irichc

1) Tertium non datur can be used extensively with absolute opposites, and that's what I'm doing here.

2) If you want to refute that everything which moves is caused, show me something which is caused and still at the same time (or simply still).

3) You can object me that the burden of the proof is mine too, because I must refute that there are uncaused phenomenons (which, according to you, it's experimentaly tested).

4) Nevertheless, I got some important facts in my favour, as far as what you say (that there are mobile and uncaused phenomenons) CAN be false, or even better, MUST be false, because, if it was absolutely true, then we should deduce a sensu contrario that there are still and caused phenomenons, which is A PRIORI NONSENSE.

5) I have demonstrate too that If you state that indivision doesn't bring a singularity (i.e. quark), then you must postulate that division doesn't bring causality, which is A POSTERIORI NONSENSE.

Daniel.

Note: A priori = according to analytical reason; A posteriori = according to our empirical knowledge.

Feather

Right. This is your argumentum ad repetitio again. You are simply asserting that "still" equates to "uncaused." You might represent your statement symbolically as: O(S) => O(U), where "O" is "object," "S" is "still," a descriptor, and "U" is "uncaused;" another descriptor.

This is mere assertion. It is not "self-evident" nor is it tautological. It is a statement about the observable world. The observable world doesn't work the way you want it to. You can't just go around claiming certain laws are true and then defy somebody to prove you false simply because the "law" is logically consistent.

Take the humorous "phlogiston" example mentioned several times, above.

There is nothing inconsistent in any of his phlogiston syllogisms. Must we conclude that his statements about phlogiston are then true? Why, yes, in the sense that they don't lead to logical contradiction. There's that pesky thing called "observable reality" though.

Again you're guilty of two booboos: 1) assertion of a testable statement without proof and 2) imposing the condition that a valid logic argument must constrain reality.

Allow me this example, which I am sure you are familiar with:

1) All A are B.
2) X is a B.
3) X may or may not be an A.

This is true, logically. You don't know if X is an A or not based on (1) and (2) alone.

Likewise with reality and logic:

1) All reality (A) "is" a valid logic argument (B).
2) A given argument (X) is a valid logic argument (B) (the conclusions follow from the premises.
3) The given argument may or may not correspond to "reality."

Now. Substitute "Your argument" for "a given argument."

This completes the proof.

If a hen and a half could lay an egg and a half in a day and a half, how long would it take a blind monkey to kick all the seeds out of a dill pickle?

Darth Dane

Feather: I concur with what you say.

I have a similar logic.

1) I Am (I don´t know for sure but choose to believe this is true.)

2) The concept of "God" is/exists.

3) God Is everything. What is my relation to the concept of God? Since I don´t know anything from the get go, I cannot possibly exclude anything from that which God is. Because Some say Jewism, some Christianity, some Islam, some buddhism, some Northern mythology, some in Lucifer, some in trees and so on. To be on the safe side I must choose all of it as an answer, otherwise I might get fried wouldn´t I? This leads to the inevitable conclusion that God is in me as well. But since I don´t know if I am real, I cannot possibly say if God is real, God will know if God is real. But I can say that you are God, because you have the word. "In the beginning there was the word, and the word was God".

So naturally I can say, to be on the safe side "Thou art God". You are the God of your Reality, and it seems I am teh God of my reality, two Gods sharing the earth or paradise, whatever you call it. But lo and behold there are more than just the two of us, we are many.....






DD - Thou art Spliff

Biff the unclean

Sure, why not? We will say that you are because we can demonstrate that you are

True, in fact many concepts of many gods exist. We can demonstrate that also

False. That is just a single concept of a single god, which we cannot demonstrate.

False, on several levels.
Since you don't know anything about god then you cannot include any information about it.
But you do have information about the people who are making the different claims about god. The information you have about them is that they have no way of gaining any more information about god than you do. And that they claim that you have to trust them when they tell you stories that you know are impossible. So this should inform you that their testimony is of no value, and it should all be excluded.
Leaving you with no reason to even consider their outlandish tales.

K

Daniel:

It is difficult to take you seriously when you obviously don't understand what is required for a simple refutation. Even if something were caused and still, it would still be possible for everything which moves to be caused. It doesn't matter how much Latin you throw in. If you are incapable of logical progressions, you're arguments are going to be seriously flawed. And they are.

Darth Dane

"False. That is just a single concept of a single god, which we cannot demonstrate."

True. But I am only trying to find an answer that is usefull



"False, on several levels.
Since you don't know anything about god then you cannot include any information about it.
But you do have information about the people who are making the different claims about god. The information you have about them is that they have no way of gaining any more information about god than you do. And that they claim that you have to trust them when they tell you stories that you know are impossible. So this should inform you that their testimony is of no value, and it should all be excluded.
Leaving you with no reason to even consider their outlandish tales."

True, and this leaves me with the notion, that nothing of that which I know is God. It is therefore impossible to say anything objective about God. God is neither this nor that.
Why do humans insist in giving God human like attributes, when it is by logics impossible to say anything about God?

All I can say now is "I am" and "God is", I don´t know what God is, but can say that God is.

But what is that one thing, that connects evrything with everything else?





DD - Neti God

Darth Dane

I can with equal Truth say that God is everything AND nothing, but also that God is just an Idea and thus unreal. However I don´t know anything, except that "I am".

Well, somone said, reportedly the son of God, that your faith shall save you, and that the truth shall set me free.

So I have faith. But only because I know "I am"

I have faith in me.

Q: "who am I?"
A: "I am"

And thats as much as I can say with any certainty.





DD - I Am Spliffed

Biff the unclean

Now we get down to what "use" you have in mind.

Exactly right.

Because God is a human invention. Humans can say it has any characteristics they please.

WHAT???!!!
Oh so close…sigh.
You can say that you are, because you can prove that you are.
You cannot say that God is because you cannot prove the existence of God. It is illogical to claim something exists without proof that it does.
And beyond that you are faced with a moral problem. To make a claim that you cannot backup means that you are claiming something that you don't know to be true is true. And that's lying.

Gee I don't know. I don't really care. Is everything connected to everything else? Seems to me a lot of stuff is very far way indeed from each other. Maybe light, maybe gravity or the weak magnetic force but nothing supernatural. There is no "supernatural" except in fiction.

Save you from what? You don't need any saving, you are just fine.
You'll notice that the same people who are willing to save you -- for a price-- are the ones who told you that you needed saving to begin with.
These quotes are only advertising slogans from a time before there were truth in advertising laws. They rank up there with Chesterfield cigarettes slogan "Not a cough in a carload. Doctors recommend Chesterfields to their patients."

That's fine. Just stay away from believing in fictional characters.

Darth Dane

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True, and this leaves me with the notion, that nothing of that which I know is God. It is therefore impossible to say anything objective about God. God is neither this nor that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Exactly right."

Yes, this follows the vedantic approach, by saying that only trough negation can you find the Supreme self, because it is beyond words.


"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do humans insist in giving God human like attributes, when it is by logics impossible to say anything about God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Because God is a human invention. Humans can say it has any characteristics they please."

Yes, but what seems to be the problem? Humans fight over the fact how Godis, but seem to ignore that everyone has that same freewill to decide.


"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I can say now is "I am" and "God is", I don´t know what God is, but can say that God is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WHAT???!!!
Oh so close…sigh. "

Hehe, sorry for the misunderstanding, I meant the concept of God!

"You can say that you are, because you can prove that you are."

How can I prove conclusively that this is so?

"You cannot say that God is because you cannot prove the existence of God. It is illogical to claim something exists without proof that it does."

What is proof? As you well know pictures can be manipulated, so if you haven´t been at the eiffel tower, you can only believe that pictures are true and that your friends doesn´t lie to you, but you choose to believe that what you se is real.
I believe the pyramids are real, but I haven´t been to egypt and ascertained for myself the reality of the pyramids themselves.



"And beyond that you are faced with a moral problem. To make a claim that you cannot backup means that you are claiming something that you don't know to be true is true. And that's lying."

No, it is a question I put out, imagine that it is a thought experiment I wanted to check out. If this then this and so on.
As I said from the beginning, the only thing I with any degree of truth can say is that "I Am" Beyond that, what do I in fact know as a fact, like before the discovery of atoms they didn´t exist, so to say, but when they were discovered after someone asking if there was any atoms at all, it came into existance of the conciousness, but the atoms was always there.


"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But what is that one thing, that connects evrything with everything else?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gee I don't know. I don't really care. Is everything connected to everything else? Seems to me a lot of stuff is very far way indeed from each other. Maybe light, maybe gravity or the weak magnetic force but nothing supernatural. There is no "supernatural" except in fiction."

Well I´m of the romantic notion that everything is connected through Love, as I see it can connect me with other beings.


"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, somone said, reportedly the son of God, that your faith shall save you, and that the truth shall set me free.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Save you from what?"

I don´t know

" You don't need any saving, you are just fine."

Hehe, I agree the notion

"You'll notice that the same people who are willing to save you -- for a price-- are the ones who told you that you needed saving to begin with."

Yes thats how religion works for the most part.

"These quotes are only advertising slogans from a time before there were truth in advertising laws. They rank up there with Chesterfield cigarettes slogan "Not a cough in a carload. Doctors recommend Chesterfields to their patients." " S´pose you´re right.


"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I have faith. But only because I know "I am"

I have faith in me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's fine. Just stay away from believing in fictional characters."

I don´t, I am real.



Also look at my other thread "thou art God" for a different description.






DD - Real Spliff

Biff the unclean

Which is making the unfounded assumption that there is a "Supreme-self"
Free will has absolutely noting to do with existential claims. Things exist or they do not regardless of your opinion.

That puts God in the same category are Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster

Please spare me the Theistic baloney where you pretend that there isn't enough evidence to prove that you exist. When Theists pull this garbage on me in person I give them a sharp poke in the belly…that's always been proof enough.

The same degree of proof you use for a pyramid will do just fine. The same degree of proof that a dog had pooped on your front lawn would more than suffice.

Then try this thought experiment. You do not know that sometime exist but neither the less say that it does. Is this rational? Is this moral?