Checkmate in 3 moves

[MindOverMatter2]

“3. Therefore there has to be an absolute and timeless actual reality that transcends all potential states (irrespective of their number) so that its being is not preceded by any potentiality; and thus not violating the first and second premise.”

(3) interests me most because MM2 says here that there has to be an infinite reality (when did i say infinite?). Yet,here, he practically says that infinity cannot be real.

The degree to which this person attempts to deceive and confuse both himself and everyone around him is mind boggling.

Seems that we have another straw-man and a red-herring. My advice to everybody is to ignore this person until he either gets a proper education in the matters that he debates or learns to conduct himself honestly.

 

[Perplexity]

Ok guys, let’s grant MM2’s few, extremely brief responses to my critique. What then? The argument is still gibberish as far as logic is concerned. In fact, let’s imagine that MM2, surprisingly, finds a way to rebut all of my critiques about the content of his argument. It’d still be a blob of sloppy logic. He cannot rebut that. But, don’t expect any revisions, MM2 doesn’t know the first thing about logic, which is why he was able here (and has done so elsewhere) to propose such a messy argument with a straight face. So, let him wibble about these minor points (which I still wouldn’t actually concede! ), it changes nothing.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

FS:

Might I ask, with all due respect: does “RC” (up in the right hand corner of your posts under the topic of Religion) stand for “Roman Catholic?” Or, is it merely two letters of the alphabet strung together; or does it stand for something else? I’m curious.

God bless,
jd

Can you please desist from your continued misplaced sense of authority? This is the second
time you have insulted me in a subtle un-charitable way, in fact here we find the exact same rude and leading query…this is a public forum…why would you not PM myself…what exactly are your public motives …look here JDaniel…( just a week or so ago::

Originally Posted by FurtherSuntime…in reply to out of order, exact same question by JDaniel

I’m very comfortable as a Catholic and understand all the expectations, teachings ect. I have no quarrel with any of the teachings at all. I simply do not have a mind that can resist solving problems or what would be said to be mystery. Interest in creation is a compliment, I can’t be interested in something with…restrictions. For your information I thoroughly enjoy reading many
of the nihilobstat writings and fully believe these saints would be keen on exploring the God they pray to and live for with full zest and greater insight…thats in character what these writers were…if all thats done in the belief is dance around what is already written…where is the
personal belief exactly…the paradox is left un-attended to…the dialectic is void, no reconciliation
as theres nothing but a robot following rules…faith is a creative endeavor…not a rule book, once the idea is accepted the journey begins…otherwise theres no merit to the will…believing with the immediate will has no value.

I don’t think by reading your posts , that you are suggesting a Catholic is not allowed to “wonder”…perhaps a thread on the essence of love and the role wonder plays is a good idea.
Please do not be privy due to a public forum to create a common villain for non-constructive and so forth reasons…anyway if your intelligent, you will leave me alone or simply comment on some of my creative idea’s in a suitable way…I didn’t quote you either so what are you trying to
project here anyway?..never mind the direction is non-constructive…

back to topic. Time is vastly difficult to try and understand looking forward to some well trained
commentary…I fully reccomend…Paul Davies(physisist)…“about time”

JDaniel replys…this is just a week ago or so…to above

Thank you FurtherSuntime:

I am good with your explication. Just know, that we are occasionally inundated with anti-Christians who come here to beat Christians up. You, sir, sound like the genuine article! Again, thank you, and my deepest apologies if my post sounded terse.

Oh, and by the way, since I have not had the pleasure, Welcome to CAF!

God bless,

FS continuing,… please know that I do not report to yourself

PS…if your mindset was in step with these quotes you are complaining to, you would quote myself and perhaps you may learn something…try one…I will be bk later prob tom…youve upset me once again…failing that simple request, please PM with your concerns which in a public forum are leading in a negative tone, to be most sure:

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Ok guys, let’s grant MM2’s few, extremely brief responses to my critique. What then? The argument is still gibberish as far as logic is concerned. In fact, let’s imagine that MM2, surprisingly, finds a way to rebut all of my critiques about the content of his argument. It’d still be a blob of sloppy logic. He cannot rebut that. But, don’t expect any revisions, MM2 doesn’t know the first thing about logic, which is why he was able here (and has done so elsewhere) to propose such a messy argument with a straight face. So, let him wibble about these minor points (which I still wouldn’t actually concede! ), it changes nothing.

More huffing and puffing i see. If assertions were a virtue, i would think you to be a saint. Hopefully everyone else can think for themselves in regards to whether or not my arguments stand up to rational scrutiny. They don’t need you to think for them, and i would be worried for their mental health if they did.

Thanks.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Nothing isn’t anything, therefore I presume nothing.

You presume it is logical.

 

[Perplexity]

More huffing and puffing i see. If assertions were a virtue, i would think you to be a saint. Hopefully everyone else can think for themselves in regards to whether or not my arguments stand up to rational scrutiny. They don’t need you to think for them, and i would be worried for their mental health if they did.

Thanks.

As I hope everyone can see, MM2 is simply resorting to ad hominems and addressing the least significant of my points. He’ll continue to do so, and will probably never make his argument into something with logical intelligibility. I don’t think much needs to be said beyond this: here’s MM2 at a darts tourney in his scuba gear waving Uno cards shouting ‘Checkmate in 3!’

 

[Sair]

Its funny to me that the only way an atheist or philosopher can challenge the argument is by either saying that perhaps time is an illusion or by saying that perhaps a thing can come out of nothing by itself. In other words they have to ignore basic fundamental rational principles in-order to remain agnostic towards the existence of a first cause. Its like saying, maybe there could be a square-triangle, while holding a straight face.

In my book, this makes the argument rationally irrefutable.

Of course, there is nothing in that argument that demonstrates or even implies that the eternal actuality must bear any resemblance whatsoever to any concept of a personal being. No cosmologist, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that the universe came from a state of total not-being, if such a state is even possible.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

As I hope everyone can see, MM2 is simply resorting to ad hominems and addressing the least significant of my points. He’ll continue to do so, and will probably never make his argument into something with logical intelligibility. I don’t think much needs to be said beyond this: here’s MM2 at a darts tourney in his scuba gear waving Uno cards shouting ‘Checkmate in 3!’

More huffing and puffing i see. If assertions were a virtue, i would think you to be a saint. Hopefully everyone else can think for themselves in regards to whether or not my arguments stand up to rational scrutiny. They don’t need you to think for them, and i would be worried for their mental health if they did.

Thanks.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Of course, there is nothing in that argument that demonstrates or even implies that the eternal actuality must bear any resemblance whatsoever to any concept of a personal being.

I never said it did. But you would be hard-pressed to demonstrate rationally how a blind unconscious timeless physical entity can move itself or move something else without being moved by another. Simply asserting that it can will not work.

No cosmologist, to my knowledge, has ever claimed that the universe came from a state of total not-being, if such a state is even possible.

I never said they did, and what relevance does cosmology have to do with this debate anyway? I am not making a scientific argument, and neither am i required to.

 

[Sair]

I never said it did. But you would be hard-pressed to demonstrate rationally how a blind unconscious timeless physical entity can move itself or move something else without being moved by another. Simply asserting that it can will not work.

By which you mean that human rationality cannot compass non-rational movement? Is it your claim that rational consciousness is required for any movement at all? Or that the state of being eternal necessitates the absence of movement? If the latter, then you’ve negated any claim of your god’s creative agency.

You have not supported, by this argument, the need for personal, rational consciousness in the development of the known universe, and I can’t say I know how you would do so. There may be certain conditions which are - retrospectively from our perspective - necessary for universal development, but there is no reason to suppose that they were in any way intended or planned, nor that they required any conscious being’s involvement. You cannot prove a personal god by means of the argument you provided in the OP. Therefore, it is not the checkmate you claimed.

I never said they did, and what relevance does cosmology have to do with this debate anyway? I am not making a scientific argument, and neither am i required to.

Well, it’s quite obvious you’re not making a scientific argument; but you do imply that you’re countering some specific claim of something coming from absolute nothing. I’m not sure where this claim could come from. Cosmology is the study of the origins of the universe, therefore it would appear to be relevant…

 

[Perplexity]

More huffing and puffing i see. If assertions were a virtue, i would think you to be a saint. Hopefully everyone else can think for themselves in regards to whether or not my arguments stand up to rational scrutiny. They don’t need you to think for them, and i would be worried for their mental health if they did.

Thanks.

Here’s an MM2 weather forecast: Scattered ad hominems with slight relevance. The skies look clear, giving no indication of any logical argument formations.

don’t expect any revisions, MM2 doesn’t know the first thing about logic

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Here’s an MM2 weather forecast: Scattered ad hominems with slight relevance. The skies look clear, giving no indication of any logical argument formations.

As creative with words as you may be I hope you realize that assertions are not by definition that which comprises a cogent rebuttal. I would have thought that a learned scholar such as your self would have at least been aware of such given all those books you have read.

Tell me; did you actually open the books or are they just ornaments for your bookshelf?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

By which you mean that human rationality cannot compass non-rational movement?

No.

Is it your claim that rational consciousness is required for any movement at all?

Its irrelevant whether or not i think rationality is the cause. Its enough for me to state the obvious, which is the fact that an unconscious being cannot move itself; since that would be getting potentiality out of nothing.

Or that the state of being eternal necessitates the absence of movement?

It certainly necessitates the absence of physical change.

If the latter, then you’ve negated any claim of your god’s creative agency.

It certainly cannot be the kind of intelligent will that has potentiality. But It’s irrelevant what you think of Gods agency. I have said nothing about a physical God in the OP. I simply wanted to identify the fact that what ever the cause is, it certainly cannot be an unconscious physical being.

You have not supported, by this argument, the need for personal, rational consciousness in the development of the known universe, and I can’t say I know how you would do so.

I have not yet made an argument as such: i merely stated that outside of an intelligence there is no means by which something can move by itself without violating the fact that out of nothing comes nothing. However, i have presented the fact that out of nothing comes nothing, therefore out of non-change comes non-change. I have proven logically that being must absolutely precede the fact of potentiality. Thus what ever the case may be, we are not talking about a blind physical cause.

There may be certain conditions which are - retrospectively from our perspective - necessary for universal development, but there is no reason to suppose that they were in any way intended or planned, nor that they required any conscious being’s involvement. You cannot prove a personal god by means of the argument you provided in the OP. Therefore, it is not the checkmate you claimed.

You are making a straw-man of my argument, since the intention of the argument was to prove the existence of a first cause; not an intelligence. There really is no point trying to prove the existence of an absolute intelligence until with have proven the absolute existence of a first cause.

Cosmology is the study of the origins of the universe, therefore it would appear to be relevant…

No. Science describes the effects of physical reality. Cosmology is the study of physical origins, but only in the context of identifying the first physical effect. Science cannot identify the origin of change, since its measurements are confined to that which is already changing; thus it is confined to describing effects. Science is inductive, not deductive. It does not deal with the origins of physicality itself, in the sense of identifying its sufficient cause. Such a cause is beyond the epistemological capacity of science and thus cosmology is not relevant to this discussion since it has nothing to offer in the way of identifying the sufficient cause of change.

 

[Perplexity]

As creative with words as you may be I hope you realize that assertions are not by definition that which comprises a cogent rebuttal. I would have thought that a learned scholar such as your self would have at least been aware of such given all those books you have read.

I called Uno in post 58. You’ve only responded to a few, of what I take to be, insigificant points. There be your cogent rebuttal. Why not address my claims about the logic of your argument? Surely they’re worth addressing; since, if they’re correct I’d have sunk your battleship.

Tell me; did you actually open the books or are they just ornaments for your bookshelf?

The only thing ornamenting my bookshelves are the loose change and random papers that I’m sure at one time or another had a greater purpose.

 

[Nate13]

No, say that there is always a (very) small chance of something coming into existence without a cause. If there was a state of nothingness it would not be permanent because at some point something would come into existence without a cause. Those existences could be small particles, energy, or things that look wildly different from what we experience. However, once every huge number of uncased events, something will spring into existence that looks like our conception of a universe.

Haha so your of the opinion that there is a timeless potential reality instead of a timeless actual reality? This really just seems to be a word game at this point haha. Whatever was there, was there, and you get to decide whether you think it must be intelligent or not.

Does time exist? Yes

Would a state in which nothing exists be satisfied if time existed in it? No. If time existed, then something besides God would exist, namely time.

Haha time is merely a concept. By your reasoning the concept of “nothing” could not even exist if nothing existed. This is true in the sense that you could ask whether a concept really existed if there was no one around to think to keep the concept alive. However, since we currently are able to experience time and can understand the concept now, looking back we can understand that the principle of time would still apply if nothing existed. There would just be no way to measure how much time was passing in any meaningful way.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I called Uno in post 58. You’ve only responded to a few, of what I take to be, insigificant points. There be your cogent rebuttal. Why not address my claims about the logic of your argument? Surely they’re worth addressing; since, if they’re correct I’d have sunk your battleship.

To me, they are significant points, which suggests a flaw in the way you reason. This does not give me much confidence in the rest of what you wrote.

Poor you.

The only thing ornamenting my bookshelves are the loose change and random papers that I’m sure at one time or another had a greater purpose.

I am sure you can invent another purpose for those objects. Do some modern art…yes; i think you would be better suited to that subject.

 

[Neildown]

I’ve seen at least 2 or 3 of the people here posting about this same topic at least 1 or 2 times before [and I don’t believe the arguments were ever actually resolved] - can’t we all just acknowledge that the fact we exist makes no sense whatsoever and that we may or may not find an answer when we die?

I mean, I have my own hypothesis concerning the universe, time, existence, etc. but I’m also of the opinion that we will at least gain a greater, better understanding after death. Hypothesize now I guess, but it probably won’t be sorted out until later.

 

[Neildown]

To me, they are significant points, which suggests a flaw in the way you reason. This does not give me much confidence in the rest of what you wrote.

Poor you.

I am sure you can invent another purpose for those objects. Do some modern art…yes; i think you would be better suited to that subject.

No offense, but looking down on others in such a manner is not a professional way to win an argument.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No offense, but looking down on others in such a manner is not a professional way to win an argument.

I haven’t looked down on anyone. If you treat me with respect, i will treat you with respect.

 

[Neildown]

I haven’t looked down on anyone. If you treat me with respect, i will treat you with respect.

What I saw was childish taunting. All I’m gonna say.