How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God

[KingCoil]

Dear Candide, thanks for your reply.

[See my reactions below.]

I will just react to pertinent allegations made by you.

*[From Candide] Ok, I suspected you might make an argument from ignorance in response to this because it’s what you did before when I said that 2. Needed to be supported. You demanded that I had to identify some alternative to those three options. That is a perfect example of an argument from ignorance.
*

Unless you can and will and do reproduce my words and the link, I suggest that you are mistaken.

KingCoil:

On the concurrence for the time being from me and thus from us both that you can think up alternatives other than the three you already bring up, please present them, one at a time, start with just one in your next post.

*[From Candide] Why? Even if I presented a million alternatives one by one, and you conclusively demonstrated that each one was impossible, we still wouldn’t have demonstrated that 2. is exclusive. We’d still only be left with an argument from ignorance.
*

Obviously you are into stubborn unreasonable non-concurrence, because that is your strategy, to just keep on and on and on not concurring or cooperating on anything which can bring you to God’s existence; you are a fanatical bigoted atheist, not any open-mind atheist.

You say you have alternatives, present one for a starter; don’t just keep on and on and on with your allegation that I am committing the fallacy of argument from ignorance; that is your strategy as a die-hard fanatical bigoted atheist: asserting false accusations and repeating endlessly that you do not see any transit at all in my exposition how the concept of God is the transit to His existence.

You are here in this forum not with an open mind but simply to indulge in your die-hard fanaticism bigotry, and hope to get some self-titillation therefrom.

.
KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Candide, you say that I am into the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Will you explain what is the fallacy of argument from ignorance, and give two examples.

Dear readers, he will react with saying that he is not going to be my teacher on what is that fallacy.

KingCoil

 

[davidv]

Dear Candide, you say that I am into the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Will you explain what is the fallacy of argument from ignorance, and give two examples.

Dear readers, he will react with saying that he is not going to be my teacher on what is that fallacy.

KingCoil

I case your prediction is correct, this article will allow your to educate yourself. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Please pay attention to the revised diagram corrected of Human Knowledge as follows in png image:

http://i60.tinypic.com/bit0tw.jpg
And following is the text version with bulleted indentation to show the hierarchy order.

HUMAN KNOWLEDGE

A. In the realm of the objective existing universe
B. In the realm of the thinking mind

1. Non Fictions
2. Fictions

* Fictions concording with logic and facts
[ii] Absurd fictions contrary to logic and facts
​

Please be guided accordingly.

I’m not going to debate theories of knowledge with you since there are probably two or three dozen of them at least. I follow the Aristotelian/Thomistic theory of knowledge which is a realistic theory. According to this theory all knowledge comes to us from the sensations we receive from the material world outside our minds, which our intellect forms into concepts of which instantiations are found in the substances that exist outside our minds ( among other things ). I eschew all forms of Idealism.

Linus2nd

KingCoil*

 

[CandideWest]

Dear Candide, thanks for your reply.

I will just react to pertinent allegations made by you.

Allegations? I made no allegations.

*[From Candide] Ok, I suspected you might make an argument from ignorance in response to this because it’s what you did before when I said that 2. Needed to be supported. You demanded that I had to identify some alternative to those three options. That is a perfect example of an argument from ignorance.
*

Unless you can and will and do reproduce my words and the link, I suggest that you are mistaken.

Ok, here you are (fonts are as per original)

Now, keep in mind that you have what I call a perverse segmentic mind but not a wholistic mind, tell me what other choices in #2 do you have as you proclaim that:

***2. The universe was either caused by itself, caused by nothing or caused by something else.

#2 is not necessarily exhaustive.***
​

Incidentally here’s where I explained the particular variant of the argument from ignorance fallacy which you were applying.

Ok, so back to a bit of basic logic then. In the text above you appear to be aiming towards making an “argument from ignorance”. This is a formal logical fallacy where one person (say person A) suggests that if the other person (person B) cannot put forwards an alternative suggestion then the then the answer proposed by person A must automatically be correct.

This is incorrect because it ignores all the other possible answers which could exist to a question but which person A and B are unaware of.

Ok? Hopefully that’s clear enough.

Obviously you are into stubborn unreasonable non-concurrence, because that is your strategy, to just keep on and on and on not concurring or cooperating on anything which can bring you to God’s existence; you are a fanatical bigoted atheist, not any open-mind atheist.

Sigh, name calling? Really?

I’ve offered a straightforward critique of the argument which you have adopted as your own from an example I gave you. In my critique I not only identified gaps but also helped you with work out how to close them.

1. Is probably the easiest to close incidentally as I believe there should be a route to demonstrate using logic that the 3 options presented are in fact exhaustive. But you haven’t even made the attempt, you’ve just gone for “well give me an alternative then”. Which is obviously pointless as whether or not I can has no impact on your argument.

You say you have alternatives, present one for a starter;

There is no need for me to present one, if you wish to hold in your argument that the options in 2. are exhaustive then you must demonstrate this to be the case. It’s no use just saying “well you can’t think of an alternative, so that means there are no alternatives” I might just lack imagination.

don’t just keep on and on and on with your allegation that I am committing the fallacy of argument from ignorance;

Claiming that 2. is exhaustive because I cannot think of any alternatives would be a classic argument from ignorance.

that is your strategy as a die-hard fanatical bigoted atheist: asserting false accusations and repeating endlessly that you do not see any transit at all in my exposition how the concept of God is the transit to His existence.

Well, you have now adopted an argument, so I’ve stopped saying that you haven’t presented one. I’m now waiting on you actually supporting your argument to show that it is sound. That’s the next step.

You are here in this forum not with an open mind but simply to indulge in your die-hard fanaticism bigotry, and hope to get some self-titillation therefrom.

More insults, this time accompanied by some unsupported (and uncharitable) guesses regarding my motivations.

What’s wrong Kingcoil, why the sudden switch to such poor behaviour?

Dear Candide, you say that I am into the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Will you explain what is the fallacy of argument from ignorance, and give two examples.

Ok, there’s quite a few variations on the argument from ignorance. Fundamentally it’s where one party asserts that one position or one set of positions must be correct because of not having alternatives available.

Here’s a useful site for an explanation (also useful for other stuff on logic).

philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

The general case example of the variant of this fallacy you are applying is as follows:

Person 1: “the options are either A or B”

Person 2: “how do we know there aren’t any other options”

Person 1: “can you think of any others?”

Person 2: “no”

Person 1: “well until you can think of another possibility The options are either A or B”

You see person 1. hasn’t actually shown that A and B are the only two options, he is simply asserting this to be the case in the absence of person 2. having sufficient imagination to come up with an alternative.

Here’s another example.

Person 1: “either God made the universe or it came from nothing”

Person 2: “how do we know there aren’t any other possibilities?”

Person 1: “can you think of any?”

Person 2: “no”

Person 1: “right, so there aren’t any”

See? Again the assumption that in the absence of other suggestions those already identified are exhaustive.

Dear readers, he will react with saying that he is not going to be my teacher on what is that fallacy.

More of these silly predictions? Aren’t you getting tired of these yet?​

 

[KingCoil]

Dear readers here, please examine these snapshots and see if the 3 alternatives are from me or from Candide.


From KingCoil


From Candide

Look up post 34 and post 31 in my thread on Experimenting on God, here, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11823006#post11823006

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Dear readers here:

Candide keeps on repeating about my being into argument from ignorance.

That is not any argument from ignorance, and he did not give another example of the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

He is the one stating three alternatives and saying that they are not exhaustive, so he has other altenatiives.

But he will not cooperate to bring forth these other alternatives, starting with one first, and then if need there be, another one.

That is what is called refusal of information in order to not self-icriminate.

I have not mentioned any three alternatives, that is all I am saying at this point of the thread.

And I have not said anything about my not being able to state other alternatives outside the three he has presented and himself declared they are not exhaustive.

Dear readers, do you notice that Candide is just into trick-ish and dishonest manipulation of words and concepts to confound the issue.

The way I see die-hard fanatical bigoted atheists is that they are the ones into the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

How?

Here, when they are asked what can you infer from the fact of the universe having a beginning, they will declare and repeat again and again:

We don’t know, we just don’t know, period, and it is arrogance to dare to infer at all: so there is no cause of the universe.

Okay, let us see whether Candide will give us another example of the fallacy of arguing from ignorance, he gave us already one where he presents three choices of explanations for the origin of the universe… – I will have to stop here, otherwise he will allege that I said those three alternatives, but that is a not a genuine valid relevant example of the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

When the occasion arises, then we all will have the pleasure of examining the real essence of the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

Please forgive me, for I’m truly sorry, but if you think that I have been quibbling in the past, you’re really not going to like what I’m about to do now.

For you see, I don’t think your God, and my God, are the same God.

My God is the one who said unto Moses, “I Am That I Am”

My God is the one who hung on a cross and proclaimed, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do”

My God is the one who lives in my heart, and my soul, and my mind.

I do not know who your God is. I’m not even sure anymore who the God of the “Christian faith” is, but I am sure that my God is not first and foremost in concept, the creator of heaven and earth. He is the creator of faith and hope and love, but first and foremost, He is the creator of me. For heaven and earth shall pass away, but these things never shall.

Okay, accuse me of quibbling, or ignore me if you choose, but that is what I believe. Any attempts to get me to accept your understanding of God, will be in vain. For as I say, your God, and my God, are not the same.

Dear Bodicula:

Have you given your attention to my qualifying phrase, here put in bold:

God in concept in relation to man and the universe is first and foremost the creator of the universe, if he were not the creator of the universe, we needed not give Him any attention whatsoever.

You see, God is the creator of the universe, that is what entitles Him to any attention at all from man.

Now, about your God and my God, that is all drama of religion from man: wherefore to each man his own drama from himself or adopted from another – and the self-curse with man is that they kill each other over dramas on whose drama-religion is the ‘true’ one.

KingCoil

 

[Sochi]

Dear OP,

False premise, false conclusion. The arbitrary naming of a conceptualized point as a “beginning” is an ad hoc necessity for conceptual interpretation relative to materiality. It is not an absolute by any means as our sense perceptions and mental capabilities are limited to the local phenomenological conditions. So your “God” idea is relative to an unproved hypothesis, as there is no proof offered that the “beginning” is in fact such, other than as a convenience for relative considerations, and some reasonable alternatives have been proposed, without going to infinite regression that postulate a need for a first cause. I suggest that the parameters of your definitions are incomplete both as logic and as exploration, as the simple valued transit offered above is exclusive of much that might pertain.

Further, mental machinations, including logic, are a “FAIL” in the realm of, as it were, “God appreciation.” Such are merely constructs to bolster emotional investment in a belief system, that being distinct from faith and the various kinds and levels of knowledge. Any argument for or against the existence of Deity is conceptual manipulation and has no relevance even to what the actual and useful question that this non-argument points to might be. I suggest that precious time might better spent, particularly since you display a useful type of intelligence. Kudos for that, but perhaps you are not done yet?

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Sochi:

You are thinking and talking in the realm of concepts and ideas and images etc. in your mind.

Come to the realm of objective actual existing things and events in the universe, start with your nose.

The nose has a beginning, you have a beginning, scientists tell us the universe has a beginning.

So, please tell me something you have seen that has a beginning in the universe that does not have a cause – NO, there is no such a thing; and also, do you understand what scientists are talking about, namely, that the universe has a beginning?

It is what I see with cloud walking thinkers/talkers, which makes me really wonder how people e.g. deep deep deep philosophers can talk on and on and on, and never come down to the objective reality of their nose and their own existence, which both have a beginning.

And you know what, scientists tell us that even space and time have the same beginning as the whole universe.

Now, about the point at which scientists tell us the universe started to exist, that point is a place holder for us to use in our thinking in our mind, for from the mental point which has no existence whatever, we have an idea of what is the beginning in the objective realm of the universe, in its existing things and events: for we cannot think or use our brain to work on anything at all even with abstract concepts, without hanging and holding on to mental or what I call ‘logical’ points in our mind.

Now, you ask scientists and mathematicians what are points, lines, figures, are they composed of matter that can be measured?

No, what you direct your finger to toward a point, line, figure in the concrete reality of the universe of existing things and events are not a point, a line, a figure, but a minutely small spherical lump of matter, or a minutely elongated band of matter, same also with a figure like a circle or a square, expanded patches of say earth with any two neighboring molecules linked together.

That is a digression on what is in the realm of thinking in the mind, as distinct from the realm of the concretely existing things and events in the real universe.

Your thinking and talking is in the realm exclusively of your mind, come into the concrete sphere of the material universe of matter, energy, fields, forces, laws of nature, of physics, and you will be dealing with things and events in the concrete universe, this universe which scientists tell us has a beginning: then you will also understand what it is for the universe to have a beginning, namely, it has a cause outside itself.

Let me give you a very usual sighting in our everyday vicissitudes: in the morning you walked on your lawn to your car and nothing happened to you, but as you walked from your parked car in the evening coming home from office, you stepped on a piece of turd – see? there is a beginning of the turd on your lawn and it was not there in the morning, so it has a cause.

Get it?

All your thinking and talking come to vacuity because you are dwelling exclusively in your mind, get to the universe of objectively existing things and events, and then you will do genuine valid actual contacts with reality in the universe which has a beginning, which beginning is put there by a cause outside itself; which cause I identify with the creator God of the Christian faith, and also the other two Abrahamic faiths, Judaism and Islam, and also all faiths which know the existence of a creator cause of the universe.

Look at this diagram and realize that you are only situating yourself ultimately in fictions which can be concording with logic and facts, or in absurd fictions contrary to logic and facts, but you are not anywhere in the universe of concrete existing things and events.

http://i60.tinypic.com/bit0tw.jpg

And following is the text version with bulleted indentation to show the hierarchy order.

HUMAN KNOWLEDGE

A. In the realm of the objective existing universe
B. In the realm of the thinking mind

1. Non Fictions
2. Fictions

* Fictions concording with logic and facts
[ii] Absurd fictions contrary to logic and facts
​

Please be guided accordingly.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11857947&postcount=208*

Learn this new tool of knowledge acquisition, the distinction between the realm of thinking in our mind and the realm of the objective universe of existing concrete things and events.

Otherwise you are into essentially vacuous fictions in your mind without any connection with reality.

KingCoil

 

[Partinobodycula]

Have you given your attention to my qualifying phrase, here put in bold:

God in concept in relation to man and the universe is first and foremost the creator of the universe, if he were not the creator of the universe, we needed not give Him any attention whatsoever.

You see, God is the creator of the universe, that is what entitles Him to any attention at all from man.

I have pondered the question of God for a very long time.

You asked me if the universe has a cause, and I replied unequivocally, yes.

You then asked me, do you identify this cause with God in the Christian faith, Who is first and foremost in concept the creator of heaven and earth, understanding that as the universe?

I hesitated to answer this question directly, because if I said no, you might incorrectly categorize me as an atheist. And if I said yes, you would have locked me into a definition of God to which I do not personally ascribe. So I chose instead to point out that your understanding of God, and my understanding of God, are not the same.

I do not know the nature of God. It is quite likely that I can never know the nature of God. Or even if there is a God. As I have stated previously, everything beyond the fact that I am, I take on faith. But the fact that I do not know where I ultimately came from, leaves open the possibility of God.

However, no logical proof will ever be capable of proving His existence. He is destined to always remain an article of faith. This is true, whether you choose to accept it, or not.

Yes, the universe has a cause. Is that cause what you choose to refer to as "the God of the Christian faith, Who is first and foremost in concept the creator of heaven and earth, understanding that as the universe"?

I don’t know. Because I cannot know.

 

[CandideWest]

Dear readers here:

Candide keeps on repeating about my being into argument from ignorance.

That is not any argument from ignorance, and he did not give another example of the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

What? I gave two examples as requested. For ease of your understanding I gave a general case example and a specific one.

He is the one stating three alternatives and saying that they are not exhaustive, so he has other altenatiives.

No, in order to help you construct an argument showing your conclusion I wrote out an example of a valid but unsound argument which would get you there. That argument contained as point 2. three options which were not demonstrated to be exhaustive.

You have now adopted that example argument as your own. But obviously in order to get anyone to accept this argument you will need to demonstrate it to be sound. The first challenge there is to show that the options in 2. are in fact exhaustive. This is by far the easiest part of the argument to support.

But he will not cooperate to bring forth these other alternatives, starting with one first, and then if need there be, another one.

How many times do I need to explain this? Read the explanation of the argument from ignorance fallacy please.

That is what is called refusal of information in order to not self-icriminate.

No, it is refusal to permit you to use a logical fallacy.

If you wish to proceed in this manner then we can do so. You have asked me for any alternatives to the three possibilities given in 2. Ok, let’s assume that I cannot think of any and nobody else on the planet can either.

Then what? Why then you will STILL need to demonstrate that the possibilities presented in 2. are actually exhaustive. Because the lack of ability of someone or everyone to identify alternatives is not enough to say that there are no alternatives.

I have not mentioned any three alternatives, that is all I am saying at this point of the thread.

And I have not said anything about my not being able to state other alternatives outside the three he has presented and himself declared they are not exhaustive.

What? Ok, let’s go at this slowly. Is the following what you are using as an argument?

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Dear Candide, here is **my ** argument taken from your exposition of my argument earlier in that thread on experimenting on God.

1.The universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.
2. The universe was either caused by itself, caused by nothing or caused by something else.
3. Something cannot be caused by nothing
4. Something cannot cause itself
5. Given 2. , 3. and 4. the universe must have been caused by something other than itself.

Please answer these questions one at a time.

You seem to have adopted my example argument above as your own argument. Correct?

In point 2. three possibilities are presented. Correct?

No attempt has been made to show that those options are exhaustive. Correct?

If this is the case then you do indeed need to show that the three possibilities in 2. are the only possibilities.

Dear readers, do you notice that Candide is just into trick-ish and dishonest manipulation of words and concepts to confound the issue.

I’m just trying to get you to support your argument. Thus far your argument is nowhere near to being sound. So nobody who understands logic would possibly accept it. So nobody is going to “concur” with your conclusion.

I’m being as helpful to you as I can be.

The way I see die-hard fanatical bigoted atheists is that they are the ones into the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

How?

Here, when they are asked what can you infer from the fact of the universe having a beginning, they will declare and repeat again and again:

We don’t know, we just don’t know, period, and it is arrogance to dare to infer at all: so there is no cause of the universe.

Well that WOULD BE an argument from ignorance actually yes. But I don’t know anyone specifically claims that the universe had no cause and nobody on this thread has done so.

Okay, let us see whether Candide will give us another example of the fallacy of arguing from ignorance, he gave us already one where he presents three choices of explanations for the origin of the universe… – I will have to stop here, otherwise he will allege that I said those three alternatives, but that is a not a genuine valid relevant example of the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Just to be clear, if the 5 point argument quoted above is not the one you are using to reach your conclusion then I don’t believe you have yet provided an argument showing your conclusion. If you are using that 5 point argument, then you’ll need to show that the three options in point 2. are exhaustive. You have not yet done so.

When the occasion arises, then we all will have the pleasure of examining the real essence of the fallacy of argument from ignorance.

Well I’ve already provided two examples in addition to pointing out and explaining the one you’ve been using. Surely this is sufficient?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I don’t know if there is a Comic Book for Philosophers, but, if there is, this discussion should be a featured story.

Linus2nd

 

[Partinobodycula]

CandideWest, I must compliment you on an excellent summation.

I don’t know if there is a Comic Book for Philosophers, but, if there is, this discussion should be a featured story.

Sometimes in discussions, as in life, patience is required.

 

[Sochi]

Part 1

You are thinking and talking in the realm of concepts and ideas and images etc. in your mind.

Where else would thoughts arise???

Come to the realm of objective actual existing things and events in the universe, start with your nose

.My nose, as yours, is as actual s you make it. And for this purpose it is an excellent example, as your mind dismisses it’s presence and fills in the picture where it is, much as it fills in the blind spot in the middle of the retina. So in fact, none of what you see is actual, only surmise that what you see is. Ergo, a concept in mind, not a hypothetical actuality.

The nose has a beginning, you have a beginning, scientists tell us the universe has a beginning.

Starting with your own nose, please demonstrate where it begins and ends? Which particular molecule constitutes its border? Is there not-nose at one, and nose at the other? or is there a band of neither/nor molecules constituting a sort of no knows [sic] land? And what of the blood coursing through it? Is that not nose at one moment and then nose the next? or is there a similar distinction in the blood vessels as they cross your chosen definition of distinction? And of the air in the pores of the nose, are they nose or not? And if we magnify sufficiently, truly, could you tell where nose ends and air starts?

Scientists tell us the “Big Bang” is a beginning in the same sense that they promoted phlogiston as the principle in combustion. It sure looked that way, until a more accurate, sharper, understanding was teleologiclly arrived at. As was pointed out, it is an as hoc concept.

So, please tell me something you have seen that has a beginning in the universe that does not have a cause – NO, there is no such a thing; and also, do you understand what scientists are talking about, namely, that the universe has a beginning?

Beginnings and endings are on examination absolutely arbitrary and pertinent to limitations of personal experience and are a linguistic convenience for the purpose of navigation and communication at the level we as persons engage the Infinity of Universe. And we are told, as well, that the arrow of time is a perceptual phenomenon exclusive to our sense array and metal capabilities. It is not, in fact, Real. The scientists you seem to be depending on also tell us that all the stuff we call “real” isn’t, as it is continuously flashing in and out of existence.

It is what I see with cloud walking thinkers/talkers, which makes me really wonder how people e.g. deep deep deep philosophers can talk on and on and on, and never come down to the objective reality of their nose and their own existence, which both have a beginning.

What is the “It” you see? I only see that you can make your outrageous statements because you appear not to have penetrated the first layer of the supposedly objective appearance of your own person, philosophically, critically, psychologically, or perhaps even religiously!

And you know what, scientists tell us that even space and time have the same beginning as the whole universe.

Yes, those are not different than our experience of it, but as pointed out the same scientists clam that that time is illusory.

Now, about the point at which scientists tell us the universe started to exist, that point is a place holder for us to use in our thinking in our mind,…

As I said, thank you.

…for from the mental point which has no existence whatever,…

a fascinating semantic concept which would bear explication

…we have an idea of what is the beginning in the objective realm of the universe, in its existing things and events:…

Yes, we have for the moment constructed a concept useful in making exploration of our perceptions thinkable on the level of measurement of surfaces, which is one of four realms we actual navigate in/as, and due to the elevation of what is mistakenly labeled “the Fall from the Garden,” we call it “objective” until that arbitrary relationship is seen through as a stage of awareness likened unto a level of school.

…for we cannot think or use our brain to work on anything at all even with abstract concepts, without hanging and holding on to mental or what I call ‘logical’ points in our mind.

Of course not, as far as the conceptual nature of the mind is concerned. But mind is more than that, itself being a concept we buy in to for navigational purposes. We do have to learn, yes?

 

[Sochi]

Part 2

Now, you ask scientists and mathematicians what are points, lines, figures, are they composed of matter that can be measured?

No, what you direct your finger to toward a point, line, figure in the concrete reality of the universe of existing things and events are not a point, a line, a figure, but a minutely small spherical lump of matter, or a minutely elongated band of matter, same also with a figure like a circle or a square, expanded patches of say earth with any two neighboring molecules linked together.

Yes, sort of, but in abstract those points are imaginary and have no real physical referent, as that is constantly energetically moving. In other words, like your argument, you stop short of the actuality of the matter.

That is a digression on what is in the realm of thinking in the mind, as distinct from the realm of the concretely existing things and events in the real universe.

And as we have demonstrated above, there is no actual difference, save as a conceptual convenience for navigating at our between the micro- and macro- levels of Universe.

Your thinking and talking is in the realm exclusively of your mind, come into the concrete sphere of the material universe of matter, energy, fields, forces, laws of nature, of physics, and you will be dealing with things and events in the concrete universe, this universe which scientists tell us has a beginning: then you will also understand what it is for the universe to have a beginning, namely, it has a cause outside itself.

So you are asking me, based on your list of “concretes” to conflate the apples and oranges of your labelings of things noted by science to NOT be concrete and in the realm of relativity with your inculcated emotional and unexamined need to believe that there is such a thing as anything absolutely and ideally objective?

Let me give you a very usual sighting in our everyday vicissitudes: in the morning you walked on your lawn to your car and nothing happened to you, but as you walked from your parked car in the evening coming home from office, you stepped on a piece of turd – see? there is a beginning of the turd on your lawn and it was not there in the morning, so it has a cause.

Get it?

And you are further asking me to buy into a simplistic linear single level logic as an explanation of the Universe???

All your thinking and talking come to vacuity because you are dwelling exclusively in your mind, get to the universe of objectively existing things and events, and then you will do genuine valid actual contacts with reality in the universe which has a beginning, which beginning is put there by a cause outside itself; which cause I identify with the creator God of the Christian faith, and also the other two Abrahamic faiths, Judaism and Islam, and also all faiths which know the existence of a creator cause of the universe.

I’m not even going to attempt to untangle that as a semantic exercise. You are very welcome to have your belief, as you have no choice int eh matter. And if I am “dwelling exclusively in my mind,” please tell me where any of your perceptions and thinking/sensing/feeling take place? In fact you, as anyone does, live by inference and the acceptance of the best parochial explanation we are given or can arrive at with information at hand, or utter curiosity about the phenomenon of oneself, tempered and guided, hopefully by some adept ability in critical thinking on sound semantic principles.

Look at this diagram and realize that you are only situating yourself ultimately in fictions which can be concording with logic and facts, or in absurd fictions contrary to logic and facts, but you are not anywhere in the universe of concrete existing things and events.

Of course I am not. It doesn’t exist in the terms you put forth by the ill-logic of your own presentation.

[Missing diagram?]

Learn this new tool of knowledge acquisition, the distinction between the realm of thinking in our mind and the realm of the objective universe of existing concrete things and events.

Otherwise you are into essentially vacuous fictions in your mind without any connection with reality.

KingCoil

Thank you for your time and assessments. Clearly a lot of thought went into it.

 

[Partinobodycula]

Sochi, at the risk of sticking my nose in where it doesn’t belong, I can perhaps help you to understand where KingCoil is coming from. Not that I completely understand it myself. I have however, seen this type of argument before, in many different forms.

I believe that what KingCoil is saying is that there are things which exist as real physical realities, like you, me, noses, and universes. These things are what he refers to as:

**A. In the realm of the objective existing universe

1. Non Fictions**
   And there are things that exist only as mental constructs. Things like scientific theories, and philosophical or metaphysical concepts. These things he refers to as:

B. In the realm of the thinking mind
2. Fictions
Now fictions come in two categories:
** * Fictions concording with logic and facts
[ii] Absurd fictions contrary to logic and facts
*
For the most part KingCoil would like everyone to stick only to those things which fall into ***“A. In the realm of the objective existing universe” ***These are the “facts”, and the logic is those things which can be directly deduced from these "facts".

Thus, since nothing can be known about what existed before the Big Bang, any theories postulating an alternative, fall into:** [ii] Absurd fictions contrary to logic and facts**

So we are forced into accepting that the universe definitively began at the Big Bang. Anything else being patently absurd.

That brings us to where we’re at now, point 2 of the argument, what “caused” the Big Bang? There are currently three proposed options:

2. The universe was either caused by itself, caused by nothing or caused by something else.

The question now being examined is whether these are indeed the only three options. KingCoil asserts that they are, but this assertion is in question. We could for the sake of argument continue on to points 3, 4 and 5, keeping in mind that point 2 is still not demonstrably true. But it would make the whole exercise somewhat moot. Because all proceeding arguments would be contingent upon the uncertainty of point 2. (However, to be completely objective, point 1 has only been shown to be true, in-so-far as, what we refer to as the “universe”, has a scientifically accepted beginning 13.8 bya )

Anyway, that’s the discussion, and KingCoil’s position, as I understand it. If someone disagrees, feel free to clarify any points that I may have misrepresented.

I wrote this in an attempt to bring those who may not have been following this discussion, up to date.

The argument as it currently seems to be structured is this:

1.The universe had a beginning 13.8 billion years ago.
2. The universe was either caused by itself, caused by nothing or caused by something else.
3. Something cannot be caused by nothing
4. Something cannot cause itself
5. Given 2. , 3. and 4. the universe must have been caused by something other than itself

We are currently stuck on point 2. But point 1 is not definitively settled either, only contingently settled, based upon the fact that we have no information preceding the Big Bang, and that supposedly the other points of the argument would apply to all previously existing realities as well. So we can continue the discussion as if point 1 is true.

I’m not sure if this post actually cleared anything up, or made it worse, but I tried. I’m fairly certain that KingCoil will find somewhere that I have misrepresented his position, but I expect that. I ain’t perfect.**

 

[KingCoil]

I don’t know if there is a Comic Book for Philosophers, but, if there is, this discussion should be a featured story.

Linus2nd

I am into the exposition of my idea that there is a transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.

Will you contribute your ideas on this topic in not more than 200 words?

You might reply that you have contributed already, only I have not attended to your contributions.

Please, just now please give your contribution in not more than 200 words, and I promise you that I will exchange thoughts with you on your contributions to my thread on how to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.

KingCoil

KingCoil

 

[KingCoil]

To Candide:

You say that there are alternatives other than the three you presented, but on request from me you refused to accommodate.

I don’t see how our exchange can continue when you do not cooperate.

You are committing the fallacy of non-cooperation, thus stalling the exchange of thoughts with me on the topic how to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.

KingCoil

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Linusthe2nd;11861978:

I don’t know if there is a Comic Book for Philosophers, but, if there is, this discussion should be a featured story.

Sometimes in discussions, as in life, patience is required.

I don’t know…there’s been about 400 messages (this conversation is partitioned into 3 threads) and it kind of looks like some misunderstandings are becoming more exacerbated with time. Has there been any significant progress over these messages? I’m leaning towards agreeing with Linus.