Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   one step at a time
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 64 (23826)
11-22-2002 8:59 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by graedek, posted 11-22-2002 10:59 PM forgiven has replied
 Message 4 by joz, posted 11-22-2002 11:55 PM forgiven has replied
 Message 6 by TheDanish, posted 11-23-2002 12:39 AM forgiven has replied
 Message 12 by Syamsu, posted 11-23-2002 7:56 AM forgiven has replied

  
graedek
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 64 (23841)
11-22-2002 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by forgiven
11-22-2002 8:59 PM


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
------------------
*******sleeper********

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forgiven, posted 11-22-2002 8:59 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by forgiven, posted 11-22-2002 11:03 PM graedek has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 64 (23842)
11-22-2002 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by graedek
11-22-2002 10:59 PM


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 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)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by graedek, posted 11-22-2002 10:59 PM graedek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by graedek, posted 11-23-2002 12:24 AM forgiven has replied
 Message 7 by TheDanish, posted 11-23-2002 12:59 AM forgiven has replied
 Message 23 by mark24, posted 11-23-2002 6:45 PM forgiven has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 64 (23848)
11-22-2002 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by forgiven
11-22-2002 8:59 PM


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....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forgiven, posted 11-22-2002 8:59 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 7:04 AM joz has replied

  
graedek
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 64 (23849)
11-23-2002 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by forgiven
11-22-2002 11:03 PM


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
------------------
*******sleeper********

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by forgiven, posted 11-22-2002 11:03 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 7:08 AM graedek has not replied

  
TheDanish
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 64 (23850)
11-23-2002 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by forgiven
11-22-2002 8:59 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forgiven, posted 11-22-2002 8:59 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 7:25 AM TheDanish has replied

  
TheDanish
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 64 (23854)
11-23-2002 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by forgiven
11-22-2002 11:03 PM


[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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by forgiven, posted 11-22-2002 11:03 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 7:35 AM TheDanish has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 64 (23870)
11-23-2002 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by joz
11-22-2002 11:55 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by joz, posted 11-22-2002 11:55 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by joz, posted 11-23-2002 12:03 PM forgiven has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 64 (23871)
11-23-2002 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by graedek
11-23-2002 12:24 AM


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*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by graedek, posted 11-23-2002 12:24 AM graedek has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 64 (23872)
11-23-2002 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by TheDanish
11-23-2002 12:39 AM


[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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TheDanish, posted 11-23-2002 12:39 AM TheDanish has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by TheDanish, posted 11-23-2002 5:54 PM forgiven has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 64 (23873)
11-23-2002 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by TheDanish
11-23-2002 12:59 AM


[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
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:
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by TheDanish, posted 11-23-2002 12:59 AM TheDanish has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by TheDanish, posted 11-23-2002 6:06 PM forgiven has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5669 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 12 of 64 (23874)
11-23-2002 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by forgiven
11-22-2002 8:59 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by forgiven, posted 11-22-2002 8:59 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 9:49 AM Syamsu has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 64 (23881)
11-23-2002 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Syamsu
11-23-2002 7:56 AM


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) 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:
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Syamsu, posted 11-23-2002 7:56 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Syamsu, posted 11-23-2002 10:36 AM forgiven has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5669 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 14 of 64 (23892)
11-23-2002 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by forgiven
11-23-2002 9:49 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 9:49 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by forgiven, posted 11-23-2002 11:22 AM Syamsu has replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 64 (23904)
11-23-2002 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Syamsu
11-23-2002 10:36 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Syamsu, posted 11-23-2002 10:36 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Syamsu, posted 11-23-2002 11:58 AM 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