Flat out denial.

[True Scotsman]

Again:



By default you are claiming that inherent in this purported power of your axiom is it's own omniscience. I have never claimed that man has or can have omniscience. I stated that things (effects) exit, that is obvious to consciousness which itself is an effect. There are a great many effects that man has not yet discovered. God holds primacy, his effects exist regardless of our discovery of them or consciousness of them. We don't make the fundament things, we discover them. We don't make truth, we discover it.

I see what you mean. Not omniscience. Universality. These concepts are universals since they are implicit in any further knowledge. There is literally no concept that they are not at the root of including false concepts such as "ghost", "God" or the "supernatural". That's what gives them their power, not that they have inherent omniscience. Those who claim that a supernatural realm exists are using all 3 of the axioms and the primacy of existence, since I don't think they would be claiming that the supernatural realm exists because they want it to. But the concept "supernatural" would contradict the concept of Identity since everything that exists has a specific nature. Something that exists outside of nature would not have a nature. Therefor, on the grounds that the concept "supernatural" contradict the axiom of identity, it is an invalid concept.

 

[durangodawood]

Is it true that the things which exist in fact exist?

No. Its not false either.

A proposition can only be 'true' if its presented in a way that, IF it were false, could be sensibly expressed as false.

 

[contango]

Objective evidence and facts are independent of anyone's subjective thoughts and exists and is there whether someone acknowledges it or not. Whether a person accepts the evidence or not is a different story.

If there is a crime scene and DNA of the suspect is found at the scene, this evidence is objective and is not subjective.

The evidence that the suspect was there is certainly objective but DNA being found doesn't explain what the suspect was doing there. In a rape case DNA evidence may conclusive prove that a sex act took place but further evidence is required to determine whether it was consensual.

 

[contango]

ack, this new system omitted posts #21 to #139 in the list so I jumped into a thread that had moved on by 100+ posts.

I don't care for this new look forum.

 

[True Scotsman]

No. Its not false either.

A proposition can only be 'true' if its presented in a way that, IF it were false, could be sensibly expressed as false.

Really? It's not true that things exist?

 

[durangodawood]

Really? It's not true that things exist?

Well, now you are asking about a different proposition.

If you want to be consistent with your previous assertions, you should ask: "is it not true that things that exist, exist?"

But that would be silly!

 

[True Scotsman]

Well, now you are asking about a different proposition.

If you want to be consistent with your previous assertions, you should ask: "is it not true that things that exist, exist?"

But that would be silly!

As I stated earlier, an alternative way of stating it would be things exist. Also stuff exists, and reality exists.

I really don't see why this is a problem. It may seem silly and unnecessary to state it but I don't see that it is fallacious. As I said to Colter, if one does not state these self evident truths you will not be able to help contradicting them at some point. It's not a self referential statement like "this statement is true" and When you have some philosophers like Kant who say that the things we perceive don't really

 

[durangodawood]

As I stated earlier, an alternative way of stating it would be things exist. Also stuff exists, and reality exists.

I really don't see why this is a problem. It may seem silly and unnecessary to state it but I don't see that it is fallacious. As I said to Colter, if one does not state these self evident truths you will not be able to help contradicting them at some point. It's not a self referential statement like "this statement is true" and When you have some philosophers like Kant who say that the things we perceive don't really

To say that "things that exist, exist".... says nothing more than just saying "things that exist". Grammatically, thats a fragment of an proposition, and not an actual proposition.

Anyway, the whole idea of "to exist" is so slippery that we only really grasp it intuitively. Its not a suitable idea for use in rock-solid reasoning, except as a given.

 

[sandwiches]

Things exist because of the mind of God, the universe is mind made and mind managed. Things exist apart from your mind and my mind.

Just a bare assertion? That's it?

The mater upon which our mind rests as well as the electro-chemical energy which is mind, all preexisted our consciousness and it's ability to opine about things that exist. To say existence exists somehow grants attributes of observation making mind to a mindless primacy.

I never said anything about "existence existing" or anything similar. It's meaningless anyway. It's like saying "tallness is tall." At any rate, can something exist without a mind observing it, in your opinion?

 

[Colter]

Just a bare assertion? That's it?

I never said anything about "existence existing" or anything similar. It's meaningless anyway. It's like saying "tallness is tall." At any rate, can something exist without a mind observing it, in your opinion?

I would say yes, things could exist without mind observing them. But since a God has primacy, created things are a consequence (an efect) of the mind of God.

 

[Colter]

I see what you mean. Not omniscience. Universality. These concepts are universals since they are implicit in any further knowledge. There is literally no concept that they are not at the root of including false concepts such as "ghost", "God" or the "supernatural". That's what gives them their power, not that they have inherent omniscience. Those who claim that a supernatural realm exists are using all 3 of the axioms and the primacy of existence, since I don't think they would be claiming that the supernatural realm exists because they want it to. But the concept "supernatural" would contradict the concept of Identity since everything that exists has a specific nature. Something that exists outside of nature would not have a nature. Therefor, on the grounds that the concept "supernatural" contradict the axiom of identity, it is an invalid concept.

Universality is contained within the primacy of the Universal Father. All things that exist do so relative to the Universal Father.

 

[True Scotsman]

Universality is contained within the primacy of the Universal Father. All things that exist do so relative to the Universal Father.

Is this true because you want it to be true, or is it true independently of anyone's conscious wishes?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Its just a tautology and not even a statement really.

Maybe its just a tautology but tautologys are true.

 

[True Scotsman]

To say that "things that exist, exist".... says nothing more than just saying "things that exist". Grammatically, thats a fragment of an proposition, and not an actual proposition.

I does say something. It is undeniably true and therefore it has truth value. How can a statement that identifies a fact of reality not have any meaning. It is composed of two concepts which both have meaning. The concept means the referents that it integrates. So The concept "existence" has meaning. It has the widest meaning of any concept because it subsumes everything that exists now, has ever existed and will ever exist. You can't get more meaning!

Anyway, the whole idea of "to exist" is so slippery that we only really grasp it intuitively. Its not a suitable idea for use in rock-solid reasoning, except as a given.

What do you mean? We grasp it by direct observation.

A proper philosophical starting point must be conceptually irreducible. If it can be broken down into more fundamental concepts it isn't really the starting point of knowledge. Further, it must be undeniably true or else all further knowledge based on it would be at best questionable. It must be broad enough to be implicit in all further concepts. It must be axiomatic. It must be a fundamental concept so therefore it must identify something that is directly observable. "existence" meets all these requirements and really is the only proper starting point for knowledge for what could precede the concept existence and what would it reference except something that exists. So I think that I'll go ahead and keep using it as my starting point.

 

[durangodawood]

Maybe its just a tautology but tautologys are true.

Tautologies can ONLY ever be labelled as "true". And so they advance nothing.

(But I dont think they even sit on the true/false spectrum, as I mentioned earlier... because of the way they are constructed)

 

[bhsmte]

The evidence that the suspect was there is certainly objective but DNA being found doesn't explain what the suspect was doing there. In a rape case DNA evidence may conclusive prove that a sex act took place but further evidence is required to determine whether it was consensual.

Agree.

 

[Eudaimonist]

To say that "things that exist, exist".... says nothing more than just saying "things that exist". Grammatically, thats a fragment of an proposition, and not an actual proposition.

No, that's a proposition. A proposition affirms or denies the predicate of a subject, and that it what that statement is doing.

In my reading, saying that "things that exist, exist" is just like asserting that if something exists, one cannot properly deny that it exists. Its existence must be taken to be true. It is affirming the truth of a statement, and its usefulness is that it functions as a bridge from metaphysics to epistemology. In epistemology, the first rule is to accept what exists. One cannot gain knowledge of reality by lying to oneself about it.

Yes, this practice may be tautological, but that is not necessarily a bad thing at the rock bottom of metaphysics and epistemology. One isn't trying to advance knowledge of particulars. That isn't the point. It is a comment on the absurdity of denying foundational concepts such as existence.

Tautologies are only inappropriate for knowledge of particulars, where I agree that they are useless.

Anyway, the whole idea of "to exist" is so slippery that we only really grasp it intuitively. Its not a suitable idea for use in rock-solid reasoning, except as a given.

It doesn't seem like a slippery concept to me. To exist is to exist as something -- that is, to have identifiable characteristics. It is a perfectly useful concept.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

Is this true because you want it to be true, or is it true independently of anyone's conscious wishes?

It's true because it's true, that truth is contained in the will of only one person, the Universal Father. "In him we live move and have our being."

 

[True Scotsman]

Tautologies can ONLY ever be labelled as "true". And so they advance nothing.

(But I dont think they even sit on the true/false spectrum, as I mentioned earlier... because of the way they are constructed)

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

It's true because it's true, that truth is contained in the will of only one person, the Universal Father. "In him we live move and have our being."

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?

 

[durangodawood]

No, that's a proposition. A proposition affirms or denies the predicate of a subject, and that it what that statement is doing.

I dont think so. In our case here, the predicate IS the subject. Regardless of the actual truth or falsehood about "things that exist, exist".... there is no way to logically express the possible falsehood.

Contrast that with the classic proposition example: "all men are mortal". You CAN logically express the negative value that "some men are not mortal". Even if its actually false, you can logically say it. But you cannot even logically say "some things that exist do not exist". The negative value is not simply wrong, its nonsense.

So "things that exist, exist" is not even a proposition, as there is no logically expressible negative value.