Flat out denial.

All this makes me realize that "things that exist, exist" is really just an expression of the axiom A is A..... and not itself a logical proposition.

As an axiom, you cannot argue it. You simply take it or leave it based on your intuitive understanding of the world.

durangodawood said:

But you cannot even logically say "some things that exist do not exist". The negative value is not simply wrong, its nonsense.

Click to expand...

It may not be logical, but it's still a negative statement. It isn't "nonsense". It's just a statement that can't be true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

True Scotsman said:

An axiom has a special status regarding truth or falsehood. It can not be denied without first being accepted. Here I'll prove it to you. Your objection to my starting point is invalid because there is no such thing as disagreement. People agree about everything. How could they disagree since nothing exists to disagree about? To answer this


I see. You have affirmed the primacy of consciousness. You are denying premise 2 of the argument. This contradicts all objective observations. If you can demonstrate this, great, you've refuted the argument. Since you've already admitted that you can't, that this requires faith, that makes your claim arbitrary. The arbitrary is inadmissible as evidence. My argument stands unrefuted.

If the arbitrary were admissible as evidence, you realize that anyone could refute any argument for your god by simple stating that "God doesn't exist. No I can't prove it or demonstrate that, but it is true none the less". Now I'm sure you wouldn't accept that as "evidence" would you?

Click to expand...

From the first time I read about this philosophical construct (conceived in a conscious mind) I was struck by how it's a box of mirrors, once one enters they cant get out and nothing can get in, somehow that's proof of something. But it's a box inside of creation, weird! Adhering to this model effects are eternal, never can causes be acknowledged. Eternal Atheism.

Remind me, is premise 2 the "exists" part of the statement "existence exists"?

nonbeliever314 said:

I'm done trying to debate religious people. . .

Click to expand...

Then why are you in a Christian forum?

oops

No

Colter said:

From the first time I read about this philosophical construct (conceived in a conscious mind) I was struck by how it's a box of mirrors, once one enters they cant get out and nothing can get in, somehow that's proof of something. But it's a box inside of creation, weird! Adhering to this model effects are eternal, never can causes be acknowledged. Eternal Atheism.

Remind me, is premise 2 the "exists" part of the statement "existence exists"?

Click to expand...

No Colter, premise two simply states the the things that exist do so independently of anyone's conscious activity such as wishing, wanting, liking, dreaming or faith. A fact that is directly observable. You've gone on record as denying this and in essence affirming that wishing makes things so. You provide no evidence for this claim. As usual, you just expect us to take it on your say so or the Urantia book's say so. that's not evidence. That's just your subjective belief. Again, the arbitrary is inadmissible as evidence.

I have no idea what you mean by the above and you make no argument for it in any case. You simply assert it. My argument is still sound and valid, since you have not shown either premise to be untrue and indeed in denying either one you would commit a fallacy. To deny either one would be to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. I've explained what this fallacy is countless times for you. If you're still unclear about its meaning that's your problem.

It's been over a day now and you still have not made a dent in my argument. I'm content to watch you bludgeon yourself again and again on its bastions.

Eudaimonist said:

It may not be logical, but it's still a negative statement. It isn't "nonsense". It's just a statement that can't be true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Click to expand...

I wonder If we changed the name of the concept to "universe", or "nature" and kept the same definition and referents would that make it acceptable? The universe exists. Has a nice ring to it.

durangodawood said:

All this makes me realize that "things that exist, exist" is really just an expression of the axiom A is A..... and not itself a logical proposition.

As an axiom, you cannot argue it. You simply take it or leave it based on your intuitive understanding of the world.

Click to expand...

I've been saying this all along. But we don't have to accept it intuitively. This fact is directly observable and is implicit in any statement, any act of cognition, any act period including the act of taking something on faith or intuition.

True Scotsman said:

No


No Colter, premise two simply states the the things that exist do so independently of anyone's conscious activity such as wishing, wanting, liking, dreaming or faith. A fact that is directly observable. You've gone on record as denying this and in essence affirming that wishing makes things so. You provide no evidence for this claim. As usual, you just expect us to take it on your say so or the Urantia book's say so. that's not evidence. That's just your subjective belief. Again, the arbitrary is inadmissible as evidence.

I have no idea what you mean by the above and you make no argument for it in any case. You simply assert it. My argument is still sound and valid, since you have not shown either premise to be untrue and indeed in denying either one you would commit a fallacy. To deny either one would be to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. I've explained what this fallacy is countless times for you. If you're still unclear about its meaning that's your problem.

It's been over a day now and you still have not made a dent in my argument. I'm content to watch you bludgeon yourself again and again on its bastions.

Click to expand...

True Scotsman said:

No


No Colter, premise two simply states the the things that exist do so independently of anyone's conscious activity such as wishing, wanting, liking, dreaming or faith. A fact that is directly observable. You've gone on record as denying this and in essence affirming that wishing makes things so. You provide no evidence for this claim. As usual, you just expect us to take it on your say so or the Urantia book's say so. that's not evidence. That's just your subjective belief. Again, the arbitrary is inadmissible as evidence.

I have no idea what you mean by the above and you make no argument for it in any case. You simply assert it. My argument is still sound and valid, since you have not shown either premise to be untrue and indeed in denying either one you would commit a fallacy. To deny either one would be to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. I've explained what this fallacy is countless times for you. If you're still unclear about its meaning that's your problem.

It's been over a day now and you still have not made a dent in my argument. I'm content to watch you bludgeon yourself again and again on its bastions.

Click to expand...

OK, hold on here for a second. I thought Premise 1 said "the the things that exist do so independently of anyone's conscious activity such as wishing, wanting, liking, dreaming or faith."

And Premise 2 stated "states that we have to be conscious of something for it to exist.

Now you have changed ends? Are we in the second half now? Second or third period?

Then you state "I wonder If we changed the name of the concept to "universe", or "nature" and kept the same definition and referents would that make it acceptable? The universe exists. Has a nice ring to it."

Well, I like that idea. How about:

God exists independently of anyone's wishing, wanting, liking or dreaming otherwise, to the fact that He doesn't.
Proof of this is that God, being a concept, being, item, person, entity, THING, exists independently of consciousness.

This must be true because of the law of contradiction must hold and the 2nd Premise ( or 1st , I've lost count, what quarter is this again?) states that we have to be conscious of something in order for it to exist., which cannot be true due to this law of contradiction and the fact that it is an absurd concept...

nonbeliever314 said:

What causes some of you, in the heat of a debate, to flat out deny things that are ridiculously obvious? Like when a scientist says "No, you're wrong, this is how this works....." etc, but you still take the original idea that you were just shown wrong about and still run with it? Why do you do that?

Click to expand...

Some would say that the authority and reliability of a scientist is granted by humans and therefore does not exist in an objective sense. I disagree, since I believe that humans are the highest authority, but I can understand the mindset.

"Reason is the act of recognizing the conclusions of consciousness with regard to the experience in and with the physical world of energy and matter. Faith is the act of recognizing the validity of spiritual consciousness—something which is incapable of other mortal proof. Logic is the synthetic truth-seeking progression of the unity of faith and reason and is founded on the constitutive mind endowments of mortal beings, the innate recognition of things, meanings, and values."

complimentary quote:

"In physical life the senses tell of the existence of things; mind discovers the reality of meanings; but the spiritual experience reveals to the individual the true values of life. These high levels of human living are attained in the supreme love of God and in the unselfish love of man. If you love your fellow men, you must have discovered their values. Jesus loved men so much because he placed such a high value upon them. You can best discover values in your associates by discovering their motivation. If someone irritates you, causes feelings of resentment, you should sympathetically seek to discern his viewpoint, his reasons for such objectionable conduct. If once you understand your neighbor, you will become tolerant, and this tolerance will grow into friendship and ripen into love." Urantia Book 1955

nonbeliever314 said:

I'm done trying to debate religious people. But I'll retire with a question and some discussion... What causes some of you, in the heat of a debate, to flat out deny things that are ridiculously obvious? Like when a scientist says "No, you're wrong, this is how this works....." etc, but you still take the original idea that you were just shown wrong about and still run with it? Why do you do that?

Click to expand...

From my experience, it's because the Christian is afraid to reconcile their carefully crafted theology or they are afraid to have their indoctrination challenged.

This happened to me when I was faced with the reality of election and again with my path from a YEC to an EC. Now, I'm pretty open to the fact that I can be 100% wrong.

That being said, though, I feel my beliefs are pretty solid in terms of reconciliation with scripture and such.

But yeah... it's probably due to being afraid of being wrong.

Truth is hard to see in this world, as it is owned and managed by the father of lies. Through science, humanities, philosophy, etc each lie builds on another until the truth is so obscured the lie is perceived as truth. In the end God himself enforces the delusion. The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness. (‭2 Thessalonians‬ ‭2‬:‭9-12‬ NIV)