Knight_of_BAAWA: Yes. And I've also said that no one in history has shown that there is a god (fact). And I said that we can put god in the realm of fiction and actually describe it. You said that I never backed my claim. I did. STOP LYING.
sirmonty:You still are assuming all things can be held in thought. To "show" that there is a God, one would have to first define God.
To "show" that there is a God, one would have to first define God.
Not my problem. And clearly we can show god exists in the realm of fiction. It's not that difficult. I don't know why you're being so closed-minded as to not understand that. Clearly, we can show that unicorns and elves exist in the realm of fiction. Why you believe that such can't be done with god is arrogance to the nth.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Yeah, it was. It certainly couldn't have been that I didn't address those things, because I did address them.
sirmonty:Hardly.
Not hardly.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Then you contradict yourself. Please quit while you're behind.
sirmonty:I haven't contradicted myself at all.
Yeah bubba, you have. And what I've said you've said is what you've said, despite your denial of what you've said you've said.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Ok, then you admit that what I have written about your stance is what you say. No strawman. Perfect.
sirmonty:No.
Yes, since you said that words couldn't describe reality.
Knight_of_BAAWA: No I don't. I'm not the one claiming it exists in reality.
sirmonty:You are claiming it does not exist.
So what?
sirmonty:What is this God that isn't existent to you?
Whatever god is claimed. I don't have to define it; the one who claims it exists does.
But you go on and be some silly mystic and try to shift the burden of proof. I'll just laugh at you.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Yes, you did .
sirmonty:I said in total.
Only later, when I showed you your words. You keep choosing to ignore that.
Knight_of_BAAWA: And yet that's just garbage ontology, as I have repeatedly stated.
sirmonty:Ok now show, not just merely state, show how it is such.
Already did.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Lying won't help you.
sirmonty:Continually making empty statements won't help you.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Not in this case. You simply wanted it described. No goalpost-shifting is allowed.
sirmonty:If there is no understanding the description is empty and meaningless.
Then you're clearly wrong about atheism.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Ah, now you're understanding why that whole "transcendent" garbage is just that....garbage. It is incoherent, pointless, vague, inchoate, and ontologically specious at best.
sirmonty:Transcendence isn't an incoherent or pointless word as it is defined: to pass beyond the limits of.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Thank you for refuting yourself. You see, you believe that atheism is wrong because it's just a position based on a mental attitude (if you lie and say otherwise, I'll quote you and show everyone your lie). Yet because you wish to have god as transcendent (as others do), that in no way means that atheism is wrong. Only someone using a flagrant non sequitur would state otherwise.
sirmonty:Where exactly did I say "Atheism is wrong." I merely pointed it out for what it is: a mental position.
sirmonty:And I hardly "wish" to have a god that is transcendent, as I do not care if god exists or not, but this does not mean that I cannot recognize the concept of transcendence and how it relates to this idea commonly held as god.
Knight_of_BAAWA: So what? Crap apologetics will get you nowhere.
sirmonty:VNKDLKASRNVKDLKJR There I just explained how I am the universe. I'm sorry if you don't understand it and that above description is incoherent to you but it has meaning.
There I just explained how I am the universe. I'm sorry if you don't understand it and that above description is incoherent to you but it has meaning.
Just as much meaning as "transcendent".
Knight_of_BAAWA:It is fallacious to presume that there is a god when that is to be demonstrated.
sirmonty:It is fallacious to presume that everything can be demonstrated with language.
It's not a presumption. But you go on and be a silly mystic.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Yes, you did. Stop lying.
sirmonty:Describing aspects of reality =/= describing the totality of reality.
And yet you had said reality. Why you want to run from you own words only shows how intellectually dishonest you are.
Knight_of_BAAWA: And you said words can't describe reality.
sirmonty:Actually, you first said I said that, when I actually said words cannot capture reality
See? You just admitted to saying that words can't capture reality. Thanks for lying.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, atheism is lacking or without the belief that there is a god. a-: privative prefix meaning "lacking or without" theos: god/s -ism: belief. atheism: lacking or without the belief that there is a god or gods. Don't tell an atheist what atheism is, bucko.
a-: privative prefix meaning "lacking or without"
theos: god/s
-ism: belief.
atheism: lacking or without the belief that there is a god or gods.
Don't tell an atheist what atheism is, bucko.
sirmonty:You must first have a concept of what is meant by "God" to deny it's existence.
And you don't have to deny the existence of god to not have belief in it. Remember: not having a belief IS NOT THE SAME AS belief in not. If you think it is, I suggest you go back to grade school.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Yes, perhaps you should, since I have just schooled you on it.
sirmonty:No you haven't
Yeah, I did. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Knight_of_BAAWA: You simply said framework. No goalpost-shifting.
sirmonty:I acknowledged anything can be within a fictional framework, I rejected that such a framework brings anything meaningful to the table.
So then you acknowledge that there can be a framework. Thank you.
Knight_of_BAAWA:jhl;kajh l;kmng al;skjgdna slk;gn ad;ksdfjk hs;dkjhy 7lwm,ndf./ sd Silly mystic.
Silly mystic.
sirmonty:vadknvailnekfanlvnakdnvlkadef See that is where I just refuted your above statement.
See that is where I just refuted your above statement.
If only you had a clue.
Jon, I don't think you're right to say that the hypothesis placing God in another plane of existence involves a rejection of the laws of logic. It's not a necessary truth that the physical universe is the only kind of existence that there is. The hypothesis does rest on the idea that God cannot reasonably be thought to exist entirely within the realm of this universe; His alleged attributes are such that it simply wouldn't make sense for Him to be a physically extant being. In order to make sense of the kind of thing God is supposed to be, it would be necessary to posit an alternative way that something could exist without being bound by the sorts of rules which constrain existence in the physical sense.
I mean, it's not like there's any compelling evidence that such a being actually exists. I'm just saying that it's not logically impossible that something like God exists. If people want to believe in such a thing, then fine. But I do think that the FSM is a pretty penetrating critique of the God hypothesis at its most plausible. So Pastafarianism it is!
Donny with an A:Jon, I don't think you're right to say that the hypothesis placing God in another plane of existence involves a rejection of the laws of logic. It's not a necessary truth that the physical universe is the only kind of existence that there is.
Then the person so positing must show the ontology of that realm.
And if perhaps we're talking about physical as material, one wonders what immaterial existence is.
Donny with an A:The hypothesis does rest on the idea that God cannot reasonably be thought to exist entirely within the realm of this universe; His alleged attributes are such that it simply wouldn't make sense for Him to be a physically extant being. In order to make sense of the kind of thing God is supposed to be, it would be necessary to posit an alternative way that something could exist without being bound by the sorts of rules which constrain existence in the physical sense.
Yes, a person would need the ontology. And no one has ever provided such. As such, it's just a begged question.
Donny with an A:I mean, it's not like there's any compelling evidence that such a being actually exists. I'm just saying that it's not logically impossible that something like God exists. If people want to believe in such a thing, then fine. But I do think that the FSM is a pretty penetrating critique of the God hypothesis at its most plausible. So Pastafarianism it is!
Perhaps if you have that as your SHORDURPERSAV. But SLACK is your right, and THEY have denied it to you. THEM. The barbies and kens! The pinkboys! Only J.R. "Bob" Dobbs can lead you to SLACK!
Praise "Bob", let there be SLACK.
That's ridiculous, you couldn't possibly demand such an account; we don't even have an uncontroversial ontological account of our own universe. If someone were claiming that God does exist, then they surely would need to provide some pretty solid evidence (which as I've said, I don't believe to exist; I'm not sure what kind of thing would count as evidence for such a claim). But theists don't need to claim that God does exist. They only need to claim that they have faith in the existence of God, and it's possible that He exists.
Donny with an A:That's ridiculous, you couldn't possibly demand such an account
Of course I could. After all, those who say god exists usually say god (of whatever sort) created the universe, indicating some ontology apart from the universe. Can't have them begging the question, you know.
Donny with an A:we don't even have an uncontroversial ontological account of our own universe.
You know, evolution is "controversial" as well. Yet it's fact. Similarly, our existence isn't actually in controversy insofar as the nature of it; we exist and we know how we exist. We are material. Do not confuse the physics aspect with the philosophy aspect, either.
Donny with an A:If someone were claiming that God does exist, then they surely would need to provide some pretty solid evidence (which as I've said, I don't believe to exist; I'm not sure what kind of thing would count as evidence for such a claim). But theists don't need to claim that God does exist. They only need to claim that they have faith in the existence of God, and it's possible that He exists.
Well then they admit that it's just a wish on their part, don't they? After all: faith isn't a valid epistemological method.
Jon, I don't think you're right to say that the hypothesis placing God in another plane of existence involves a rejection of the laws of logic.
It is often evoked as a defence of God being exempt from the laws of logic...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Or that god created logic/logic flows from god ala presuppositionalism.
Donny with an A:But I do think that the FSM is a pretty penetrating critique of the God hypothesis at its most plausible. So Pastafarianism it is!
Pastafarianism should be the state religion of market anarchism (irony intended )
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
No! Only the Church of the Subgenius shall do!
Knight, they could say, "I have faith that [insert religious account of choice] is the true account of the way things are, and if it were true, then God would have created the universe," without begging the question. Again, I'm here defending theism at its most plausible; I don't pretend that this is actually the position that theists tend to take.
Regarding the ontology of our own existence, I'd point out that epistemological contextualism does not refute the transcendental turn. I know that I exist, and that I have experiences. I certainly seem to exist in a physical universe that is populated by material objects and other entities which experience things in the same sort of way as me. But even if we jumped contexts and granted that things are basically the way that they seem, it still would not clear what sort of thing existence is, what explains its manifestation, or whether it exists within the context of something else.
As for whether faith can be fairly characterized as a "wish," I'm not really sure if that's fair or not. I personally can't see how it would be reasonable to have faith in religious accounts or to take a theistic position. So because I don't understand what could possibly lead a reasonable person to adopt such a position, I'm sort of at a loss to explain why people would do so. But I don't think anyone would try to characterize faith as having to do with epistemology.
Jon, I guess all I can say is that stupid people advancing a hypothesis doesn't make the hypothesis wrong. You can take the position without accepting the coherence of polylogism.
Wombatron, agreed!
Donny with an A:Knight, they could say, "I have faith that [insert religious account of choice] is the true account of the way things are, and if it were true, then God would have created the universe," without begging the question.
No, they can't. They're still begging the question, even with couching and hedging.
Donny with an A:Regarding the ontology of our own existence, I'd point out that epistemological contextualism does not refute the transcendental turn.
The transcendental must be supported. If not, it's junked. Period.
Donny with an A:I know that I exist, and that I have experiences. I certainly seem to exist in a physical universe that is populated by material objects and other entities which experience things in the same sort of way as me. But even if we jumped contexts and granted that things are basically the way that they seem, it still would not clear what sort of thing existence is, what explains its manifestation, or whether it exists within the context of something else.
Now you're delving into dual-realmist garbage. It has no place in any ontological discussion. Existence needs no explanation in the first place.
Donny with an A:As for whether faith can be fairly characterized as a "wish," I'm not really sure if that's fair or not.
It's entirely fair. Faith is belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. That's called a "wish".
Donny with an A: I personally can't see how it would be reasonable to have faith in religious accounts or to take a theistic position. So because I don't understand what could possibly lead a reasonable person to adopt such a position, I'm sort of at a loss to explain why people would do so. But I don't think anyone would try to characterize faith as having to do with epistemology.
Oh, but theists do all the time. They assert that they know god exists via faith.
Which of the two premises in the claim, "I have faith that [insert religious account of choice] is the true account of the way things are, and if it were true, then God would have created the universe," would you question? Surely some people have faith that religious accounts are true, and surely some of those religious accounts claim that God created the universe. So no question is begged. What you could have in mind is that the first premise represents faith in something which is necessarily false, but then you'd be begging the question.
On the transcendental turn, I think it's supported pretty well in the Critique of Pure Reason; I think the ball's in your court if you want to argue that Kant was wrong. But that would require another thread, I think.
Regarding "dual-realmist garbage," I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I cited a logically possible manner in which meta-existence could be structured; I didn't make any non-hypothetical ontological claim. I'd point out that a need to explain existence has nothing to do with anything. You're disputing a particular explanation of existence. No one claimed one was needed; we're working with one which has been offered.
I really don't want to get into a protracted discussion about this point, but I'd mention in passing that your definition of a "wish" is not exactly what is commonly meant by the term. If that's how you want to use the term, it doesn't matter to me, as long as you consistently divorce the "desiring" sense of "wishing" from your use of the term.
As for your point about theists claiming knowledge of God, I'd again point out that stupid people advancing a hypothesis does not make that hypothesis false. As I've explicitly embraced Kant's Transcendental Idealism, I think it should be obvious that I would not agree with any claim that faith in God can lead one to knowledge of God's existence. [Edit: When I said "anyone," I meant "anyone worth listening to;" sorry about the confusion]
Donny with an A:Which of the two premises in the claim, "I have faith that [insert religious account of choice] is the true account of the way things are, and if it were true, then God would have created the universe," would you question?
Both.
Donny with an A:Surely some people have faith that religious accounts are true, and surely some of those religious accounts claim that God created the universe. So no question is begged.
They're presuming that the universe was created in the first place and that existence can be apart from the universe. Ergo, begged question.
Donny with an A:On the transcendental turn, I think it's supported pretty well in the Critique of Pure Reason
I don't believe that. You'd have to show that dual-realmist ontologist is ok. And it's simply adding a layer which isn't necessary at all and has no backing. It's just a version of Plato's forms. It's garbage. Please disabuse yourself of that nonsense.
Donny with an A:Regarding "dual-realmist garbage," I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
The whole "transcendental" line relies on a second realm of existence, one which we can never access. In doing so, you not only commit epistemic suicide, but you violate the principle of parsimony.
Donny with an A:I cited a logically possible manner in which meta-existence could be structured
Gotta say no on that one, too. We could just be talking past each other, though.
Donny with an A:I didn't make any non-hypothetical ontological claim. I'd point out that a need to explain existence has nothing to do with anything.
But that's what you're demanding: an explanation for existence.
Donny with an A:You're disputing a particular explanation of existence. No one claimed one was needed; we're working with one which has been offered.
I'm disputing that existence requires an explanation in the first place, i.e. that the notion of existence needing an explanation even makes sense.
Donny with an A:I really don't want to get into a protracted discussion about this point, but I'd mention in passing that your definition of a "wish" is not exactly what is commonly meant by the term.
Yeah, it really is. It's substituting the wish of how reality works with reality. It's a wish.
Donny with an A:As for your point about theists claiming knowledge of God, I'd again point out that stupid people advancing a hypothesis does not make that hypothesis false.
And I'd like to point out that such is a strawman.
Donny with an A:As I've explicitly embraced Kant's Transcendental Idealism, I think it should be obvious that I would not agree with any claim that faith in God can lead one to knowledge of God's existence.
Yet there are people who make such a claim--you can't deny that without looking like a fool.
They are not presuming that the universe was created and that there can be existence which is non-physical. They're saying that if their religious account were true, then those things would be as well. The claim that the universe was created, and that non-physical existence is possible, are not claims being introduced by the theist; they are inherent to the religious account in which they've placed their faith. So they don't beg the question. If anyone were begging the question, it would be the biblical author or whoever came up with the religious account in question. But those accounts aren't arguments, and therefore cannot really beg the question.
Regarding the use of the word "transcendental," I'm not using it to refer to multiple realms of existence. I'm refering to Immanuel Kant's transcendental idealism, which is a metaphysical position making reference to our own realm of existence. As for the "principle of parsimony," I think you're misunderstanding the debate over simplicity in science. Where simplicity has a role in helping us to decide between competing theories, the implication is not that the less simple theory is wrong, especially not necessarily so. The idea is that simplicity can count as a reason to adopt one theory over another: that it's often reasonable to adopt the simpler theory. It most certainly does not mean that only simple theories can be true.
Once again, you seem to be clinging to the idea that someone thinks that existence must be explained. This need not be the theist's position. The following is a perfectly consistent statement: "There would be nothing wrong with having no explanation for existence, but I believe that existence can be explained by [insert religious account]." The important thing to note is that since we do not have a true explanation for existence which is incompatible with the theists', we cannot demonstrate their account to be false. It's not like that's a failing on our part, especially if we insist that we don't need an explanation for existence. It just means that in the face of radical uncertainty, we can't rule anything out that could be the case.
On the issue of faith and knowledge, I concede that I didn't realize what point you were responding to until after i posted. I edited my comments accordingly; sorry about that.
Donny with an A:They are not presuming that the universe was created and that there can be existence which is non-physical.
Yeah, they are. They need them to be true for their religious account to be true. It's begging the question, period.
Donny with an A:Regarding the use of the word "transcendental," I'm not using it to refer to multiple realms of existence. I'm refering to Immanuel Kant's transcendental idealism, which is a metaphysical position making reference to our own realm of existence.
Yes: the noumena and phenomena. Dual-realmist garbage.
Donny with an A: As for the "principle of parsimony," I think you're misunderstanding the debate over simplicity in science.
No, I don't, actually. For in the principle of parsimony you need to have it as simple as possible and back everything that you have. There is no backing for transcendental idealism, non-material existence, the universe being created, etc. Therefore, those should be junked.
Donny with an A:Once again, you seem to be clinging to the idea that someone thinks that existence must be explained.
Because they do think that.
Donny with an A:This need not be the theist's position. The following is a perfectly consistent statement: "There would be nothing wrong with having no explanation for existence, but I believe that existence can be explained by [insert religious account]."
No theist I know of says that. No theist I've ever heard of says that. They all say "you can't explain the universe without god". All. Of. Them. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.
Donny with an A:The important thing to note is that since we do not have a true explanation for existence
Existence requires no explanation, so saying we don't have a true explanation begs the question. On this, I agree with Rand: existence exists, and only existence exists. Period. To even consider the laughable idea of the universe having an explanation is to divorce terms from their foundation, i.e. gibber and babble.
Knight:There is no backing for transcendental idealism, non-material existence,
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
What is non-material existence? How does the non-material interact with the material?
Okay, quickly:
1) Unless you believe that it is false that "There are some people who believe that [insert religious account] is true" or that "If [insert religious account] were true, then God would have created the universe," then the cited argument does not beg the question. The falsehood or controversial status of the statements "[insert religious account] is true" or "God created the universe" will not suffice to demonstrate question-begging. If you don't see why that's true, then you either don't understand what it means to beg the question, or you don't understand formal logic.
2) Calling Kant's transcendental idealism "dual-realmist garbage" either belies a complete misunderstanding of what Kant was saying, or at least demands that you say a little bit more about what's wrong with the view. That's especially true if you're basing that rejection on Ayn Rand's epistemology, given her cavalier willingness to insult Kant allegedly without ever having seriously studied his work. I think Kant's view is entirely plausible.
3) The principle of parsimony is not a metaphysical fact. If you think it is, then no, you don't understand the debate over simplicity in science.
Juan:I haven't got the slightest idea. But I was wondering if your position includes the belief that, well, beliefs don't really exist ?
Of couse they do. As you state: they need a material substrate. Ideas are the end-products of the microstates of the brain. No brain--no ideas. Clearly we know that a person's sense of self is dependent upon the brain (viz. alzheimer's patients and lobotomy patients).
Donny with an A:1) Unless you believe that it is false that "There are some people who believe that [insert religious account] is true" or that "If [insert religious account] were true, then God would have created the universe," then the cited argument does not beg the question.
False. It begs the question by presuming an ontology which has not been shown, even with the conditional.
Donny with an A:2) Calling Kant's transcendental idealism "dual-realmist garbage" either belies a complete misunderstanding of what Kant was saying, or at least demands that you say a little bit more about what's wrong with the view.
Neither. It's nothing more than an updated version of shadows/forms. It's GARBAGE. It's a Pythagorean Hangover. Silly garbage about what we see vs. some "ultimate reality" or "Big Mac Reality" (reality with special sauce) or thing-in-itself has no place in metaphysics. It's mysticism. It's not rational. It is garbage. Period.
Donny with an A:3) The principle of parsimony is not a metaphysical fact.
Never said it was, and I have no idea how you could possibly think that I think it is.
1) Please demonstrate how it presumes anything of the sort.
2) When you say "mysticism," can you humor me by saying "meesticism"? Transcendental idealism is built on the idea that the only access we have to the material world is through the senses, and we can therefore only perceive them through mind-dependent properties (e.g., shape, color, smell, sound, etc.). Accordingly, we can't directly experience the mind-independent nature of material entities. That's categorically different from the idea that there is a "world of forms."
3) If you acknowledge that the principle of parsimony is not a metaphysical fact, then your points about epistemological rules of thumb have absolutely no bearing on anything.
Donny with an A:1) Please demonstrate how it presumes anything of the sort.
Your asking that shows that you don't understand the concept of begging the question.
Donny with an A:2) When you say "mysticism," can you humor me by saying "meesticism"? Transcendental idealism is built on the idea that the only access we have to the material world is through the senses, and we can therefore only perceive them through mind-dependent properties (e.g., shape, color, smell, sound, etc.). Accordingly, we can't directly experience the mind-independent nature of material entities. That's categorically different from the idea that there is a "world of forms."
No, it's not. It's the same thing. There is a world we see (shadows) and a world as it really is apart from our senses (forms). Same thing. Not my fault that you're stuck in some backward mode of thought, nor that you confuse the fact that our senses developed from reality with our senses imposing categories upon reality. The former is reality, the latter is mystic fantacrap.
Donny with an A:3) If you acknowledge that the principle of parsimony is not a metaphysical fact, then your points about epistemological rules of thumb have absolutely no bearing on anything.
Non sequitur.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No theist I know of says that. No theist I've ever heard of says that. They all say "you can't explain the universe without god". All. Of. Them. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.
That's not a collectivist statement at all.
Not familiar with Kierkegård?
James Redford:The Second Law of Thermodynamics is the most fundamental law of physics. It states that the microstate complexity of the universe can never decrease.
1) Entropy doesn't describe complexity of any sort, in fact if you knew anything about physics you wouldn't make that assertion. Entropy describes the total unusable energy in any closed system. Period and end of story.
Also, it's been proven to be statistical in nature first by Maxwell with his thought experiment of a demon in a partitioned box in which it would close and open a door as air molecules would pass by the door of the partition in the middle of the box. In essence, the thought experiment suggested that all physical states were reversible at some level. Physicists later on suggested Maxwell's Demon has an added level of entropy, but in itself would be very small in the magnitude compared to the classical interpretation of entropy. Thus, the demon showed that entropy is statistical (in as much as it describes the probability that energy will become unusable at any given time).
2) Wall of text doesn't prove anything. I've read your website, too, it's not valid research. So, unless you got some experimental data to back it up, I suggest you pack it up.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
banned:That's not a collectivist statement at all. Not familiar with Kierkegård?
Yes, I am. Even his absurd leap of faith implies it. For faith means anything goes.
1) Umm...no. If Judaic ontology is incomprehensible or false, then the relevant antecedent is false, making the premise true.
2) The analogy to formalism breaks down in the suggestion that token objects are not forms themselves. There is no implication in Kant that phenomena are necessarily separate from noumena, or that phenomena are somehow imperfect or flawed. Also, I don't think the idea of transcendental idealism includes the categories of knowledge, but if it does, then consider my support limited to the transcendental turn. And please, not mystic; "meestic."
3) Are you calling non-sequitar on yourself or me? I'm not the one who brought up parsimony, you are. My point is that it has no bearing on this conversation because we're discussing a metaphysical position. Unless parsimony has metaphysical relevance (which it doesn't), then it's irrelevant.
Donny with an A:1) Umm...no.
Ummm yes.
Donny with an A: If Judaic ontology is incomprehensible or false, then the relevant antecedent is false, making the premise true.
You know, that does nothing to alleviate the begged question.
Donny with an A:2) The analogy to formalism breaks down in the suggestion that token objects are not forms themselves. There is no implication in Kant that phenomena are necessarily separate from noumena, or that phenomena are somehow imperfect or flawed.
Yeah, there is. Since the mind (or senses, if you want to go that way) imposes categories upon reality, we only have that. We don't have ding-an-sich. We don't have The Form. We don't have Reality As It Actually Is. We don't have Ultimate Reality.
And such a concept is no different in essential "substance" from Plato's forms or Pythagoras' notion that Ultimate Reality is numbers. Seriously, this is basic stuff.
Donny with an A:Also, I don't think the idea of transcendental idealism includes the categories of knowledge, but if it does, then consider my support limited to the transcendental turn.
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5g.htm#nou
Donny with an A:3) Are you calling non-sequitar on yourself or me?
You.
Donny with an A: I'm not the one who brought up parsimony, you are. My point is that it has no bearing on this conversation because we're discussing a metaphysical position.
But you're wrong, since your position has no backing. It has Unnecessarily Multiplied Entities, as it were.
Knight_of_BAAWA:They all say "you can't explain the universe without god".
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes, I am. Even his absurd leap of faith implies it.
Your statements contradict. Theistic existentialism implies that a knowledge of something as inescapable truth defeats the purpose of faith. The imperative of God being if there is to be existance is not a recognition of faith.
banned:Your statements contradict.
No, they don't.
banned:Theistic existentialism implies that a knowledge of something as inescapable truth defeats the purpose of faith. The imperative of God being if there is to be existance is not a recognition of faith.
They're the Red Queen; you have to understand that.
Okay, so apparently my understanding of the fallacy is incorrect. You'll have to show me where my error falls. I want to get this out of the way so that we can stop talking about it and move on to your other points. My statement took the following form:
Bxy: Individual x believes that system of beliefs y provides a true account of the nature of existence.
Tx: System of beliefs x provides a true account of the nature of existence
Gx: System of beliefs x includes a claim that God created the universe
Cx: Individual x holds a set of beliefs which provide a true account of the nature of the universe.
U: God created the universe.
A1: If (Tx & Gx), then U.
A2: If (Cx & Bxy), then Ty.
A3: There exists a system of beliefs a such that Ga.
A4: There exists an individual p such that Bpa
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) If Cp, then by A2 and A4, Ta.
2) If Ta, then by A1 and A3, U.
3) Therefore, by (1) and (2), if Cp, then U.
I take all four assumptions to be entirely uncontroversial (though I acknowledge that the second one isn't structured very well, I hope you can grant me the point so I don't have to try to figure out the correct articulation). So please, show me how the argument begs the question.
Donny with an A:Okay, so apparently my understanding of the fallacy is incorrect. You'll have to show me where my error falls.
I already did. Move on.
Please? I genuinely don't understand.
They presume existence apart from existence, even with the conditional. Existence apart from existence has not been demonstrated. Ergo, begging the question. It's simple.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Donny with an A:Okay, so apparently my understanding of the fallacy is incorrect. You'll have to show me where my error falls. I already did. Move on.
KoB, Danny went through the trouble of writing up his argument in symbolic form. The least you can do is show him where he is being fallacious, or else admit you made a mistake and continue on.
EDIT: I must have started this comment before you responded. Sorry.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Knight_of_BAAWA:I already did. Move on.
Solid_Choke:KoB, Danny went through the trouble of writing up his argument in symbolic form. The least you can do is show him where he is being fallacious, or else admit you made a mistake and continue on.
Which premise or step in that argument presumed existence apart from existence?
Donny with an A:Which premise or step in that argument presumed existence apart from existence?
*sigh*
If they propose that they are correct about there being a god ("if it were true"), and that necessarily the rest of their proposals are correct, they're still begging the question of existence apart from existence, i.e. that the universe was created.
Are you being purposefully dense? This is basic Logic 101. It's not difficult.
I'm not being dense. Show me a place in that argument where such a proposal is made.
I have. I'm not going to humor your denial-mode anymore.