An Arguement for the Existence of a Timeless Non-Physical Cuase

[Perplexity]

“whatever the premises mean, the conclusion’s invalid”???

HA ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Here a little tip, unless you know and understand the premise, you cannot determine the validity of the conclusion.

Facepalm* Oh dear, logical validity has nothing to do with understanding the premises. I sincerely hope you buy a book on logic and study it.

“An argument is valid if it would be contradictory (impossible) to have the premises all true and conclusion false. In calling an argument valid, we aren’t saying whether the premises are true. We’re just saying that the conclusion follows from the premises – that if the premises were all true, then the conclusion also would have to be true.” - Gensler, Harry J. Introduction to Logic. 2nd ed. New York Introduction to Logic. 12th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005. p. 682

 

[ReapReason]

Facepalm* Oh dear, logical validity has nothing to do with understanding the premises. I sincerely hope you buy a book on logic and study it.

"An argument is valid if it would be contradictory (impossible) to have the premises all true and conclusion false. In calling an argument valid, we aren’t saying whether the premises are true. We’re just saying that the conclusion follows from the premises – that if the premises were all true, then the conclusion also would have to be true." - Gensler, Harry J. Introduction to Logic. 2nd ed. New York Introduction to Logic. 12th ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005. p. 682

It says here that we’re just saying that the conclusion follows from the “premises”.

How do you know the conclusion follows from the premise unless you understand the premise?

What matters here perplexity is not academic accuracy of word association.

I don’t have to know that all that one means by validity is consistency between premise and conclusion. I just have to know how to think logically.

What matters is whether my argument is correct.

You haven’t shown that my arguments are false or invalid. Get over yourself.

 

[Perplexity]

What matters here perplexity is not academic accuracy of word association.

I don’t have to know that all that one means by validity is consistency between premise and conclusion. I just have to know how to think logically.

What matters is whether my argument is correct.

You haven’t shown that my arguments are false or invalid. Get over yourself.

But, you don’t know what logical validity is. You’re merely inferring statements from each other based on some vague intuitions, which are completely at odds with mine. So, you have no idea whether your argument is ‘correct’ since you don’t know what it would mean for it to be correct. This is not a reliable methodology and greatly increases your chances of forming false beliefs. I’ve provided two citations from intros to logic that falsify your claim that you have to understand the premises to determine the validity of the conclusion. Also, arguments are neither true nor false, they’re valid or invalid, strong or weak. If you think this is pedantic, you need to study logic. This just seems too time consuming though. To convince you that your argument is invalid, I’d have to (i) explain what logical validity really is, (ii) translate your argument into the relevant logic (looks like predicate logic to me), and (iii) using truth-tables show why the premises could be true and the conclusion(s) false. The translation would be particularly difficult since your premises are riddled with strange conjunctions, and unnecessary conditionals etc.

I just wanted to whine a little at how few people who want to engage in these serious topics actually study logic. So many of these topics could be resolved quickly, and without any bitterness if we were all on the same page with logic. I’ll drop it here since I think I’d be at this for a while before any progress was made.

 

[ReapReason]

But, you don’t know what logical validity is. You’re merely inferring statements from each other based on some vague intuitions

This is an assertion for which you have given no explanation.

You said you don’t understand my premises. End of story. Your huff and puff pretense of knowing better is an illusion that will fool some but not all.

Either rebut the argument or go some where else.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

1. Absolutely nothing cannot objectively exist, because there is no objective truth in absolutely nothing. If it existed, not only would it not be nothing by the fact that it “exists”, it would also be objectively true, and thus such cannot ever be the case because it is an ontological contradiction.
2. Therefore there is a being that is absolutely and intrinsically real, in the sense that reality is its nature.
3. It cannot become more real, since it is already reality, and therefore it has no potentiality in terms of becoming. It cannot take on more attributes because it is the source of all reality and thus cannot take on more reality from something else.
4. If there is no potentiality in its being, then there is no change in its being; and as such it is timeless.
5. Since this being is timeless it is not apart of the space-time-continuum, it is not energy or space; and therefore this being is not physical.
6. This being is not the universe and therefore the Universe as a being is contingent upon this ultimate reality in order to be real because it has no reality other than what is given to it by that which is ultimately real.

Conclusion: Our universe is the product of a non-physical being.

Having read through this and your responses a couple times, I think I agree with the others. There are some bricks missing in the foundation. Simplified, your argument is:

1. Nothing cannot exist because if it existed then it would be something.
2. Because there is something, there is a Being whose nature is reality
3. This Being has no potential because reality does not change
4. If there is no potential, the Being is outside time
5. If the Being is outside time, the it is outside space-time and thus non-physical
6. This Being cannot be the universe because the universe is contingent up reality

Clearly, (2) does not follow from (1). You need a couple lines of the proof before you can make that assertion. In fact, it almost seems like (1) is completely irrelevant to the discussion entirely.

You should look more into Fr Spitzer’s presentation of Bernard Lonergan’s philosophical argument for the existence of God. It is more complete than your proposal.

 

[ReapReason]

This is not a reliable methodology and greatly increases your chances of forming false beliefs. I’ve provided two citations from intros to logic that falsify your claim that you have to understand the premises to determine the validity of the conclusion. Also, arguments are neither true nor false, they’re valid or invalid, strong or weak. If you think this is pedantic, you need to study logic. This just seems too time consuming though. To convince you that your argument is invalid, I’d have to (i) explain what logical validity really is, (ii) translate your argument into the relevant logic (looks like predicate logic to me), and (iii) using truth-tables show why the premises could be true and the conclusion(s) false. The translation would be particularly difficult since your premises are riddled with strange conjunctions, and unnecessary conditionals etc.

I just wanted to whine a little at how few people who want to engage in these serious topics actually study logic. So many of these topics could be resolved quickly, and without any bitterness if we were all on the same page with logic. I’ll drop it here since I think I’d be at this for a while before any progress was made.

This is metaphysics by the way.

You seem to be under the false impression that if my argument does not follow your “style” of argumentation, then it must be false or that one cannot know its true. How conveniently bogus.

I think therefore I am, tells me something that is true about reality. It tells me that I exist.

My style of reasoning does not differ from this.

 

[ReapReason]

Having read through this and your responses a couple times, I think I agree with the others. There are some bricks missing in the foundation. Simplified, your argument is:

1. Nothing cannot exist because if it existed then it would be something.
2. Because there is something, there is a Being whose nature is reality
3. This Being has no potential because reality does not change
4. If there is no potential, the Being is outside time
5. If the Being is outside time, the it is outside space-time and thus non-physical
6. This Being cannot be the universe because the universe is contingent up reality

Clearly, (2) does not follow from (1). You need a couple lines of the proof before you can make that assertion. In fact, it almost seems like (1) is completely irrelevant to the discussion entirely.

Where is your rebuttal?

 

[ReapReason]

I find the rest of the arguments ok, except the first one. Unfortunately, everything else is based upon that first statement. There’s something wrong with it. I think it has something to do with sets.

You don’t know what’s wrong with it, otherwise you could clearly point it out.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Where is your rebuttal?

I do not see how you missed it, it is even in the quote you quoted:

me:

Clearly (2) does not follow from (1). You need a couple lines of the proof before you can make that assertion. In fact, it almost seems like (1) is completely irrelevant to the discussion entirely.

 

[norain]

You don’t know what’s wrong with it, otherwise you could clearly point it out.

I did after that post.

 

[norain]

Here’s another one.

The very definition of “nothing” is about non-existence. So for it to exist is to contradict its definition.

“Nothing” exists as the negation of existence! lol

Since existence is possible, non-existence should be possible as well.

 

[empther]

ReapReason wrote…
Quote:

That which is existentially the antithesis of nothing is intrinsically reality.

Translation for people for whom English is a second language…

ReapReason: That which is existentially the antithesis of nothing is intrinsically reality.
Translation: That which is something is not nothing. Right?

What! No reply, ReapReason? I’m disappointed. I was looking forward to more of your sesquipedalianisms.

 

[ReapReason]

Here’s another one.

The very definition of “nothing” is about non-existence. So for it to exist is to contradict its definition.

“Nothing” exists as the negation of existence! lol

Since existence is possible, non-existence should be possible as well.

You must have missed it. So here is premise 1.

1. Absolutely nothing cannot objectively exist, because there is no objective truth in absolutely nothing. If it existed, not only would it not be nothing by the fact that it “exists”, it would also be objectively true, and thus such cannot ever be the case because it is an ontological contradiction.

 

[ReapReason]

What! No reply, ReapReason? I’m disappointed. I was looking forward to more of your sesquipedalianisms.

Please feel free to enter this discussion at any time. All i am hearing from you at the moment is your ego. Unfortunately for you your ego and resentment towards me cannot be used as a rational rebuttal.

 

[norain]

You must have missed it. So here is premise 1.

1. Absolutely nothing cannot objectively exist, because there is no objective truth in absolutely nothing. If it existed, not only would it not be nothing by the fact that it “exists”, it would also be objectively true, and thus such cannot ever be the case because it is an ontological contradiction.

“There is nothing in my pocket.”

That statement can be true. It signifies a lack of anything existing in my pocket, well except maybe air, but to argue that would be silly. No contradiction there.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

You must have missed it. So here is premise 1.

1. Absolutely nothing cannot objectively exist, because there is no objective truth in absolutely nothing. If it existed, not only would it not be nothing by the fact that it “exists”, it would also be objectively true, and thus such cannot ever be the case because it is an ontological contradiction.

And this does not lead to Premise 2 as you have it.

 

[ReapReason]

And this does not lead to Premise 2 as you have it.

Why? Where is your rebuttal of “my” argument (as opposed to your straw-man)

If you give me one more assertion I will have no choice but to think that you’re trolling. And I will ignore you from then on.

 

[ReapReason]

“There is nothing in my pocket.”

That statement can be true. It signifies a lack of anything existing in my pocket, well except maybe air, but to argue that would be silly. No contradiction there.

The term “nothing in my pocket” signifies the absence of a possible object in reference to an existing object. It does not signify the actual presence of nothing. Non-existence is not actually in your pocket. There is still existence in your pocket. For example your “pocket” and the space inside exists.

This is not difficult. I shouldn’t be having to point that out to you.

When I spoke of absolutely nothing I clearly meant the absence of any possible reality whatsoever. I made no reference to an object from which a thing is negated.

 

[empther]

ReapReason wrote;

Please feel free to enter this discussion at any time. All i am hearing from you at the moment is your ego. Unfortunately for you your ego and resentment towards me cannot be used as a rational rebuttal.

There is no rational rebuttal possible because the argument in post 1 makes no sense at all. That’s what everybody in this thread has been trying to tell you.

I engage in rational discussions. This thread doesn’t qualify.

 

[ReapReason]

ReapReason wrote;

There is no rational rebuttal possible because the argument in post 1 makes no sense at all. That’s what everybody in this thread has been trying to tell you.

I engage in rational discussions. This thread doesn’t qualify.

It might not make sense to you, but to be frank you are evidently not a worthy judge.

You say it doesn’t make sense but you can’t even point out what you don’t understand, while others have.

So you can assert what ever floats your ego until you are blue in the face for all i care.