[PAX] first time philospopher

[Barnabas]

(yay my last post wasn't posted and now I have to retype my response.)

thanks everybody for your contribution

Where did you get premise 3:B?

Why did you reject both the 4th and 5th conclusions in order to avoid the contradiction between them? Only one needs to be rejected.

I understand that this conclusion is on shaky ground at best, I am still not entirley sure of it and wasn't whe I recorded it last night.

however the reason I concluded so was that I have never observed something caused by a equal or lesser effect

my point might become better understood through procreation, it genrally takes two adult beings to produce an infant being. Since it took two beings to creat the one new being it can be observed that it cause is greater then it's effect as 2>1. I would also go out and say that two adultbeings are greater then a multiple infant beings.

but this would lead to the question of what is greater,as I said shaky ground.

third conclusion is false

You try to prove a conclusion you are believing beforehand. A philosopher thinks logically, without disregarding other possibilities.

Greater OR Equal power. You are ignoring the possibility of a univere collapsing into dense enough to explode into a new universe...

I thought about the big, bang big crunch theory. But to my knowldege their isn't enough evidence to prove that it happens.

However if you have evidence to the contrary please show me

Define universe. Prove it exists.

Universe- where I exist.

I think therefore I am.

1st premise

A: I exist

B: I exist somewhere as opposed to nowhere

Conclusion: that somewhere must be he universe

You do not know this is universally true.

I have no logical reason to believe otherwise as there is no evidence to the contrary.

Requires proof.


Requires proof.

I have no logical reason to believe otherwise as there is no evidence to the contrary.

Then I will ask you the follow up question: what caused God's existence? [

I would direct you back to the 6th and 7th premises.


---------------------------------

Once again I would like to thank everybody for there contribution, especially in the case of giving me a new list of reading material.

 

[Krumplenump]

Barnabas, if you're not already familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas, you may find his work both interesting and useful. He developed a series of proofs, as well, for the purpose of defending the concept of God.

More modern philosophy scholars have posed challenges to some of your points, like the one about an infinite regression of prior causes. That doesn't make those challenges ipso facto correct but if you're set on defending the sort of argument put forth by Aquinas, it might be worth your time to consider them.

Aquinas was good. In his day.

 

[Jasmine85]

I have no logical reason to believe otherwise as there is no evidence to the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

 

[Barnabas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof

This article needs additional citations for verification

As for arguing based on a lack of information, if i can not argue on the basis of empiricle evidence the what can I believe. Obiviously not my eyes or my other senses.

 

[Kavalan]

Big bang theory has been coroborated by the COBE mission that showed the microwave energy glow was fairly uniform and points to a much smaller universe at a point in the past

 

[Jasmine85]

As for arguing based on a lack of information, if i can not argue on the basis of empiricle evidence the what can I believe. Obiviously not my eyes or my other senses.

That is the nature (and difficulty) of rigorously proving anything.

When I was taught about logic, I was shown how imprecise arguments and imprecise definitions will inevitably lead the logic astray. And while it may seem like we've ended up with some result we want to be true, it hasn't actually been proven. All we've done is reinforced our beliefs with something vaguely resembling logic. That isn't of any value. That's not what we seek.


A proof can be a very tedious and disciplined thing, that isn't easy to conjure up. Logic doesn't become more agreeable with us just because we have good intentions. It's a cold hearted beast. But the very reason we value what logic says is that it is completely straight with us and unbiased.


A silly example:

I have just proven that I'm a hippopotamus. Well 99% the logic is sound, with just one slightly wooly argument hidden in the middle somewhere. We'll dismiss it as being unimportant.

Well that doesn't make my proof 99% true; it is invalid. That one little wooly argument threw the whole thing. So sadly no, I haven't proven that I'm a hippopotamus today

The lesson is that logic is very fragile like that. You have to be careful with every step you take. The smallest error or imprecise argument can throw your reasoning into absurdity.



The way to proceed is to write down your definitions in clear indisputable terms. Every new thing you introduce has to be defined.

You may list some assumptions. But always remember they are just that. Any logic you do will hang tentatively on the condition of those assumptions being absolutely true in order to be valid.

Then use the above in step by step deductions until you find a place you're happy to stop. And that will be your conclusion.

 

[Barnabas]

Big bang theory has been coroborated by the COBE mission that showed the microwave energy glow was fairly uniform and points to a much smaller universe at a point in the past

Could you give me an article on this so I could read it for myself.

 

[Kavalan]

I only have the wiki page as the two times I've seen this was on history channel and discovery channel specials.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer?wasRedirected=true

 

[Barnabas]

I only have the wiki page as the two times I've seen this was on history channel and discovery channel specials.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer?wasRedirected=true

thanks, I'll keep a watch out for the shows.

 

[Kavalan]

On a philosophical point you constrain yourself with finite parameters. What is to say it is an inifinite existance in all paramiters. (time, space, dimensions)

 

[NeverAmI]

I think part of the problem where "understanding the origin of everything" fails, is that we have a tendency to assume some absolute things about time and existence.

We all should know now that time is relative. Time is not an absolute. Time is something that only exists between things in a relationship.

I often wonder if existence may be similar: That if things don't exist in themselves, only within relationships. We see some strange things in quantum mechanics that kind of agree with this idea.

But propositional logic doesn't really gel with that construct. Because if existence is relative, then truth is also relative. So we would need to reformulate logic.

Any takers? hwell:

All that we know, everything we accumulate as knowledge, is based on measurement. We measure our sight, hearing, other senses, emotions, etc. We infer that something happens externally outside our own ability to interact.

Time is inferred first on a personal level by accumulation of memories. You have one memory that you know happened chronologically prior to others. If you have no ability to collect new memories, or if you lose all short term and long term memory, then time no longer exists for you.

On top of that, there is an inferred sense of external time based on both your own ability to interact with the external world, and the ability of others to interact.

You throw a ball, so you form a memory of having held the ball, then a new observation comes with the ball being in a new position relative to yourself. Additionally, you observe that other life forms have ability to interact with things outside your own influence. This creates a sense of external time. There is persistence beyond yourself, you find that others communicate that things change outside your own influence. They performed actions and things happened both to them and to external matter without you being in any geographically similar location.

I am not confident our current definitions are static. I always look for them to change.

But the question here is, how can we say things don't exist beyond our current ability to measure? We are constantly finding new things to measure. I am not saying that any particular thing does or doesn't exist, but based on prior experiences and breakthroughs, I am sure there is quite a bit left out there that we can't yet measure to be discovered. As to how that relates to philosophy, theology, metaphysics couldn't really be comprehended until we actually know about it.

For the sake of progress, we have to set up a foundation somewhere, which has been shown to be quite effective in the material realm we observe. However, I would stress that none of these discoveries prove an absolute, only relativity and high probability between one another.

I don't really have a point with this post, just random thoughts...

 

[The Jester]

I don't really have a point with this post, just random thoughts...

Don't worry john, I didn't read that wall of text anyway.






Just kidding.

 

[Futurus]

*pokes his punctilious head out*

I have no logical reason to believe otherwise as there is no evidence to the contrary.

I would stray from ever using this phrase in a philosophical/logical debate. This is an appeal to ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam).

 

[Barnabas]

*pokes his punctilious head out*


I would stray from ever using this phrase in a philosophical/logical debate. This is an appeal to ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam).

let's change the statement then.

I do not feel that the evidence that I have obsevered from the natural world leads to this conclusion.

 

[Futurus]

let's change the statement then.

I do not feel that the evidence that I have obsevered from the natural world leads to this conclusion.

Still guilty of committing the fallacy. You simply reiterated the previous phrase. In order to make a cogent argument, you need evidence proving the veracity of your claim.

Because there's no evidence proving the celestial teapot does not exist, it surely must be floating about the heavens as we speak! :tongue:

 

[Barnabas]

Still guilty of committing the fallacy. You simply reiterated the previous phrase. In order to make a cogent argument, you need evidence proving the veracity of your claim.

Because there's no evidence proving the celestial teapot does not exist, it surely must be floating about the heavens as we speak! :tongue:

But i'm not saying that there is no evidence for or against the point(though I did not list the evidence in my last post but instead in a previous one)and therefore I must be right.

I'm saying that evidence points to the fact that things often have both a cause and a effect(law causality), and since the univeres is a thing it must have a cause. You can believe this by using inductive reasoning by looking at the rest of the natural world and know that every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause.

the same use of inductive reasoning would also show that no single thing is it's own cause.

I've already adressed the issue of the a cause being greater then it's effect, while as I said it is shaky at best it seem still plausible to me.

 

[Futurus]

But i'm not saying that there is no evidence for or against the point(though I did not list the evidence in my last post but instead in a previous one)and therefore I must be right.

I'm saying that evidence points to the fact that things often have both a cause and a effect(law causality), and since the univeres is a thing it must have a cause. You can believe this by using inductive reasoning by looking at the rest of the natural world and know that every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause.

the same use of inductive reasoning would also show that no single thing is it's own cause.

I've already adressed the issue of the a cause being greater then it's effect, while as I said it is shaky at best it seem still plausible to me.

Ah, I understand. As long as you're aware that using inductive reasoning does not give way to a cogent claim, I'll crawl back out of this thread.

In addition, I agree with Jasmine85 in that providing operational definitions might be of use, especially when communicating your ideas with others.

Good luck with the philosophical journey. eace:

 

[Barnabas]

Ah, I understand. As long as you're aware that using inductive reasoning does not give way to a cogent claim, I'll crawl back out of this thread.

In addition, I agree with Jasmine85 in that providing operational definitions might be of use, especially when communicating your ideas with others.

Good luck with the philosophical journey. eace:

Hey thanks for your help, and I guess now is good a time as any for a formal welcome to the forum. So welcome to the forum and again thanks.

 

[Krumplenump]

I have no logical reason to believe otherwise as there is no evidence to the contrary.

We don't have any evidence to contrary for pixies or goblins either, but no sane person would genuinely believe they existed.
Where you reach the conclusion that the liklihood of god existing is greater than him not, I just don't know.

 

[Barnabas]

turtles