote]so much to read, so little time [quote]

quote:

---

now it's true that the number of people, even if each have properly functioning minds, who hold a belief doesn't a priori make that belief true

---

Glad you realize that. As I read Plantinga though, this seems to be exactly what he is trying to slip in the back door.[/b][/quote]nah... sure, a world with inmates running the asylum can be imagined... but ... [quote]

quote:

---

it's also a fact that for the converse to be true (a requisite for knowledge) the burden of proof is on the ones holding the converse view

---

Fine, as far as it goes. But what is proof? The opinions of properly functioning minds? Dangerously close to circular.[/b][/quote]i don't know, in this context... why not attempt a proof for "the universe doesn't really exist?"... the point seems to be (to me), the burden of proof should rest with the one holding such a belief [quote]

quote:

---

but could you be said to hold that belief from a properly functioning mind? and would you be warranted in holding that belief?

---

Here is the sneaky bit. You appeal back to the properly functioning mind idea to get out of the difficulty. In other words, those that disagree have improperly functioning minds. No longer dangerously circular, but quite decidedly circular. [/b][/quote]i disagree (thus showing an improperly functioning mind? *grin*).. it isn't circular when the term 'knowledge' is defined... it would be if i was equivicating on the terms, ie if i used that definition in one but not all instances... your disagreement with the definition doesn't ipso facto make the definition itself wrong... nor right [quote]

quote:

---

Universe: def. ('juni,ves) n. 1. the whole of all existing matter, energy, and space

---

You've defined universe to include everything no matter what it is, so long as it exists. This is not typical usage in philosophy and should have been specified. More typical usage, and the usage implied in your initial statements is that of a dualism-- I and Universe.
[/B][/QUOTE]sorry, i really thought the term was understood and accepted as such... btw, the definition wasn't mine... here's another, merrian~webster:Main Entry: universe
Pronunciation: 'y-n&-"v&rs
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn
Date: 1589
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulatedthat would seem to include "I" eh? as i said before, some might disagree as to the contents of the universe, but granting even cognito presupposes the universe... therefore, the universe exists by definition