What is wrong with this argument?
in [Logic]
|
Next: arithmetic in ZF
From: Fred Stone on 11 Apr 2005 13:32 "Scotmc" <scotmc(a)SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote in news:k%v6e.1$s77.0 @fe09.lga: > "Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message > news:4257524e.55162469(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... >> On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 22:01:57 -0400, "Scotmc" >> <scotmc(a)SPAMBLOCKoptonline.net> wrote: > >>>>"Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message >>>> I am content to be a troll. >>>> Since all the posters on these forums are trolls too, I am in good >>>> company. > > Scotmc wrote: >>>Would you behave differently if you actually met someone who wanted to >>>discuss philosophy honestly? > > Sweet Ol'Bob >> I cannot find any. <snip> > > What have I written indicates to you that I am deceptive or > dishonest in my discussions? > You don't agree with Sour Ol'Boob. -- Fred Stone aa# 1369 "You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
From: RainLover on 11 Apr 2005 15:43 On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 16:08:49 -0700, Incubus <Incubus(a)inc.net> wrote: >Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote: >> On 8 Apr 2005 11:29:34 -0700, "Hector Plasmic" <hec(a)hectorplasmic.com> >> wrote: >> >> >>>You haven't presented any concepts >> >> >> Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,talk.atheism,alt.religion >> Subject: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics >> Date: Friday April 8, 2005, 5:00 pm CT > > > The main argument: > > > > The Universe cannot be the source of its own existence because it is > > mutable. Therefore there must be a Supreme Being whose Essence is > > Existence who causes the Universe to exist. NON SEQUITOR. To paraphrase: "The universe cannot be the source of it's own existence because it can change" "Therefore, a God caused the universe to exist. These two statement don't follow each other. There's a HUGE leap of (religious) faith to get there. ALSO: You neglect to define what you mean by "essence" here. What exactly *IS* the "essence" of anything... specifically, of the universe? > > To understand why the Universe cannot be the source of its own > > existence consider what would be the case if it were. For the Universe > > to be the source of its own existence, Existence (the act which causes > > things to exist) must be part of its Essence. > > > > Since, by assumption, Existence is part of the Essence of the > > Universe, then the Universe must always be the way it is now. You Assume incorrectly. Presuming the universe must always have been as we see it as this moment is as to travel to an ocean at high tide, and walk away stating that the water level always remains the way it is now.. Existence is a man-made word to describe what we see and know. Of course, we can all agree that there are things that exist that we are not aware of and may never be aware of, but "existence" is what it is. It is incorrect to assume (again) that there is MORE than what exists... IE: that existence is "part" of something more than existence. > > After > > all, Existence is part of the Essence of the Universe, You now state this as a FACT, with no evidence to back it up. Therefore, all of your argument from this point forward is based on theory and, some would call, tendencies toward religious world view. >therefore > > Existence forces the Universe to Be what it is forever. IOW, because > > the Universe has Existence as part of its Essence, it cannot be > > something other than that which it is. > > > > Therefore, by assumption, the Universe is immutable. Only an INCORRECT assumption would arrive at this claim. I agree that the universe and all existence is what it is, but that existence and universe are ever-changing and mutating. >But that is not > > what we observe. Physicists observe a mutable Universe. Therefore the > > Universe cannot have Existence as part of its Essence, and therefore > > it cannot be the source of its own existence. Therefore there must be > > a Supreme Being whose Essence is Existence and is the source of the > > existence of the Universe. You have just 'scientifically' made a case for the God Of The Gaps, nothing more. And, yet again, you make the leap from observable existence to god-being because we do not understand much of the universe. This reasoning is flawed on a fundamental level: presuming the gap between your concept of reality and the universe means there MUST be a god in control of it all. > > === > > > > One of the surest ways to start a big argument in philosophy is for > > two people to adopt different Worldviews. According to Webster, the > > Worldview (aka " Weltanschauung") is > > > > Worldview: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world > > especially from a specific standpoint > > > > More specifically the Worldview is the epistemological basis, plus its > > supporting ontology, for your rational system. It is the set of axioms > > about how you view reality. It should be obvious that if your view of > > reality is fundamentally different from my view of reality, we can > > never argue our points to one another even though we may adhere to > > rational arguments within the framework of our separate systems. There is nothing rational in the framework of "I don't understand parts of the universe, so a GOD must exist.", which is what the claim of your supreme being boil down to. > > The two most promiment Worldview can be understood in terms of > > "objectivity" and "subjectivity". We call the Worldview that claims > > reality is objective by the name Realism. We call the Worldview that > > claims reality is subjective by the name Idealism. I do not pretend to > > know everything about Worldviews so I am not going to go any further > > with this. But I do know enough to point out that certain rational > > systems of thought are based on an objective Realist Worldview (eg, > > Physics) and some are based on a subjective Idealist Worldview (eg, > > Mathematics). > > > > Physics is based on the Worldview of Objective Realism. There is no > > doubt in the mind of the Physicst that electrons actually do exist in > > objective reality. If you don't believe that - if you think electrons > > are subjective constructs like the tooth fairy, then you will allow > > yourself to be hooked up to a high voltage source. After about 1 > > millisecond you will decidethat electrons are very real. > > > > Mathematics is based on the Worldview of Subjective Idealism. There > > are no such things as "numbers" in objective reality. There is no such > > thing as a circle in objective reality. If you don't agree, then I > > will let you connect me to a number or to a circle. I guarantee that > > nothing will happen, because numbers, circles and everything in > > Mathematics are subjective constructs that reside completely in the > > mind of the Mathematician. This is a silly example. You're comparing to utterly different sciences. Your entire Physics/Mathematics feud is fantasy. Tell me what about a circle is "subjective"? I suppose you could argue that on a sub-atomic level, a 'perfect' circle would have ragged edges, but since physicist argue their own science on a daily basis, it could be said that much of physics on that sort of level is just as 'subjective'. > > One of the most fundamental axioms of Objective Realism (aka > > "Existential Realism") is the Principle of Apprehension of Being. This > > is also known as the Authority of the Senses. Something exists in > > objective reality precisely because there is something out there that > > can affect your senses - like the shock from a high voltage source. Again, this supposedly "objective" and 'realistic principle of yours fails on many levels. Pure THOUGHT... subjectivity, can cause very REAL Physical reactions. The thought of blood, or even the sight of death or other subjective situations can cause a person to have very REAL, scientifically proven reactions. For instance... a punch to the face by a pro boxer would put most people.... yet, some people can take 20 or 30 or 100 of these blows and win a fight. The PUNCH is 100% physics... real... yet the blow is subjective to everyone. Of course, high voltage can KILL..... but, then again, not always. > > The Apprehension of Being - the awareness of something out there - is > > very primitive. A new born infant puts his hand on a hot stove burner > > and immediately becomes aware of "something out there". He does not > > know what it is, but he definitely knows it is there. A primitive awareness of being doesn't make a supreme being so... it simply makes some humans presume there MUST be and find any twisty-turny logic to get to that outcome in your mind, be they followers of Heaven's Gate or, it's appearing more and more every day, Metaphysical Existentialism > > This Principle is not found in Mathematics. There is no "thing out > > there" in Mathematics. Everything in Mathematics is contained in your > > mind, subjectively. So the very first distinction between Objective > > Realism and Subjective Idealism is that Realism adopts the Principle > > of Apprehension of Being, and Subjective Idealism does not. There appears to be no reason whatsoever for you to keep equating physics to mathematics. They are DIFFERENT fields of science. You could just as easily say "mathematics is wrong because it doesn't take into account atomic particles when it's doing long division." And, btw, just because something is 'contained in your mind' does NOT make it automatically 'subjective'. Many great REALISTIC ideas have come 100% from the mind. >This is > > critical to deciding on which Worldview you must adopt for any > > particular rational system. No, it's critical for following your particular religion, call it what you will, you're making a leap of logic and reason that puts you in the company of all religions. > > Next there is the Principle of Consistency. This is Aristotle's > > terminology for the notion of Non-Contradiction. This principle states > > that there cannot be both "A" and "Not-A" in existence at the same > > time. Either "A" exists or "Not-A" exists. Remember we are talking > > about things out there - what we apprehend as Being. Something can > > either Be or Not-Be. It cannot both exist and not exist at the same > > time. We apprehend that gods do not exist, by YOUR idea, that means gods cannot exist at the same time, including your supreme being. > > The third fundamental principle of Existential Realism is the > > Principle of Causality. In Physics we realize that without Causality > > there could be no Order. The reason is simple - for you to describe > > the Order inherent in something, you must connect the ojects by > > Causality. If you merely describe objects without connecting them > > Causally, then you cannot describe the Order they exhibit because > > there is no heirarchy to provide the disctinctions needed to describe > > the Order. Okay, nothing here provides evidence for your supreme intelligent being. > > > > Try describing an atom without invoking Causality. You will not be > > able to talk about the Order inherent in an atom, in which case you > > are forced to describe as a glob of amorphous matter. But we know > > better than that because we know that an atom is a highly ordered > > entity capable of doing very ordered things, like emitting a photon of > > very precise wavelength. That can happen only if an atom is Ordered, > > and it can be Ordered only if there is Causality with which to create > > the Order based on the heirarchy of cause and effect. Okay... if you say so, although scientists continue to find other 'causes' for the order you see... and, again, to prescribe your god to this order is to simply create another God Of The Gaps. > > From here we move on to Metaphysics, which is the Science that > > explains Being. That is what Aristotle meant by it - the Science of > > Existence. But whatever it is, it is critical to realize that it is > > based on Physics ("Meta-Physics", after Physics, about Physics) - and > > that Physics is based on the Worldview of Existential Realism. Aristotle knew of quantum physics, quarks, and absolute zero? No. I believe that when he talked of the science of existence he already KNEW of the existence he was talking about. It's a very BASIC truth, not some complicated thing that only the High-Priests of Physics pretend it to be. > > Assuming that you adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism, we can > > now present the argument that the Supreme Being exists. In fact we > > will also show that the Supreme Being *must* exist or reality would > > not exist. WRONG. You make yet ANOTHER huge jump, from "You should adopt Existential Realism as your world view" to "See? A supreme Being *MUST* exist." Let me restate that using your words: Assuming that you adopt Christianity, we can now present the argument that the Supreme Being exists. In fact...GOD *must* exist or reality would not exist. See my point? What you said is EXACTLY, word for word, what a Christian would say about their religion. > > This argument was first given by Thomas Aquinas in his book on > > Metaphysics entitled "On Being and Essence". This argument is not > > taken from his religious book entitled "Summa Theologica". The famous > > "five-fold ways" from the Summa are religious arguments. The arguments > > we give below are based on Existential Metaphysics and not on faith. > > > > The Universe is mutable. Not only is that intuitively obvious but it > > is codified in Physics. Physics is the science which explains how > > physical objects can exist at one moment and can cease to exist at > > another. That's what is meant by "mutable" in Existential Metaphysics. > > > > Mutable objects cannot be the cause of their own existence. The reason > > requires some thinking, so either put away whatever is distracting you > > and pay close attention - or this will go completely over your head. MAN... I'm TRYING to read you here, SOB, but if you keep pretending like you're so much smarter than everyone, I'll just write you and your ideas off. There is absolutely NO REASON to condescend. Did you get it, or did this go right over your head? > > There are several kinds of causes in Aristotle's Metaphysics. Here we > > are talking about the "Efficient Cause", the one which is responsible > > for an object to exist in an essential way. If I hit a baseball with a > > bat, the bat is the efficient cause of the baseball flying thru the > > air. > > > > The baseball cannot spontaneously fly - it does not possess "Flying > > Thru The Air" as part of its Essence (its Nature, its Design, its > > Internal Construction, its Intrinsic Behavior, etc.). If it did > > possess Flying Thru The Air as part of its Essence, then it would > > always be Flying Thru The Air - it could never stop Flying Thru The > > Air because that is its Nature. > > > > Therefore in order for the baseball to Fly Thru The Air, some separate > > object which possesses the Efficient Cause to make the ball Fly Thru > > The Air must act on the ball - like a bat. This relationship between > > the bat (Cause) and the ball Flying Thru The Air (Effect) is what we > > call Causality. The bat didn't cause anything. Heck, the bat would have just laid at home plate as the ball flew over it if the bat had anything to say about it. Did the player CAUSE the bat to hit the ball? Perhaps, but that's all subjective, so, for your REALITY of the bat to 'cause' the ball to move into the air, then the player's Very SUBJECTIVE mind had to decide to use the bat and the subjective eye-hand brain function had to get things right... more or less. > > The critical point here is to understand that mutable objects cannot > > be the source of their own Existence, because if they were, they would > > be forced for all time to be the same thing they were when they were > > created. Why? What if their existence, the 'essence' of their existence was FOR change? Heck, the 'essence' of human life is to DIE, the entire human system is a time-bomb waiting to go off and kill the host in the end. You still haven't given any good reasons why an object or system capable of change could not be the source of their/its own existence. There are many humans who belief that those of us alive CHOSE to be alive and life wasn't forced onto them by their mothers and fathers. > > --- > > Consider what it means "To Be". Don't get bogged down in what it means > > to be a particular kind of being, just focus on the "Act of Being", > > the "Act of Existence". > > > > One way to do that is to consider what it means not To Be. You as a > > person were once non-existent. What was it like? Of course if you did > > not exist you did not have an essence therefore you can't consider > > what kind of being you were not. You were not any kind of being when > > you did not exist. > > > > OK, now that you have had time to consider Being and NonBeing, do you > > get the idea that there must be some kind of entity that has always > > existed in order to explain how you and the whole Universe can exist? Another non sequitur; to paraphrase, you said: "Since you can't imagine what it was like to NOT exist, there *must* be a supreme intelligent being that created you" You give a POOR example... and to answer your question: NO, I don't get the idea that your God must exist from what you've tried explaining so far. > > You cannot possibly be the cause of your own existence because before > > you existed, you did not exist. It would be absurd to claim that a > > nonexistent could cause itself to exist. Where is your evidence, ANY evidence, that before my conscious life now I did not exist in any form whatsoever? Now, I personally do NOT believe I existed before I was born, but as to your claim of "absurdity" to creating 'myself'... Of course I didn't create myself! My parents did. It's a very basic biological function to recreate one's self.... > > But even if you existed for all eternity, you still cannot be the > > source of your own existence or else you would always be the same kind > > of being that you were for all eternity. You could not die, for > > example. You could not grow, for example. But that is not how it works > > - you will die one day, you did grow from an embryo to an adult. > > Therefore you cannot be the source of your own existence. My parents are my source... no magic needed, no gods needed, no "supreme beings" needed neither. If you're thinking about doing the chicken and egg thing... you know.. my great, great, to (infinitum) grandparents came from WHERE.... well, let me assure you that YOUR explanation will be on as sure footing as Christians and the aboriginal peoples of the world. > > The same kind of reasoning applies to the Universe as a whole. Whether > > the Universe came into being at a moment in time or whether it has > > always existed, it is a mutable entity and therefore cannot be the > > source of its own existence. Your reasoning failed long ago on this point. You actually sound a bit confused, because, if the universe has ALWAYS existed, then there would be no "source" of the universe, and, logically, doesn't fit into your paradox of being the source of it's one existence. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN. If you feel compelled to wrap your mind around the concepts of infinity and eternity, go right ahead, but don't invent a God Of The Gap to make ends meet. > > If it makes a transition to a new state, > > which according to Physics it does constantly, how is this new state > > going to be if it was not before? How can this new state come into > > existence if it had no existence prior to its coming into existence? How does a 1 foot high ancestor of the elephant become a 10' high elephant? How does flat, barren land become the Himalayan mountain range? How does banging on a rock with a stick became a Beethoven Concerto? MY ANSWER: It just does. YOUR ANSWER: God (supreme being, whatever) did it. > > --- > > > > Mutable objects cannot have Existence as part of their Essence. Their > > Existence must come from a separate entity, one which is the cause of > > their existence. This entity causes mutable objects to exist since > > mutable objects cannot be the cause of their own existence - or else > > they would not be mutable. If you SAY this enough, do you think everyone will believe? > > > > The entity that causes mutable objects to exist must itself possess > > Existence as its Essence. It is fundamentally different from all other > > entities in objective reality. It is the one and only entity that has > > Existence as its Essence. If it did not have Existence as part of its > > Essence, it would not be able to cause the existence of mutable > > objects. Here's where you make a special pleading that EVERYTHING must have a creator... except the creator, of course. And this is where you sink further into religion and away from the "science" to which you claim to be your proof of all of this... > > This entity that causes the existence of mutable objects does not > > require a cause of its existence because IT IS EXISTENCE. That's what > > is meant by saying that its Essence is Existence. So, you're saying "existence" is able to Cause itself to exist, but nothing else has this special quality. My question to you is this: Why can't EVERYTHING have this special quality to cause existence? You can't make a special, arbitrary exception for your supreme being. > > No where in this argument have I mentioned anything about this entity > > other than that its Essence is Existence, because we need to have an > > entity that causes the existence of mutable objects. No where have I > > referred to this entity as God or Supreme Being. Therefore I have not > > gone in circles, I have not begged any question. Yes... you keep saying "entity" or "essence of existence" (and 'supreme being'), but you're simply playing around with semantics, nothing more. You believe this supreme BEING to be "THE Creator".... God, by definition, is it not? > > I started with the Worldview of Existential Realism and a few of its > > most fundamental axioms. Then I argued that the mutable objects of > > physical reality (the Universe) could not be the cause of their own > > existence. Then I argued that some entity must exist that causes these > > mutable objects to exist, and that the Essence of this entity must be > > Existence itself. This entity is immutable because its Essence is to > > Be only one kind of entity, namely Existence. Furthermore, this entity > > - called the Supreme Being - *must* exist, or else nothing in reality > > would exist. The Supreme Being is known as the Necessary Being. So explain why it is impossible for everything IN existence to have this 'essence' within it? It is Entirely possible that everything has a bit of the immutable. > > No real event in Physics has ever violated Causality because it is > > literally built in to the laws of Physics. If Causality were violated, > > all of Physics as we know it would be invalid and then we would be in > > a lot of trouble because all those predicitions we made using that > > invalid Physics would also be invalid. That means the world as we > > lived in it was one huge lucky happening. Clearly that is absurd. No, it's not absurd at all. If we ever observe a law of Physics being apparently violated, the human beings who study such things will go back to the drawing board and figure out which of the laws we, as humans, got wrong and adjust it. .. > > The first man to walk on the Moon or the first man to build a fission > > reactor did not accomplish those tasks by blind luck. They were > > carefully planned using the accurate predictions of Physics. Those > > predictions were valid because it would be absurd to claim things just > > happened that way. Therefore Causality is here to stay - there can be > > no extension of Physics where Causality is not valid. Sure, physics is here to stay, as it causality, but there's absolutely no reason to make the physicists the High Priests and those such as yourself the Clergy of what you believe... I've already noticed that you Capitalize 'physics' and 'causality' and other key words of your belief system just like Christians do their God and His pronouns. > > If you want you can claim that the reason the existence of the Supreme > > Being is contained in the Worldview of Existential Realism is because > > of the Order inherent in the objective world. That Order - Symmetry > > -causes objective reality to be a certain kind of reality, one with > > the constraints that are imposed by Existential Realism. > > > > The Principle of Apprehension of Being, the Principle of Consistency > > and the Principle of Causality all result in constraints on objective > > reality. That's what separates the ordered objective world from the > > chaotic subjective world. Things in objective reality are constrained > > to behave in an Orderly manner - in a Symmetric manner. It is the > > Supreme Being who enforces those laws because they are part of what is > > meant by Existence. Existence is Ordered, Symmetric. > > > > OK, there you have it - the argument for the necessary existence of > > the Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics. And all it required was > > for you to adopt the same Worldview that scientists must adopt to be > > productive, such as when they put men on the Moon and build nuclear > > reactors without vaporizing half of Chicago in the process. And All that's required for you to believe God is your Lord and Savior is to adopt the Worldview that Good Men have lived by for thousands of years and has lead to the creation of hospitals, the healing of the sick, and the feeding of the starving... all without killing too many people in the process. James, Seattle
From: Dan Listermann on 11 Apr 2005 17:32 "Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message news:4256ffae.34010113(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > On 8 Apr 2005 11:29:34 -0700, "Hector Plasmic" <hec(a)hectorplasmic.com> > wrote: > >>You haven't presented any concepts > > Posted to: alt.atheism,alt.agnosticism,talk.atheism,alt.religion > Subject: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics > Date: Friday April 8, 2005, 5:00 pm CT > > > -- > > Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation > http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html > > An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy, > a mechanical model of the Solar System. > > "Who made this?", asked the atheist. > > "No one", replied Newton. > > "But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself", > said the atheist. > > "Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the > real thing?", asked Newton. Who made the maker of the "real thing?"
From: Dan Listermann on 11 Apr 2005 17:35 "Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)" <sob(a)sob.com> wrote in message news:4251a26e.25114582(a)news-server.houston.rr.com... > On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:32:15 -0500, "Dan Listermann" > <dan(a)listermann.com> wrote: > >>> All of us suffer from ignorance but that does not mean we have to >>> indulge it like atheists do. > >>I would rather suffer from ignorance than hold tight to fantasy like >>theist >>do. > > The fact that you do suffer from ignorance shows that your wish came > true. I am man enough to recognize my ignorance. I don't pretend to believe fantasies to compensate for my lack of knowledge.
From: SOB) on 12 Apr 2005 10:12
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:32:11 -0400, "Dan Listermann" <dan(a)listermann.com> wrote: >Who made the maker of the "real thing?" Who said the maker of the real thing needs a maker? The Supreme Being does not need a cause for Existence. The Essence of the Supreme Being is Existence. Either "something" made the Universe or "nothing" made the Universe. If you claim that "nothing" made the Universe, then you are going to have to prove that you exist to the satisfaction of others. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw |