[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[Chriliman]

Actually, yes, it does. Timelessness is irrelevant to the metaphysical principle he is talking about.


eudaimonia,

Mark

And the only way you could know that for certain is if you have always existed and have always been able to experience your infinite existence. Except you are not God so there is no way you can know that for certain.

 

[Chriliman]

Besides the fact that this premise begs the question, since it assumes the very thing that is at issue, it's clear that you do not understand the issue of metaphysical primacy. That's not a mark against you by the way. I would be very surprised if you have ever heard of it. I suggest that you gain that understanding before you attempt to interact with this argument further. You seem like a sincere person who is genuinely interested in learning. You are on the threshold of a great discovery here if you will only look at it.

Really? So why did Einstein say “Imagination is more important than knowledge” in regards to the metaphysical principle? Is it because its so difficult to imagine that knowledge comes from an entity that is beyond our physical realm? And if knowledge comes from this entity then this entity would know everything at all times simply because its beyond the physical. This is something very easy for some to imagine and believe in, but apparently very difficult for others to imagine and believe in, even when given a sound reason to do so.

 

[bhsmte]

Really? So why did Einstein say “Imagination is more important than knowledge” in regards to the metaphysical principle? Is it because its so difficult to imagine that knowledge comes from an entity that is beyond our physical realm? And if knowledge comes from this entity then this entity would know everything at all times simply because its beyond the physical. This is something very easy for some to imagine and believe in, but apparently very difficult for others to imagine and believe in, even when given a sound reason to do so.

If you are going to use Einstein lets see what else he said. Do you realize he stated belief in personal Gods was "childlike"?

As much as Einstein believed in imagination, his imagination completely rejected a personal God.

 

[Eudaimonist]

And the only way you could know that for certain is if you have always existed and have always been able to experience your infinite existence. Except you are not God so there is no way you can know that for certain.

You aren't God either, making your protests empty and inconclusive. You are shooting yourself in the foot by playing the "we can't know" game.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[True Scotsman]

Really? So why did Einstein say “Imagination is more important than knowledge” in regards to the metaphysical principle?

Since I don't know the context in which Einstein made this comment, I'm hesitant to comment on it.

Is it because its so difficult to imagine that knowledge comes from an entity that is beyond our physical realm?

It's not hard at all to imagine such a thing but the primacy of existence firmly establishes that there is a fundamental distinction between what we imagine and what is real.

And if knowledge comes from this entity then this entity would know everything at all times simply because its beyond the physical.

This begs the question again as it assumes the very thing that at issue.

This is something very easy for some to imagine and believe in, but apparently very difficult for others to imagine and believe in, even when given a sound reason to do so.

I see no sound reason to suppose such a thing exists and I have given a defeater for it anyway so no need to consider it as even possible. Really, really suggest you learn about what it is you are attempting to refute before you go any further. I'm happy to help explain it to you and also provide you with source material to help you. You're dealing with something much, much more profound than any imagined gods.

 

[Chriliman]

You aren't God either, making your protests empty and inconclusive. You are shooting yourself in the foot by playing the "we can't know" game.


eudaimonia,

Mark

At the moment we can't know everything, but in time we will know the truth.

1 Corinthians 13:12
"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

 

[bhsmte]

At the moment we can't know everything, but in time we will know the truth.

1 Corinthians 13:12
"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

Well, you got that going for you.

 

[Chriliman]

It's not hard at all to imagine such a thing but the primacy of existence firmly establishes that there is a fundamental distinction between what we imagine and what is real.

Anything "real" apart from our imagination/consciousness would require us to believe in it.

This begs the question again as it assumes the very thing this at issue.

Not an assumption, but rather a belief.

I see no sound reason to suppose such a thing exists and I have given a defeater for it anyway so no need to consider it as even possible. Really, really suggest you learn about what it is you are attempting to refute before you go any further. I'm happy to help explain it to you and also provide you with source material to help you. You're dealing with something much, much more profound than any imagined gods.

Well your not even willing to consider what science has recently been saying about the origins of the universe and what implications it may have on our beliefs about our existence. I think your exact words were "The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with my argument. Whatever scientist claim about the big bang is irrelevant." So your basically throwing out the latest thoughts about the origins of the universe in order to maintain your beliefs. Isn't that the definition of a dogmatic belief system? I believe only God is capable of anything dogmatic. Humans are not capable of doing this, unless you claim to be God.

 

[True Scotsman]

Anything "real" apart from our imagination/consciousness would require us to believe in it.

If I had knowledge of something that exists and is not merely imaginary, to deny that that thing exists would be to contradict reality. But what does this have to do with my statement that I can imagine all sorts of things but the imaginary is not real. And why do you put real in quotes? Either something is real or it is not.

Not an assumption, but rather a belief.

You're still begging the question.

Well your not even willing to consider what science has recently been saying about the origins of the universe and what implications it may have on our beliefs about our existence. I think your exact words were "The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with my argument. Whatever scientist claim about the big bang is irrelevant." So your basically throwing out the latest thoughts about the origins of the universe in order to maintain your beliefs. Isn't that the definition of a dogmatic belief system? I believe only God is capable of anything dogmatic. Humans are not capable of doing this, unless you claim to be God.

I consider all sorts of things but what does the big bang have to do with the argument I presented? That is what we are discussing. Please deal with the argument I presented and stop going off on tangents. Dogmatism has to do with faith, but since I'm not accepting anything on faith I'm not being dogmatic.

 

[Chriliman]

If I had knowledge of something that exists and is not merely imaginary, to deny that that thing exists would be to contradict reality. But what does this have to do with my statement that I can imagine all sorts of things but the imaginary is not real. And why do you put real in quotes? Either something is real or it is not.




You're still begging the question.


I consider all sorts of things but what does the big bang have to do with the argument I presented? That is what we are discussing. Please deal with the argument I presented and stop going off on tangents. Dogmatism has to do with faith, but since I'm not accepting anything on faith I'm not being dogmatic.

You're ignoring what I said about a "real" infinitely small singularity and how this "real" singularity could possibly be anything other than a "real" singularity. It's a contradiction to think this "real" singularity could change into a "real" universe, without an outside force acting on it. I'm putting "real" in quotations because I want it to mean reality that is not imagined by our conscious minds, I want it to mean actual truth. Since it doesn't make sense for truth to contradict, the idea of an infinitely small singularity as the origin of the universe does not make sense.

I'll leave you to ponder this and maybe do some reading about the concept of an infinitely small singularity.

 

[True Scotsman]

You're ignoring what I said about a "real" infinitely small singularity and how this "real" singularity could possibly be anything other than a "real" singularity. It's a contradiction to think this "real" singularity could change into a "real" universe, without an outside force acting on it. I'm putting "real" in quotations because I want it to mean reality that is not imagined by our conscious minds, I want it to mean actual truth. Since it doesn't make sense for truth to contradict, the idea of an infinitely small singularity as the origin of the universe does not make sense.

I'll leave you to ponder this and maybe do some reading about the concept of an infinitely small singularity.

But my argument has nothing to do with any singularity, real or otherwise so I don't know why you are bringing it up. My argument deals with a single issue, metaphysical primacy, which again has to do specifically with the proper orientation of the subject/ object relationship. This is the argument which I base my certainty that there is no god on. So far you haven't dealt with it at all or shown that you even understand it. If you can refute it then we can consider the big bang because if you can not then your statement that a god makes "more sense" than the big bang is a mute point.

 

[Chriliman]

But my argument has nothing to do with any singularity, real or otherwise so I don't know why you are bringing it up. My argument deals with a single issue, metaphysical primacy, which again has to do specifically with the proper orientation of the subject/ object relationship. This is the argument which I base my certainty that there is no god on. So far you haven't dealt with it at all or shown that you even understand it. If you can refute it then we can consider the big bang because if you can not then your statement that a god makes "more sense" than the big bang is a mute point.

Right the subject is us and the object is the singularity that must have existed before our universe existed. Problem is science is claiming this objective singularity is infinite, which means it should still be an infinite singularity, unless you think an objective infinite singularity can somehow contradict its own existence and become an objective finite universe. Its still a problem even if the universe is infinite because how could an infinite singularity contradict its own existence and become an infinite universe with time and space? These are real questions that should not be ignored.

 

[bhsmte]

Right the subject is us and the object is the singularity that must have existed before our universe existed. Problem is science is claiming this objective singularity is infinite, which means it should still be an infinite singularity, unless you think an objective infinite singularity can somehow contradict its own existence and become an objective finite universe. Its still a problem even if the universe is infinite because how could an infinite singularity contradict its own existence and become an infinite universe with time and space? These are real questions that should not be ignored.

Straw man.

 

[Chriliman]

Straw man.

Typical atheist response to avoid tough questions.

 

[bhsmte]

Typical atheist response to avoid tough questions.

You really need to pay closer attention to what people ACTUALLY say.

 

[Chriliman]

You really need to pay closer attention to what people ACTUALLY say.

You really need to attempt to answer my questions.

 

[bhsmte]

You really need to attempt to answer my questions.

What questions have I not answered?

 

[Chriliman]

What questions have I not answered?

How does an objective infinite singularity contradict its own existence and become an objective finite(or infinite) universe?

Here's my answer to my own question:
If something is objectively infinite, it should always be objectively infinite, otherwise it was never objectively infinite to begin with.

Now you go...

 

[bhsmte]

How does an objective infinite singularity contradict its own existence and become an objective finite(or infinite) universe?

Here's my answer to my own question:
If something is objectively infinite, it should always be objectively infinite, otherwise it was never objectively infinite to begin with.

Now you go...

What does any of that have to do with whether a God exists?

 

[Chriliman]

What does any of that have to do with whether a God exists?

Lol, that's not an answer. That is a question. But I'll answer it anyway. If something exists and is infinite, it does not have to be objective(within space/time) in order to exist. It just has to be unalterably true that it infinitely exists. <this is God

I still want an answer from you and True Scotsman about my previous question, otherwise I'm justified in accusing both of you of straw men arguments.