Post Reply
Page 39 of 76  •  Prev 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 ... 76 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Hatcher's Proof of the Existence of God
3 years ago  ::  Dec 14, 2011 - 10:36AM #381
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,896

Dec 14, 2011 -- 9:04AM, farragut wrote:

I gather that the population of Gs could be infinite.



One could indeed argue that Hatcher's logic allows for the existence of multiple self-caused Gs which together cause the rest of V (each G causing a portion of V). So far I haven't found a sound logical basis to deny that. It also allows for the existence of one self-caused G causing all of V, and for the existence of one self-caused G that is the only thing that exists despite our illusions of compositeness. In other words, polytheism, Abrahamic monotheism as well as Hindu monistic theism could all find support in Hatcher's proof. Not atheism.


Dec 14, 2011 -- 10:09AM, F1fan wrote:


Dec 14, 2011 -- 6:30AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

If something exists (evident truth), and if that something is a composite entity (the apparent universe), and if something cannot come out of nothing (i.e. cannot be uncaused), it must, in the absence of other causes, contain within itself a sufficient reason for its own existence (i.e. be self-caused). Since it is logically impossible that a composite entity be self-caused (principle of limitation), something non-composite within it must be self-caused while being the cause of all the non-self-caused components of that composite entity. In other words, if we can accept the above 'ifs', then there must be G that is the other-cause of all existence while remaining itself self-caused.


If we do not accept one or several of the above ifs, we must offer a logical alternative that is more plausible. So far I haven't heard of any.



There's no logical reason to accept these 'if's'. These 'if's' are more complicated than the notion that stuff always existed, which renders causation of its existence as irrelevant.



The notion that "stuff" always existed is not in conflict with Hatcher. The notion that "stuff" always existed logically assumes that this ever-existing "stuff" contains a sufficient reason for its own existence since "stuff" cannot be born from a state of nothing prevailing at a certain earlier point in time. Since ex nihilo nihil fit, hence "stuff" is not uncaused. Since "stuff" is deemed composite, Hatcher's logic still holds, bringing us to G as I described earlier. You are not disputing any of Hatcher's ifs but in fact inadvertently employing them in your own argument.


Dec 14, 2011 -- 10:09AM, F1fan wrote:

The only reason to reject the idea that everything has always existed is to force the idea of a creator through the use of language. 




Hatcher does not reject the idea that everything has always existed. This matter has been covered myriads of times on this thread.


With kind regards,


LilWabbit

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Dec 14, 2011 - 11:37AM #382
Jiwe
Posts: 492


Platonism is untenable as a statement about reality. So is mathematical Platonism.


Bald assertion. Dissmissed promptly!


Numbers and other mathematical objects (as such) do not have objective existence.  If they did, it would be possible to demonstrate them independently of their instantiations.


Category mistake. Concepts are instantiated. Numbers arent.


All instantiations depend on a selection made by an onlooker.  They're an interpretation that the onlooker makes about the external world. 


Non sequitur.


'Two sticks' is no more or less valid a selection than 'a stick and the ground' for twoness.


No kidding.


Numbers instead exist as concepts in the onlooker's brain. 


Bald assertion. Argument?


We're born with the ability to take in specific numbers at a glance, up to four or five as a rule.  Studies of children show they have the concept of quantity instinctively (ie genetically) from a very early age, so that, for example, if ten objects and then ten objects are placed behind a screen, they are unsurprised to see twenty objects when the screen is removed, but surprised to see forty.  No precise counting is involved, of course; it's a matter of impression.  Faustus recently linked an article on brain research showing that numbers further exist as rote-learning which the brain can manipulate.


Yes, we can spot 4 to 5 items and our short term memories can keep 5 to 7 items. Abracadabra! Mathematical realism is wrong! Argument 2: we now know where the brain does some mathematical manipulations. Abracadabra! Numbers are brain states! Mathematical realism is wrong! Most impressive - if you dig magic acts and olympic leaps of logic!


All mathematical models of reality are inductively derived - that is, we accept them because they fit what we observe, not because of any quality in maths.  The model is not reality.  Thus Newton's equations are modified by relativity, and relativity may need to be modified if neutrinos are shown to travel faster than c, and so on into the future, since nothing stops us discovering something tomorrow that will demand further modification. 


Yes, mathematical models are replaced by improved mathematical models restricted to an appropriate domain of application. Abracadabra! Mathematical realism is wrong!


All inductive conclusions are tentative, never absolute.  That is, much as certain physicists have expressed awe at the power of mathematical theories to predict outcomes in physics &c, no ultimate truth, no magic, is there - and if it were, we'd have no way of knowing it. 


Irrelevant. The function of inductive arguments is to provide predictions given current knowledge and background beliefs.


If you disagree, then it won't suffice to run off a list of folk who have expressed thoughts either endorsing or suggestive of mathematical Platonism. 


Be warned! Peer reviewed scholarship will not be able to impact Blu's predjudices.


Instead you'll need to show us eg the abstraction 'two', free of any particular example of twoness, running around in objective reality. 


The number two is not an abstraction. It's a number. Reference to it is semantically but not ontologically dependent on whatever particular example of twoness one may choose. Your steadfast confusion on this point is a reflection of your level of education. Not of the faults of mathematical realism.


If mathematical Platonism is correct, this will be easy.  If it is not, you won't be able to do it.


Good one. Because the truth of a theory is obviously proportional to how easy it is to demonstrate it...!






Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Dec 14, 2011 - 11:44AM #383
mountain_man
Posts: 39,283

Dec 14, 2011 -- 6:30AM, Lilwabbit wrote:

If something exists (evident truth), and if that something is a composite entity (the apparent universe), and if something cannot come out of nothing (i.e. cannot be uncaused), it must, in the absence of other causes, contain within itself a sufficient reason for its own existence (i.e. be self-caused). ......


Which makes no sense. Why invent something that causes itself when being 'self caused' is a fantasy, not a reality. The rationalization (you call it a 'proof') is creating an "unnecessary entity."  Our Universe does not need a cause, most likely it has always existed in some form or another.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Dec 14, 2011 - 11:48AM #384
F1fan
Posts: 11,385

Dec 14, 2011 -- 10:36AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


The notion that "stuff" always existed is not in conflict with Hatcher. The notion that "stuff" always existed logically assumes that this ever-existing "stuff" contains a sufficient reason for its own existence since "stuff" cannot be born from a state of nothing prevailing at a certain earlier point in time.



If stuff always existed, cause in relation to it is irrelevant.


Since ex nihilo nihil fit, hence "stuff" is not uncaused. Since "stuff" is deemed composite, Hatcher's logic still holds, bringing us to G as I described earlier. You are not disputing any of Hatcher's ifs but in fact inadvertently employing them in your own argument.




No one has forgotten that the whole point is trying to force a creator as a cause for stuff that exists through language and logic.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Dec 14, 2011 - 11:53AM #385
amcolph
Posts: 17,449

Dec 14, 2011 -- 11:37AM, Jiwe wrote:



 


The number two is not an abstraction. It's a number. Reference to it is semantically but not ontologically dependent on whatever particular example of twoness one may choose. Your steadfast confusion on this point is a reflection of your level of education. Not of the faults of mathematical realism.



I will happily plead guilty to that--if someone will explain to me in clear terms what mathematical Realism is, instead of what it is not.  I have not been much exposed to Realism nor in any way that makes it seem to be either sensible or necessary.  That could well  be a fault of my education.

We may certainly agree that there is an objective reality external to the self.  My opinion is that it is not directly knowable.  Your opinion appears to be that it is directly knowable and that it is mathematics.


If I do not understand you correctly I would appreciate a clear, non-condescending explanation of what it is you do believe.


Is it possible that the mathematics that we "know" is not the same as the mathematics of which you believe that objective reality consists?

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Dec 14, 2011 - 12:36PM #386
redshifted
Posts: 2,283

Dec 14, 2011 -- 11:53AM, amcolph wrote:


If I do not understand you correctly I would appreciate a clear, non-condescending explanation of what it is you do believe.




Good luck with that.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Dec 14, 2011 - 6:59PM #387
TransJ
Posts: 731

Dec 14, 2011 -- 6:30AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


Dec 13, 2011 -- 11:42PM, TransJ wrote:



Greetings LilWabbit,


I have questions about G. G is self-caused and as such is self-sufficient,  that is G has sufficient reason for its own existence. Why should other-causation be a necessary quality of G? That is, is G a sufficient reason to cause V? Yes, I understand that V as a composite can not cause itself and needs a cause but how do we know that a self-causing entity can cause a composite entity? After all it is causing something that it is not.


Thank you


TransJ




Hi there TransJ,


If something exists (evident truth), and if that something is a composite entity (the apparent universe), and if something cannot come out of nothing (i.e. cannot be uncaused), it must, in the absence of other causes, contain within itself a sufficient reason for its own existence (i.e. be self-caused). Since it is logically impossible that a composite entity be self-caused (principle of limitation), something non-composite within it must be self-caused while being the cause of all the non-self-caused components of that composite entity. In other words, if we can accept the above 'ifs', then there must be G that is the other-cause of all existence while remaining itself self-caused.


If we do not accept one or several of the above ifs, we must offer a logical alternative that is more plausible. So far I haven't heard of any.


With kind regards,


LilWabbit


P.S. I just realized that in this highly summarized and unprecise form Hatcher's proof is almost attractive. I've normally not considered it attractive. Only surprisingly unbreakable.






Yes, the composite entity strickly implies a non-composite source. But why not both the uncaused with sufficient reason [self-caused existence] and the uncaused without sufficient reason [causeless existence]? The causeless (non-composite) with the self-caused (non-composite) create other causation (compositness).


 


kind regards,


TransJ


P.S. Yes indeed it is attractive! And I thank you for posting it in that form.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Dec 14, 2011 - 9:36PM #388
Blü
Posts: 24,924

James


You assert that numbers exist independently of the concept of them in brains.


So win the argument.  Show them to us.  Not instantiations, just the numbers.



I too will look forward to your non-condescending explanation to amcolph.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Dec 14, 2011 - 10:58PM #389
CaliberCadillac
Posts: 2,867

Dec 14, 2011 -- 9:41AM, amcolph wrote:


Dec 14, 2011 -- 1:02AM, Docholyday wrote:


 


Please explain your waffling on this subject, and thanks for your future consistency.


 Doc




Certainly.   It has to do with the nature of the two posts.


In the first, I state my opinion about the origin of logic and claims made about it by non-Realists.



"For the non-Realist, logic was invented in response to objective reality.  No one claims it has nothing to do with objective reality." 


The second post is a question, not a statement.  Notice the placement of a question mark at the end.  Such a mark is a dead giveaway that a question is being asked.


"The question is, what is the relevance of a logical argument to objective reality?"


I asked the question to elicit an opinion from Lilwabbit about the nature of logic with the particular intention of discovering whether he was a realist or not.


Altogether, and in original chronological order, the posts amount to something like this:


1. What is your opinion?


2. My opinion is X.


I'm not sure how that can be seen as "waffling" unless you read the question,


"... what is the relevance of a logical argument to objective reality?"


as a covert statement that there was no relationship, which would be an egregious mistake.


I hope that clears up your confusion.




Sounds like a guy getting ready to try and sell us all on logical positivism. 


You know, as hell-bent against anything resembling non-Realism as you seem to be, I've no doubt you'll still deposit a logical reason for being so.

"Sometimes you gotta step into the ring and throw a few punches for what you believe in."

--Ernest Hemingway--
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Dec 14, 2011 - 11:10PM #390
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Dec 14, 2011 -- 10:58PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:


Dec 14, 2011 -- 9:41AM, amcolph wrote:


Dec 14, 2011 -- 1:02AM, Docholyday wrote:


 


Please explain your waffling on this subject, and thanks for your future consistency.


 Doc




Certainly.   It has to do with the nature of the two posts.


In the first, I state my opinion about the origin of logic and claims made about it by non-Realists.



"For the non-Realist, logic was invented in response to objective reality.  No one claims it has nothing to do with objective reality." 


The second post is a question, not a statement.  Notice the placement of a question mark at the end.  Such a mark is a dead giveaway that a question is being asked.


"The question is, what is the relevance of a logical argument to objective reality?"


I asked the question to elicit an opinion from Lilwabbit about the nature of logic with the particular intention of discovering whether he was a realist or not.


Altogether, and in original chronological order, the posts amount to something like this:


1. What is your opinion?


2. My opinion is X.


I'm not sure how that can be seen as "waffling" unless you read the question,


"... what is the relevance of a logical argument to objective reality?"


as a covert statement that there was no relationship, which would be an egregious mistake.


I hope that clears up your confusion.




Sounds like a guy getting ready to try and sell us all on logical positivism. 


You know, as hell-bent against anything resembling non-realism as you seem to be, I've no doubt you'll still deposit a logic reason for being so.



Amcolph isn't getting ready to do anything. He's already done it. Docholyday asked him to explain something and he explained it. That's all. You need not concern yourself.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 39 of 76  •  Prev 1 ... 37 38 39 40 41 ... 76 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook