No, I meant exactly what I said. Somethimes, when people can't do something themselves, they like to think that no one else can do it either, I.e., validate their ideas and integrate them. Your profile says that you are a reformed Christian. Are you perhaps a presuppositionalist?
Please point out to me what things I assume.
Nobody is unbiased; everybody's thinking is colored towards their inclinations and preferences. Here's a couple examples:
-------------------------
1) In post #1675 you congratulated
@SelfSim 's conclusion/assumption, assuming that he was right:
SelfSim said: ↑
So you choose a concept which is of no use whatesoever to humans, rather than simply disposing of your belief in the existence of a 'first cause'.
How humanly unproductive.
Why bother then?
And given that reason and reality have been dispensed with, I suppose you can't answer even that question, then(?)
He was wrong, as later posts bear out.
-------------------------
2) You assume (I assume you do so for the sake of expediency, and for a few other reasons) that there is no first cause. If I am wrong, then why do you not study to find reasons to believe there is first cause? Your arguments do not show that first cause does not exist. Yet, in making them, you assume first cause to be subject to what it (supposedly) created.
-------------------------
Any of us makes innumerable statements assuming this or that, or make decisions assuming this or that, presumably for the mere sake of expediency. Would you say that habit does not assume that the floor will be there when you climb out of bed in the morning? Or do you go through the mental process daily that concludes it will be there?
As to your question whether I am a presuppositionalist, I am, or am not, depending on what necessary definition and implications the questioner is assuming. I will not commit to it. I have heard several different (even some mutually exclusive) identifiers/definitions, and even more implications, and so will not be held to the term.
Mark Quayle said: ↑
For example, I too hold that reality is an absolute, and that reason is an absolute. But you will say that some of my statements contradict that I hold to that.
Not if you begin with a consciousness that created its own objects, you don't. And yes I will point out any contradiction that I see in your statements and I expect you to do the same for mine.
First Cause is not merely 'a consciousness'. That it has intent does not make it only a consciousness. That sounds suspiciously like Primacy of Consciousness, which you reject, no? But then, maybe that is why you objected? Nevertheless, I reject the notion that first cause is mere consciousness.
We might hold reason and reality absolute over first cause, but that does not make them so. They also are created by first cause; although they are absolute over (pervasive in) the universe, they are part of the universe,
You are welcomed and invited to point out my inconsistencies but please provide examples and explain how my practices are inconsistent with the Objective Theory of Concepts, don't just make assertions.
*For an example of an inconsistency, see below the asterisk below.
You claim that you hold reality as an absolute and then turn around and say that it is dependent on something else. That's a contradiction.
I thought you would go there. (Ha. As Hillary would say, "I'm so glad you asked that question!" and then go off on a tangent.)
I hold that reality and reason are not subject to our conceptions, and so, certainly, first cause, (which is the source of reality and reason), is not subject to our conceptions.
The reality of 'First Cause', is 'from', or 'of', first cause, and not 'to' first cause.
No, I'm referring to the universe, which is the sum total of what exists and therefore has no cause.
Happily, you sound like you don't believe in multiple universes. I don't either, mostly because there is no evidence but imagination that it is so. There is no logical necessity of it. But if there were, they too would be within the 'logical envelope' we might call the omni. But no, in that case, I would not even say that the Omni includes first cause.
The universe only encompasses what first cause created, and does not encompass first cause itself. If the "omni" includes first cause, then the omni is only an intellectual consideration, and not a principle or reality as such, to which first cause is actually subject or part of. First Cause is necessarily 'other than' everything else, even other than our mental considerations, constructions and arrangements.
She would say that reality is what it is independent of our consciousness, of any consciousness. That's the primacy of existence.
No doubt. I'm there too, unless first cause is 'a consciousness'.
Again, if it is not subject to reason then it doesn't exist because reason is the faculty that perceives and identifies that which exists.
*Right here you are inconsistent. You claim primacy of existence, yet you say that reason subjugates reality. You are saying that if something does not perceive and identify reality, it is not real. That is primacy of consciousness. You have done this several times. I have mentioned this on another thread, I think. I'd produce a quote, but I don't have the time to look.
Anyhow, you are wrong here. According to primacy of existence: Whether or not we (or anyone or anything) know something, perceive it or reason on it, has no bearing on the reality of a thing. It exists, or does not exist, completely independently of whether anyone (anything) is aware of it or not.
We don't *give* primacy to existence, we simply recognize the fact that it is primary. If we don't "give" primacy to existence then it doesn't change the fact that existence is primary, and if existence is primary, then it is uncaused.
If one tries to explain existence by pointing to something that exists, then one has not explained existence.
What I think I said was, that we TRY to give primacy to existence. We LIKE to think it is primary, so we act as though it was so.
One might be tempted to say that the fact we do so demonstrates the primacy of consciousness.
