phaedrus

David

The other parts of the post go unanswered?

The Unknown and unperceived can exist quite easily. Presumably there are planets around stars in the Andrmomeda galaxy, though we do not know that they exist and it is impossible to perceive their existence with any telescope today.

Presumably, x-rays existed for millennia although man did not know nor perceive their existence

Ahh, like that, but can you point out to any such entities, which are not known and not perceived but "exist". Hindsight is 20/20 and postulations are essential, but until unless entities become part of our perception or become subjects of our observation, we cant say they exist. Even to suspect “existence”, we need at least circumstantial evidence. Given that we are but small part in a whole big universe, "everything" can exist.

While it might tend towards solipsism, this is how we as a human race operate currently. Until unless we can see/perceive/observe them, we cant say that things "exist". American Indians existed for centuries before mr.columbus "discovered" them. As far as humanity goes, they "didnt" exist since we didnt "know" about their existence. In the same way, the unperceived/unknown will come into "existence" only after we perceive and know and observe. Otherwise, one can claim the existence of all sorts of entities including a pink unicorn, saying that you just don’t know/perceive, but those entities exist.

I don't consider my view of reality privileged except in the sense that it is my view of reality. I do not know anyone else's view of reality because it is nearly impossible for people to describe their view of reality accurately and completely.

Naaah, doesn’t gel. It wouldn’t have become "your reality" until unless you had chosen it. And for choosing it, you would have had reasons. What do you mean by you dont know anyone else's reality ? What happened all that looking through other's glasses and walking in their shoes bit?

Just because you think people cant accurately and completely describe reality, you dont know other's realities? By that logic, you shouldnt subscribe to your reality as well since as you said earlier, even it doesnt describe reality completely

JP

scumble

It's a very interesting discussion.

Firstly, I don't understand why David here admits he has a vague hold on reality and yet believes in God and loves him/her/it. I couldn't see myself loving somthing that may or may not be real. He's described God as the "One Great Mystery" - can you love a mystery? How does he know the mystery is God?
I think he said something about being open-minded to God, but you have to be open-minded about non-existence of God. It would be the same with anything that is under question really.

It strikes me that trying to define reality is going to cause headaches, because one always gets caught up in the meaning of words. The only things I can be sure of for the purposes of functioning are the things I experience, but all of us have to rely on others, whose experience is a bit different. All this philosophical wranging that's happened about whether or not you know you exist and what is actually real (historically speaking) has not helped me enormously beyond getting my brain chewing over things. Sometimes I'd just like a bit of peace in my mind, and it probably comes from not worrying about all these unanswerable questions.

Well, got to work...

Automaton

David conveniently ignores everything I actually wrote in my above post in this "response", and does a complete U-turn to create a completely unrelated series of questioning. Oh well. Never really expect a theist to be able to back up their ridiculous fractured pseudo-arguments anyway.
Are you referring to my argument above, in modal propositional calculus? It is a joke, because it stands on the unsound "axiom" of M10. But if you insist... p = "me". Plug that into the above argument. Unless you can prove that my existence would be impossible.
It is not subjective, the actual logic behind it is simple, analytic and a priori, the only thing that is "subjective" about it is that it is a self-sample. That is perfectly valid in objective reasoning. I suspect you don't even know what subjective means. It refers to the condition of a "truth" being dependent on the opinion of a being. There is nothing that is opinion about existence being necessitated by the very fact that we know a part of us is, our thought, because if thought was not actual, there would be no thought. We think, therefore we are.
Yes is the default position (possibility), until we load contradictory positions into the definition, which is the case with God, in which case it becomes no (impossibility.)
Using my above "argument", God would exist if the answer to 1 was yes, and would not if the answer to 1 was no (and would not anyway, because of the nature of impossibility.) Objectively, "no" is given a 100% probability if God is proven impossible (been done), "yes" is 100% if God is proven necessary (never been done), and either answer is given a certain probability based on empirical observations. Right now, based on induction only, "no" would be very close to 100%.
Yes by the nature of "I".
Yes by the nature of "I". Cogito ergo sum.

David, now try actually responding to my original post. Go on. You know you want to.

Tristan Scott

Yes, but at the time he wrote it, the Allegory of the Cave encompassed almost his entire philosophy. The Sun, symbolized by the bright painful light that the prisoners see as they turn their head, is the Form of Good, which provides the being of all other Forms and is the foundation of all knowledge. Truth is obtained by the understanding of the Form of Good.

sir drinks-a-lot

Dave Mathews,

I have two questions for you:

1) Are you familiar with the works of Bernard Lonergan, the Jesuit Philosopher/Theologian?

2) Do you drink heavilly?

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: sir drinks-a-lot ]</p>

S.A.TAN

"David: The Unknown and unperceived can exist quite easily. Presumably there are planets around stars in the Andrmomeda galaxy, though we do not know that they exist and it is impossible to perceive their existence with any telescope today."

Hi David, I wonder if it was a very wise decision to have come to this forum, making your claims here is akin to throwing a piece of meat into a pond full of piranhas.

You say that the unknown and unpercieved can exist. I agree with you, but that does not mean that I should believe in it.

Fairies can exist and so can unicorns, but that doesn't mean I have to believe in them.

In law, the principle of habeas corpus tells us that a person is presumed innocent till proven guilty, or, no crime exists until it is proven that it exists.

In scientific research, in order to say that something exists, we must prove the null hypothesis false with substantive evidence.

If I told you that there was flying teapot orbiting the planet of jupiter, would you believe me? You would probably ask me: "how on earth do I know that for a certainty?" and you probably wouldn't believe me unless I could prove that there really is a flying teapot. The burden of proof would clearly be on me to convince you of the existenc of the teapot.

For efficacy, a rational being will assume that nothing exists until otherwise proven. it is inconcieveable to attempt to prove the non existence of every being or thing that we assume does not exist due to lack of evidence.

While we have to peer into every inch of the universe before we can say that God does not exist, the first inch of space that we find with God's footprint on it is enough to prove his existence.

In such a situation, the burden of proof is clearly on you. There is no need for us to even attempt to answer your three questions, it is for you to demonstrate to us that God exists. Until then we can only assume that he does not exists.

I await your response and I hope that you can indeed convince me that God exists

thefugitivesaint

david:
This sentence is not understandable to me. You may think this statement is a legitimate one but it is not. The very endeavour of debating ones own existence simply serves to reaffirm ones own existence within the very act of the doubt itself. If there is no thing to doubt then there would be no question. From all we know of our existence and of the functioning of the mind there has to be some thing, illusion or not, to be aware that it is no matter what the given context or the given details. Automaton explained this fact simply enough given the "i think, therefore i am" example. There is no contextual situation, that makes logical sense, where a doubt could be without an aware (probably self-aware) being capable of doubt, mentally and culturally ( as all words are constructs of culture and acquire their meaning in the specific contexts of the cultures in which they derive).

To doubt ones existence is to affirm one is, in some way or another.

David: My question to you is, why not?

Everything which we experience-physical objects, other people, events and processes, in short, anything which would commonly be regarded as a constituent of the spatio-temporal matrix in which we coexist-is necessarily construed by us as part of the content of our consciousness. Out of the hundred million buzzing, bright, busy signals received every minute, the human brain ignores most and organizes the rest to allow us to navigate safely in the world.

The better we are at separating what we need to survive and how to fulfill these needs from what is detrimental to our existence and that which can end it, the better we are able to flourish as a species. This is made all the more easier by the existence of a social tradition which enables us to accumulate knowledge about the environment and to pass it down to the next generation so that adaptive behaviors can accumulate through time.

This process attempts to weed out successful patterns for survival from unsuccessful patterns which inhibit survival. Development of strategies that accurately "..make sense out of reality" would be selected over those that do not.

Even if it cannot be proven with absolute certainty that any phenomenal object or event is real, experience is a good guide as to the probability of what will happen if one allows a vicious dog to tear into one's leg or to allow another person to shoot them with a gun (this is why science can, and does, do quite well even if it is limited to appearances and probabilities).

You also have to account for the success science has had in its technological development. If the interpretation of the world is incorrect or not actually compatiable with the actual processes of the natural world around us then explain airplanes, combustible engines, guns, medicine, etc. Even if we do not possess a "complete" model of the natural world you have to admit that the provisional model we possess now has proven to be accurate enough to allow us to survive, innovate and prosper quite well (even given its "partial" accounting of the available information).


I have been but i still have yet to understand the concept we label "god" as a concept itself.
I do not see how the term "god" is meaningful unless defined and yet no definition of "god" has withstood critical scrutiny and any kind of standard of logical consistency. Those that do make asserstions that cannot be proven and leave one unable to differentiate these "gods" from the concept we call "nothing."

Thus, for me, the very notion of arguing over the existence or nonexistence of "god(s)" is nonsensical. I do not hold the concept itself as meaningful anymore.

-theSaint

[ July 20, 2002: Message edited by: thefugitivesaint ]</p>