Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
Do you see this nonbeliever? Colter is attempting to refute the statement that existence exists. Talk about denying the patently obvious! Apparently it does not register with him that in order to do this he would first need to exist and such a thing as the concept true and false and a consciousness which holds them would have to also exist. Absolutely amazing.Existance exists
* When? The statment is arbitrary. The material world that we interact with came into existance at a point in time, it is the effect not both cause and effect simultaneously. Primacy dosent have a beginning. Critics of this contorted assertion have called this conflating “existence” with the natural “universe" hence the term "materialist presuppositionalism."
* What existance? Things and beings exist relative to something, just stateing that existance exists independently is unsupported. Contingent reality is not prime reality, an ultimate reality, or a metaphysical primacy.
My personal response to the OP:
As a Christian, my belief is fundamentally based on one truth- the truth spoke in the bible. And in that truth, God is infallible.
The issue I take with some science is that it argues that truth.
My belief in God is simply stronger than belief in a scientific theory.
So even when presented with your 'ridiculously obvious' "absolutes", if they contradict what the bible teaches, I simply can't believe them.
Unfortunately, most of the hot topics (dinosaurs, age of the earth) are completely ignored by the bible, which makes it even harder to follow the science, since the popular scientific belief contradicts my Christian belief of what the bible teaches. And some (evolution) are blatantly contradictory to what the bible teaches.
I get that it's hard to understand faith.
How did a man come from dirt?
How could God just have always been? How does he have no beginning?
How did He just blink the earth and sun out of nothingness?
It's pretty amazing to think about... as a child I remember having a hard time wrapping my head around the "God has always been" one. But then, I just had faith. I don't understand and it's not for me TO understand. I just have to have faith that it's true, even without proof.
It's almost like some are calling the Earth itself a liar because of what it is showing us about itself. I don't get it either.ILike 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?
Where did I state that something cannot exist without our consciousness of it. I specifically stated that the primacy of existence means that things exist independent of anyone's conscious activity. Things exist whether we perceive them or not. Good grief.Your logic falls down when you state that something cannot exist without our consciousness of it. Or, premise #2.
"Premise two is true because it would have to be true even to deny it." This statement proves nothing. It is empty.
It's like the child who defines the word using the word.
This goes way back to my college years of Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance or some fool thing.
My teacher asked that question, you know the one, "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it"? That question..... He was serious, I was in a different elective the next day. I wasn't wasting my hard earned $$ to talk in circles with people over nonsensical hyperbole.
Many things exist without our conscious awareness. A tumor on someones liver. Does it only exist when it is discovered? A leak in a spare tire. I guess when you need the spare and find that it's deflated, then, and only then, does the leak exist.
All of this doesn't even scratch the surface in any way of proving that God doesn't exist.
On top of it all. God, created this universe, the laws that govern it, the space, the time, the light, the darkness.
He stands outside of this whole created realm. He is not affected by it, He is immune to it.
Does the painting say to the artist "I am not conscious of you, I am not aware of you, I have no proof of you, So you don't exist?"
Truth is truth whether you are aware of it, deny it, believe it or oblivious to it. Truth stands, unchanged.
Nowhere does my argument seek to prove that GOd does not exist because we do not perceive it. It proves that God does not exist because it contradicts the primacy of existence principle. If you have to mangle my argument beyond recognition in order to try and refute it,you have already tacitly conceded.Your logic falls down when you state that something cannot exist without our consciousness of it. Or, premise #2.
"Premise two is true because it would have to be true even to deny it." This statement proves nothing. It is empty.
It's like the child who defines the word using the word.
This goes way back to my college years of Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance or some fool thing.
My teacher asked that question, you know the one, "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it"? That question..... He was serious, I was in a different elective the next day. I wasn't wasting my hard earned $$ to talk in circles with people over nonsensical hyperbole.
Many things exist without our conscious awareness. A tumor on someones liver. Does it only exist when it is discovered? A leak in a spare tire. I guess when you need the spare and find that it's deflated, then, and only then, does the leak exist.
All of this doesn't even scratch the surface in any way of proving that God doesn't exist.
On top of it all. God, created this universe, the laws that govern it, the space, the time, the light, the darkness.
He stands outside of this whole created realm. He is not affected by it, He is immune to it.
Does the painting say to the artist "I am not conscious of you, I am not aware of you, I have no proof of you, So you don't exist?"
Truth is truth whether you are aware of it, deny it, believe it or oblivious to it. Truth stands, unchanged.
Do you see this nonbeliever? Colter is attempting to refute the statement that existence exists. Talk about denying the patently obvious! Apparently it does not register with him that in order to do this he would first need to exist and such a thing as the concept true and false and a consciousness which holds them would have to also exist. Absolutely amazing.
Sure, by the objective evidence and facts stays the same.
I never said it wasn't real. I said it is how people deny objective evidence. That's one of the definitions of faith. Belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately it's all too real.But faith is real.
I have found that faith is completely objective in principle, but it's not subjective in belief. As in "I believe I have faith in something." Rather it's I know I have faith in something. You know because faith is the only way to deal with a logical dilemma "Will my Girlfriend come back to me or leave" or "Will I land the job or not." Both examples are logical contradictions and can't be resolved without faith.I never said it wasn't real. I said it is how people deny objective evidence. That's one of the definitions of faith. Belief without evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately it's all too real.
Where does "I don't know ?" fall in there ?I have found that faith is completely objective in principle, but it's not subjective in belief. As in "I believe I have faith in something." Rather it's I know I have faith in something. You know because faith is the only way to deal with a logical dilemma "Will my Girlfriend come back to me or leave" or "Will I land the job or not." Both examples are logical contradictions and can't be resolved without faith.
You don't know is faith in action, but it's not a belief in action. I doubt belief actual exists in a real world since you have to use real faculties to determine everything, and they are not believed things but real things. Am I making sense, I feel like my ideas are getting covered in syrup.Where does "I don't know ?" fall in there ?
Do you see this nonbeliever? Colter is attempting to refute the statement that existence exists. Talk about denying the patently obvious! Apparently it does not register with him that in order to do this he would first need to exist and such a thing as the concept true and false and a consciousness which holds them would have to also exist. Absolutely amazing.
Here are your wordsWhere did I state that something cannot exist without our consciousness of it. I specifically stated that the primacy of existence means that things exist independent of anyone's conscious activity. Things exist whether we perceive them or not. Good grief.
You
What does it mean to say that that things exist relative to something? If only one particle existed as the whole universe, are you saying it wouldn't exist because there would be nothing else for it to "exist relative to?"* What existance? Things and beings exist relative to something, just stateing that existance exists independently is unsupported. Contingent reality is not prime reality, an ultimate reality, or a metaphysical primacy.
Not true, I'm calling into question the integrity of the statement that sounds more like someone trying to say something profound that isn't. Things exist, I exist, you exist, the universe exists, eternity exists, spiritual realities exist. Somehow objectivists use this presumed ultimate as proof of the exclusion of things that they don't want to exist like God. Its a classic straw man.
This is why I don't waste a lot of my time putting together replies for you because I find that you lack sincerity. Your dogma of doubt has some sort of filter that rearranged my reply to you in real time so as to leave you with a false conclusion.
What does it mean to say that that things exist relative to something? If only one particle existed as the whole universe, are you saying it wouldn't exist because there would be nothing else for it to "exist relative to?"
What about if only two particles existed as the whole universe? Now they both would exist because they exist relative to one another??
So, things only exist when observed? Don't we usually develop object permanence by around 20 months of age?It means that an observation is being made apart from the existence of the thing that exists relative to nonexistence or in comparison to other things. This observation by mind transcends the things being observed but this in no way brings the things observed into existence, it's a qualitative distinction made by mind conscious of values.
1 particle or 2 particles or 3 particles would exist but if there were no mind to make the distinction then their existence simply wouldn't be expressed or considered or debated.
"things exist, I exist, you exist"
This is all that Objectivism means by the axiom of existence Colter and you have gone on record rejecting this fundamental fact. You don't know anything about it except it is opposed to your worldview. And now because you are too proud to admit you were wrong, you have to mangle it beyond recognition in order to try and refute it.
No, things exist weather we observe them or not, but if there is no mind to observe them then you and I wouldn't be discussing these things. Is this the cream of your objection to the existence of God?So, things only exist when observed? Don't we usually develop object permanence by around 20 months of age?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?