Post Reply
Page 50 of 76  •  Prev 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 ... 76 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Hatcher's Proof of the Existence of God
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 8:50AM #491
jesus2point3
Posts: 248

Apr 6, 2012 -- 1:12AM, MUH wrote:



PSR is always relevant when discussing the cause of all existing entities (V) or the lack thereof. It is an existential (total) causality while the material conditional doesn't discuss causality nor existence at all. It discusses the logical implications of linguistic propositions which is something quite different. Have you studied formal logic beyond the basics? I think we're already veering off the actual argument. Material conditional is not an ontological principle. It is one of propositional logic and hence deals with the logical relationships between formal propositions (relations between formalized linguistic statements, not real phenomena). It is quite irrelevant to any discussion on total causality. Causality is concerned with causes of existing phenomena.




Actually, it is quite relevant in this case because it goes back to the question: what is existence?  What does it mean for a phenomenon to "exist"?  The MUH says that all existence is abstract mathematical existence so that formal systems are what is actually "real" at the highest level.  We perceive our universe as "physically real" because we belong to the system and "see" it from the inside.



While the MUH may say that all existence is mathematically abstract, in reality does that make it true? While I agee with you that what we perceive is the system we belong to, I see no logical reason to believe we don't exist, but you can think whatever you want too.


I've had this discussion with a young man who was confused about what it means to exist. I simply gave him a thought experiment, that required actions on his part. Thinking takes place within the mind, and your actions take place in time.


I suggested he grab a gun and shoot himself in the head, and then let me know if he continues to exist as a living human, being all he can be. He thought about it for a moment or two, but decided not to complete the experiment. Do you know the reason why?


We can discuss the phenomena known as existence until we're blue in the face, but when your body turns blue it'll be a moot point, of that you can be sure of.


The Surahs of the Noble Qur'an was a great source of knowledge used by the Muslim philosopher Avicenna, who Hatcher credits with the "logical proof of God's existence and uniqueness is due in its essentials", and I have previously stated that Stephen is Hawking the same thing with the 'Nothing' that's in his head. He perceives Nothing between those two ears of his, as he sees the light with his own two eyes.


While Avicenna would use the word ALLAH to describe this entity, and Hatcher uses the word God, Stephen is merely Hawking 'Nothing', while he denies the existence of God. A trinity of words, to describe the Infinite Reality, from a trinity of finite beings.




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 1:58PM #492
MUH
Posts: 96

Apr 6, 2012 -- 8:50AM, jesus2point3 wrote:


Apr 6, 2012 -- 1:12AM, MUH wrote:



PSR is always relevant when discussing the cause of all existing entities (V) or the lack thereof. It is an existential (total) causality while the material conditional doesn't discuss causality nor existence at all. It discusses the logical implications of linguistic propositions which is something quite different. Have you studied formal logic beyond the basics? I think we're already veering off the actual argument. Material conditional is not an ontological principle. It is one of propositional logic and hence deals with the logical relationships between formal propositions (relations between formalized linguistic statements, not real phenomena). It is quite irrelevant to any discussion on total causality. Causality is concerned with causes of existing phenomena.




Actually, it is quite relevant in this case because it goes back to the question: what is existence?  What does it mean for a phenomenon to "exist"?  The MUH says that all existence is abstract mathematical existence so that formal systems are what is actually "real" at the highest level.  We perceive our universe as "physically real" because we belong to the system and "see" it from the inside.



While the MUH may say that all existence is mathematically abstract, in reality does that make it true? While I agee with you that what we perceive is the system we belong to, I see no logical reason to believe we don't exist, but you can think whatever you want too.


I've had this discussion with a young man who was confused about what it means to exist. I simply gave him a thought experiment, that required actions on his part. Thinking takes place within the mind, and your actions take place in time.


I suggested he grab a gun and shoot himself in the head, and then let me know if he continues to exist as a living human, being all he can be. He thought about it for a moment or two, but decided not to complete the experiment. Do you know the reason why?


We can discuss the phenomena known as existence until we're blue in the face, but when your body turns blue it'll be a moot point, of that you can be sure of.


The Surahs of the Noble Qur'an was a great source of knowledge used by the Muslim philosopher Avicenna, who Hatcher credits with the "logical proof of God's existence and uniqueness is due in its essentials", and I have previously stated that Stephen is Hawking the same thing with the 'Nothing' that's in his head. He perceives Nothing between those two ears of his, as he sees the light with his own two eyes.


While Avicenna would use the word ALLAH to describe this entity, and Hatcher uses the word God, Stephen is merely Hawking 'Nothing', while he denies the existence of God. A trinity of words, to describe the Infinite Reality, from a trinity of finite beings.




I think you may have misunderstood me.  I'm not saying that we don't exist.  I'm not even sure where you got that?  I am merely trying to account for what that existence really is.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 06, 2012 - 2:05PM #493
MUH
Posts: 96

Apr 6, 2012 -- 2:21AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


MUH,


I'm a Platonist myself. True or ideal abstract forms are what's ultimately real and the rest is just their appearance in infinite different forms. It doesn't change Hatcher's argument one bit. By the way, he agreed with your ontology. Hatcher was listed as one of the eight Platonist philosophers of the latter half of the 20th century by Encyclopedie Philosophique Universelle.


I'll surely respond when new challenges emerge that directly prove a flaw in Hatcher's premises or reasoning. Please don't be offended if I don't react to every post. It's a time-management issue, not personal. You have an open and constructive approach as well as a discerning mind.


Kindly,


Wabbit




I'm not sure if you'll answer this, but do you then believe that this G "caused" the system of first order logic?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 7:12PM #494
jesus2point3
Posts: 248

Apr 6, 2012 -- 1:58PM, MUH wrote:


Apr 6, 2012 -- 8:50AM, jesus2point3 wrote:


Apr 6, 2012 -- 1:12AM, MUH wrote:



PSR is always relevant when discussing the cause of all existing entities (V) or the lack thereof. It is an existential (total) causality while the material conditional doesn't discuss causality nor existence at all. It discusses the logical implications of linguistic propositions which is something quite different. Have you studied formal logic beyond the basics? I think we're already veering off the actual argument. Material conditional is not an ontological principle. It is one of propositional logic and hence deals with the logical relationships between formal propositions (relations between formalized linguistic statements, not real phenomena). It is quite irrelevant to any discussion on total causality. Causality is concerned with causes of existing phenomena.




Actually, it is quite relevant in this case because it goes back to the question: what is existence?  What does it mean for a phenomenon to "exist"?  The MUH says that all existence is abstract mathematical existence so that formal systems are what is actually "real" at the highest level.  We perceive our universe as "physically real" because we belong to the system and "see" it from the inside.



While the MUH may say that all existence is mathematically abstract, in reality does that make it true? While I agee with you that what we perceive is the system we belong to, I see no logical reason to believe we don't exist, but you can think whatever you want too. . .



. . . While Avicenna would use the word ALLAH to describe this entity, and Hatcher uses the word God, Stephen is merely Hawking 'Nothing', while he denies the existence of God. A trinity of words, to describe the Infinite Reality, from a trinity of finite beings.




I think you may have misunderstood me.  I'm not saying that we don't exist.  I'm not even sure where you got that?  I am merely trying to account for what that existence really is.



In that case, I apologize for the misunderstanding, and thank you for admitting you don't know what you're talking about. Many (but not all) people seem to think they've gotta' have an opinion on everything, and find it hard to say, "I don't know".


For much of my life I was an agnostic, and was quite comfortable saying "I don't know if God exists". While I now know that God exists*, I'm quite comfortable in saying I don't know what will happen to me when I'm dead - or to you for that matter.


As a belief, Atheism has been around for quite some time, but recently there are those who deny the existence of time itself, when in reality our very existence is time dependent. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 07, 2012 - 8:03PM #495
Blü
Posts: 24,020

Lilwabbit


The semantic content of the statement "entity G caused time" makes the causation in question logically time-independent.


You say causation can be time-independent.


Causation is the transaction in which energy moves from A (cause) to B.  The resulting change in B is called the effect.


Movement always involves time.  Thus causation always involves time - it can't occur in the absence of time.


That is, when T=0 there can be no causation.


When you say 'time-independent' you appear to mean that causation CAN occur in the absence of time.  That's not possible.


If by 'time-independent' you simply mean that causation can occur for any value of T then that isn't true for T=0.  (Whether it can occur for T<0 need not detain us.)




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 2:10PM #496
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,760

Apr 7, 2012 -- 8:03PM, Blü wrote:


When you say 'time-independent' you appear to mean that causation CAN occur in the absence of time.  That's not possible.



Prove it logically. You're still advancing a mere claim. You're claiming causation by logical necessity requires time and energy. Hatcher, on the other hand, is claiming nothing more than what Leibniz did; that total causation signifies entity x being the reason for the existence of entity y.


Please prove that the statement "G is the cause of T" is logically impossible. Thus far nobody has offered any such proof. Only claims to that effect.




 

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 3:11PM #497
amcolph
Posts: 16,325

Apr 8, 2012 -- 2:10PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


 


Prove it logically.  




It wouldn't make any difference.  Logical conclusions can only be regarded as "true" if they can be demonstrated empirically, and such a thing has never been observed.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 08, 2012 - 7:54PM #498
Blü
Posts: 24,020

Lilwabbit


You're still advancing a mere claim. You're claiming causation by logical necessity requires time and energy


I'm simply pointing out to you what causation is.


And you don't want to hear it so you're in denial.


Same as ever.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 1:27AM #499
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,760

Apr 8, 2012 -- 7:54PM, Blü wrote:


Lilwabbit


You're still advancing a mere claim. You're claiming causation by logical necessity requires time and energy


I'm simply pointing out to you what causation is.




And Billy Graham is simply pointing out to you what the truth is. Your argument is as dogmatic and weak as it has ever been. Don't take it personally.

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 09, 2012 - 1:28AM #500
Blü
Posts: 24,020

Lilwabbit


Oh, and there's this -



total causation signifies entity x being the reason for the existence of entity y


First, every cause by its effect creates a new state of affairs, so by your definition every causation is total.  Hence 'total' is redundant.



Second, 'reason' here appears to be a complete synonym for 'cause', leaving at large what either word means here.


How is 'reason' defined here, without being circular with 'cause'?


How is 'cause' defined here, without being circular with 'reason'?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 50 of 76  •  Prev 1 ... 48 49 50 51 52 ... 76 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook