Flat out denial.

[True Scotsman]

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.

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.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

Please explain to us all how you migrated, logically, the infallibility of God to the infallibility of the Bible.

Bear in mind that many preachers swear, honestly, that their sermon topics were inspired by God and the attribute of infallibility is withheld from them.

 

[dlamberth]

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?

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.

.

 

[True Scotsman]

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.

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.

You

 

[True Scotsman]

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.

 

[nonbeliever314]

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.

WOW.

 

[RhaegarTargaryen]

Sure, by the objective evidence and facts stays the same.

Indeed. Just making sure that we all keep in mind that the interpretation of data very much IS a subjective thing.

 

[True Scotsman]

But faith is real.

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.

 

[estadalamoo]

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.

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.

 

[TillICollapse]

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.

Where does "I don't know ?" fall in there ?

 

[estadalamoo]

Where does "I don't know ?" fall in there ?

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.

 

[Colter]

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.

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.

 

[JacksBratt]

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.

You

Here are your words

Post # 61


Premise #1
"the primacy of existence principle states that the things that exist do so independently of anyone's conscious activity."

Premise #2
"Its opposite, the primacy of consciousness, states that the things that exist do not exist independently of anyone's consciousness and are dependent on consciousness for their existence."

"Premise 1 of my argument is true because a contradiction can't exist. Existence can not both have primacy and not have primacy at the same time."

"Premise two is true because it would have to be true even to deny it."

I guess you stated that "something cannot exist without our consciousness of it." when you state that Premise 2 is "true".

IMO premise 1 is a no brainer..... things do exist whether we are conscious or aware of them....

IMO premise 2 is absurd....Saying that the existence of something depends on consciousness.....


I see the contradiction in these two. However, one is obvious and the other is foolishness.

I still don't get the basis for your statement:
Post #51
"Existence has metaphysical primacy over consciousness.

Therefor the Christian God does not exist."

If I translate this philosophical verbiage correctly it states "existence is independent of consciousness"
Which, to me, proves that God can exist as He can exist without people being conscious of Him.

 

[Colter]

From UB philosophy:

"In order to facilitate mortal comprehension of the universe of universes, the diverse levels of cosmic reality have been designated as finite, absonite, and absolute. Of these only the absolute is unqualifiedly eternal, truly existential. Absonites and finites are derivatives, modifications, qualifications, and attenuations of the original and primordial absolute reality of infinity.

The realms of the finite exist by virtue of the eternal purpose of God. Finite creatures, high and low, may propound theories, and have done so, as to the necessity of the finite in the cosmic economy, but in the last analysis it exists because God so willed. The universe cannot be explained, neither can a finite creature offer a rational reason for his own individual existence without appealing to the prior acts and pre-existent volition of ancestral beings, Creators or procreators." UB 1955

 

[sandwiches]

* 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.

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??

 

[True Scotsman]

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.

"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. But it can't be refuted Colter because you would first have to exist inorder to try.

 

[Colter]

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??

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.

 

[sandwiches]

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.

So, things only exist when observed? Don't we usually develop object permanence by around 20 months of age?

 

[Colter]

"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.

Its like a kangaroo court of pier review. What was I wrong about? I never said things don't exist I simply made the observation that the context of Rand's philosophy begins somewhere in the middle of a run on sentence. This is why this fringe idea of Rand's is laughed at by serious philosophers.

Things exist, conscious mind observes them, we don't need to be rocket surgeons to do that????

 

[Colter]

So, things only exist when observed? Don't we usually develop object permanence by around 20 months of age?

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?