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

  • Thread starter Thread starter ReapReason
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
norain said:
“has no meaning” means its truth value cannot be determined.
Click to expand...
No, the claim is much stronger than that. Absolute nothingness does not entail that meaning cannot be determined, it would entail something like no meaning can possibly be assigned because there is nothing to assign meaning to. Meaning is not possible, not just indeterminable. If the meaning of absolute nothingness is not possible, then it cannot be, so absolute nothingness cannot be, therefore something must be, something is necessary.
norain said:
“a contradiction” means the truth value is FALSE.

There is a world of difference between “I don’t know if that is true” and “that is a false statement”
Click to expand...
The difference is irrelevant in this case because the existence of absolute nothingness is a contradiction. Absolute nothingness cannot be, therefore something must be. The question is “What?”
 
ReapReason wrote:
Do you even know what an esse-panentheist is?
Click to expand...
I just did web searches on YAHOO, BING, and GOOGLE’s search engines for esse-panentheist and only got two hits, both of them posts in these forums where you use the term body of your post.
Apparently you were the only esse-panentheist in the world, so the definition is whatever you say it is. :eek:

Yesterday, I would have gotten 494 hits, all your posts on these forums because the term was your declared religion,
But today you changed your declared religion to Cathollic Esse-Monism. :banghead: :mad:

This is why educated, sophisticated, knowledgeable, accomplished people in many fieids, such as politicians, college professors, scientists, and the like avoid forums like this. They don’t have the time or patience to deal with the craziness around here.
:whackadoo: :choocho: :bluelite: :hey_bud:
 
Peter_Plato said:
No, the claim is much stronger than that. Absolute nothingness does not entail that meaning cannot be determined, it would entail something like no meaning can possibly be assigned because there is nothing to assign meaning to. Meaning is not possible, not just indeterminable. If the meaning of absolute nothingness is not possible, then it cannot be, so absolute nothingness cannot be, therefore something must be, something is necessary.

The difference is irrelevant in this case because the existence of absolute nothingness is a contradiction. Absolute nothingness cannot be, therefore something must be. The question is “What?”
Click to expand...
An assessment of “not possible” requires data. Contradiction requires data. A is not equal to B. Without data, as in nothingness, there is nothing to contradict. There is nothing to determine. Nada… zero… nil…

A blank sheet of paper has no statements whatsoever. An assessment of “not possible” cannot be applied if there is nothing to assess!
 
norain said:
“has no meaning” means its truth value cannot be determined.
Click to expand...
That is not true. A tautology is when a things objectivity cannot be determined as true. Nothingness is logically meaningless like a square triangle is logically meaningless. This is to say that you are not talking about a real state of affairs or a logical possibility.

I said the “word” nothing does not objectively or meaningfully apply to any true state accept as a negation of some possible object.
 
empther said:
ReapReason wrote:

I just did web searches on YAHOO, BING, and GOOGLE’s search engines for esse-panentheist and only got two hits, both of them posts in these forums where you use the term body of your post.
Apparently you were the only esse-panentheist in the world, so the definition is whatever you say it is. :eek:

Yesterday, I would have gotten 494 hits, all your posts on these forums because the term was your declared religion,
But today you changed your declared religion to Cathollic Esse-Monism. :banghead: :mad:

This is why educated, sophisticated, knowledgeable, accomplished people in many fieids, such as politicians, college professors, scientists, and the like avoid forums like this. They don’t have the time or patience to deal with the craziness around here.
:whackadoo: :choocho: :bluelite: :hey_bud:
Click to expand...
Why are you calling me crazy? So according to you anybody that holds a different view to you that you don’t understand, or changes their view is crazy?

That doesn’t sound like sophisticated thinking to me.

If somebody creates a new variation on the word “panenthiest”, it means they hold a view that the original word cannot entirely encompass. But instead of asking what i mean by it, you jump to conclusions and you call people crazy.

Yeah…that’s very intelligent of you.

I have now changed my view to Esse-Monism since i think that better describes what i believe.
 
Peter_Plato said:
No, the claim is much stronger than that. Absolute nothingness does not entail that meaning cannot be determined, it would entail something like no meaning can possibly be assigned because there is nothing to assign meaning to. Meaning is not possible, not just indeterminable. If the meaning of absolute nothingness is not possible, then it cannot be, so absolute nothingness cannot be, therefore something must be, something is necessary.
Click to expand...
👍
 
norain said:
An assessment of “not possible” requires data. Contradiction requires data. A is not equal to B. Without data, as in nothingness, there is nothing to contradict. There is nothing to determine. Nada… zero… nil…

A blank sheet of paper has no statements whatsoever. An assessment of “not possible” cannot be applied if there is nothing to assess!
Click to expand...
If you understand the concept absolutely nothing, and what it means to be objectively real or true; then you know what the concepts entail when compared. That is the data.

Nothing is not equal to reality.

A square triangle is nothing real. There is a reason why it is nothing real. It is because it contradicts what it means for a triangle and a square to be real. It contradicts the distinction between being a real triangle and being a real square.

The same contradiction arises when you claim that absolutely nothing can be an objectively true state affairs.
 
Originally Posted by Peter Plato
No, the claim is much stronger than that. Absolute nothingness does not entail that meaning cannot be determined, it would entail something like no meaning can possibly be assigned because there is nothing to assign meaning to. Meaning is not possible, not just indeterminable. If the meaning of absolute nothingness is not possible, then it cannot be, so absolute nothingness cannot be, therefore something must be, something is necessary.
Click to expand...
ReapReason replied:
👍
Click to expand...

If there is absolutely nothing, the meaning is that there never will be anything and nothing will ever happen.
 
ReapReason said:
If you understand the concept absolutely nothing, and what it means to be objectively real or true; then you know what the concepts entail when compared. That is the data.

Nothing is not equal to reality.

A square triangle is nothing real. There is a reason why it is nothing real. It is because it contradicts what it means for a triangle and a square to be real. It contradicts the distinction between being a real triangle and being a real square.

The same contradiction arises when you claim that absolutely nothing can be an objectively true state affairs.
Click to expand...
A square triangle is a contradiction. You got that right.
“Nothing” or a blank sheet states neither truth or falsity. Falsity requires contradiction. There is no contradiction in nothing. If I say nothing, then you cannot accuse me of being contradictory. Contradictory to what???
 
Perplexity said:
I was not, actually. Thanks for mentioning it, seems pretty interesting.
Click to expand...
Welcome. I’ve been introducing myself to some psychology lately and it came to mind when reading your post. I’ve seen places where it could be potentially applied, though I wouldn’t yet say that I am confident about when it can be applied properly.
 
Since knowledge of the things in themselves is a posteriori, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, so far as regards philosophy, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our understanding, it would thereby be made to contradict ampliative principles, but our concepts are just as necessary as the Ideal of human reason. The employment of our judgements would thereby be made to contradict the manifold. Experiences, as we have said, are unified synthetically, by orienting experiences according to accured insights. We see in advance that the epoche is an agreement of a transcendental grounding of the stream of noematic descriptions with the judged noematic descriptions. The phenomena (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is the case) have lying before them the paralogisms, as will easily be shown in the next section. Modes of consciousness do not yet produce for us any abiding being apart from their relation to cogitationes. But we have fallen short of the necessary interconnection that we have in mind when we speak of the Antinomies. In view of these considerations, time, in accordance with the principles of our faculties, is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of it must be known a priori, since some of the things in themselves are hypothetical. It must not be supposed that general logic depends on the Categories, because of our necessary ignorance of the conditions.
 
Red_Godfather said:
Since knowledge of the things in themselves is a posteriori, the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, so far as regards philosophy, can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our understanding, it would thereby be made to contradict ampliative principles, but our concepts are just as necessary as the Ideal of human reason.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that reason alone cannot ever under any circumstance produce proof of something?
 
norain said:
It was an analogy.

If you insist, fine, let’s play “ontological nothingness”, and we’ll do it really slow:

How did you derive a contradiction from “ontological nothingness”?
Click to expand...
An inherently flawed analogy. I am not interested in playing games.
 
ReapReason said:
An inherently flawed analogy. I am not interested in playing games.
Click to expand...
If you don’t have an answer, then there must be no contradiction. Which means your first premise fails.

Just tell me the contradiction in ontological nogthingness. I’m waiting.
 
ReapReason said:
Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that reason alone cannot ever under any circumstance produce proof of something?
Click to expand...
Reason is by its very nature contradictory; in view of these considerations, our ideas stand in need to the noumena. The Ideal of human reason, in so far as this expounds the universal rules of the noumena, can be treated like pure logic. As is evident upon close examination, our a posteriori concepts, still, prove the validity of necessity; in view of these considerations, the employment of the paralogisms of practical reason, consequently, can be treated like the Antinomies. Because of the relation between time and the objects in space and time, our faculties (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is the case) stand in need to natural causes. You should be careful to observe that, then, time is the key to understanding metaphysics, but the phenomena would thereby be made to contradict, even as this relates to the Ideal of natural reason, the manifold. The phenomena, so regarded, should only be used as a canon for our judgements, and our knowledge can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like our experience, it has lying before it disjunctive principles. Separated modes of consciousness, in a maximally broad sense, need to be criticized with regard to their validity and range, before they can be used for the purposes of a radical grounding of the all-embracing consciousness of internal time, by the fundamental nature of modes of consciousness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top