Well people didn’t see any reason to believe the world was round either. Some things take education and study.
…Or years of guesswork, publicizing, and pretending to know what you’re talking about. In truth, we know comparatively little about what exists at this point, and pretending that you can just invoke some arbitrary principles (via metaphysics) and magically understand the conditions in which things exist, i.e., whether their existence is necessary or contingent, is simply taking the easy way out.
Modality refers to degrees of possibility. Terms typically used when discussing modality are “possible,” “impossible,” and “necessary.” A necessary object’s existence is exempted from being assigned a degree of possibility; it’s existence must be the case. You were telling me that the ability to affect must exist, and so you were also saying it’s existence is necessary, hence my assertion that you were making modal claims.
No, the “easy way out” is PRESUMING that you are “we”. Presuming to know is what you are doing and then accusing me of “pretending” to know.
Determinism, causality, logic, and Science are modes of thought = modality.
As Bill Maher would say, you don’t possess mental abilities that I do not. Metaphysicians don’t know, and cannot prove, whether something could exist (unless it already does exist) or must exist. These claims are directly correlated to our ignorance of the situation.
Saying that you know a lot about metaphysics is like saying you know a lot about astrology. It amounts to knowing a lot about a make believe world–a pseudo-science.
Please prove to me that a hypothetical future event is possible. The event can be whatever you like. How do we go about proving such a thing? If I wanted to prove that, whenever I flip a coin, both outcomes are possible (whether it will land on heads or tails), how do I prove they’re both possible, other than by using my imagination?
“Real metaphysics?” LOL. Maybe you’ll start making metaphysical claims about your own presumed metaphysical laws. That would be hilarious.
Science has nothing to do with modality. Modality is a metaphysical concept, whereas science is naturalistic. Logic, also, has nothing to do with possibility. It is only a system of rules of inference.
Telling an idiot that he is an idiot is a bit pointless, because it doesn’t change the truth of it.
Before being so quick to laugh, you might consider how much you rely on metaphysical arguments yourself – as follows …
You’re attempting to understand this concept through metaphysical reasoning – you then conclude that metaphysics is useless. In a simpler view, “existence” can be understood in contrast to “non-existence”. If you can recognize the property of the one, you can recognize the property of the other.
If this property cannot come into existence (because it is logically impossible) then we can say that it is “necessary”. It must always have existed and cannot have a beginning.
Here again you’re using metaphysical thought to claim that metaphysics is useless. But here, you propose “something else” that grants existence to the the property of existence. Then that chain goes back. But we can’t take the first step in your proposed infinite regression until you explain what “something else” gives existence its existence. Failing that, you prove that existence cannot have a beginning – thus we have an eternal quality which is “being” itself.
But this is like saying that there is no such thing as “non-existence”. But we know that there is, as we understand the term “to exist”.
Actually, I’m just using the same sort of arguments as you to produce a disagreeable conclusion. While an infinite regression of properties of existence sounds silly, I suppose it isn’t impossible, though the fact that it is so uneconomical should speak for itself.
And why am I not allowed to do that? I assume what you’re suggesting is that my approach is circular. However, what I am attempting is more like a *reductio ad absurdum *than anything else. I’m not using metaphysical arguments against metaphysical principles, I’m just showing that the implications of your theory would add an infinite number of entities to the mix without improving the explanation. Occam’s Razor comes into play here: when the quality of related explanations are equal, keep the one with the fewest entities. I see no reason why this “plane” of existing things cannot account for themselves at the moment.
There is no property of nonexistence (assuming that “nonexistence” is used to mean “nothingness”). It is devoid of properties by definition. If it had properties, it would exist.
Or, we can instead posit the more economical theory that existing things account for themselves without tacking on additional planes in order to somehow explain them. Besides, I can just say that the plane of existence you posit doesn’t account for itself either, and tack on an additional plane of my own. The process would repeat indefinitely, and so we’re left with an infinite number of entities with the explanation being no better than it was before. One plane of existence has to account for itself, and the most economical theory is that the one you’re observing right now accounts for itself, rather than the one you’ve posited.
Are you really suggesting that nonexistence is a thing? That’s like saying that nothingness is a thing. Don’t you see the contradiction there?
I think you’re dodging or misunderstanding the point.
Yes and no. Consider a hypothetical scenario where you have ten white socks in a drawer with no other socks present. Can you distinguish between the white socks and black socks in the drawer? The idea of “distinguishing” is absurd when there is nothing to distinguish from; in this case, there are no black socks to distinguish the white socks from.
It’s good that you’re able to distinguish between existence and non-existence. In so doing, you use a metaphysical argument and thus refute your claim that metaphysics is useless or absurd.
Highlighted – your distinction. You assert that there are “no black socks”. If someone claimed that there were black socks in the drawer, you would state that black socks are “non-existent” (in that drawer).
I consider my understanding of non-existence to be “real” not “artificial”. When I assert that flying pink elephants are non-existent, that is a real understanding of existence and the absense of existence.
But doing so didn’t get us anywhere. One can use their senses to come to the same conclusion that I did. They wouldn’t even need to reason.
Not really. Unicorns exist conceptually and can even interact with other premises in argument. Pink elephants can do the same thing. Watch:
Actually, I don’t see what this has to do with our discussion. We can talk about existence and non-existence all day, but things like modality, Forms, essence, or what have you aren’t looking any better for it. A metaphysician can’t prove that a future event is possible (though he can imagine that it is) and his assertion that existence can’t explain itself is arbitrary. I could say the same of whatever he postulates. If existence can’t explain itself, then how come this “property of existence” can explain its existence?
The non-existent things you mention only lack existence in certain senses; they still exist conceptually. The fact is that there isn’t a single coherent (not self-contradictory) thing that doesn’t exist in some way or another.
Pardon me please. Did I miss a post defining God as a spiritual being?
I disagree. You have to use your intellect (along with your senses) – and you have to reason – just as you’ve done thus far. You would not be able to engage in this argument without using reason.
Again, there’s another metaphysical argument. Beyond that, you’re arguing that unicorns exist because they exist conceptually – could we say then that God necessarily exists?
In this case, though, you’d need to provide evidence that pink elephants are mammals since that is part of your argument. We classify beings as mammals due to characteristics that we can observe. So the logic doesn’t follow – you’re just asserting something.
Yes, I agree that you’re right here. You cannot indicate the animal qualities of the pink elephants that you’re talking about – because you have to imagine and invent them. My pink elephants may not be mammals at all. But you cannot observe or prove that wrong.
I know that a million dollars in U.S. cash in a safe deposit box with my name on it does not exist. It’s non-existent.
I meant to show you the necessity and importance of metaphysical arguments. Here you make a metaphysical distinction between the reality of concepts versus the reality of material existence. This is very important.
We cannot talk about it without the use of metaphysics — that’s a major point. When we recognize that there is a difference between existence and non-existence we start to give these concepts some shape and reality. Non-existence can have some dimensions since it can be bounded by existing things (the emptyness of a refrigerator - the contents of that box are “non-existent” but they are limited to that space).
Merely within the world of existence (being) and non-existence, we can build a rational model for understanding things.
I don’t think that provides enough definition to work with.
As a concept, yes, but I guess that depends on how you define him. As long as there aren’t any internal contradictions in the definition, he’ll exist as a concept. This isn’t the same as actually existing in the sense that he can affect our world, however.
Actually, I’ve pointed out that there is no distinction to make. There is no such thing as “non-existence.” If you can talk about something, it exists. If it doesn’t exist, there is no speaking of it or sensing it whatsoever.
The evidence is the definition of “elephant.” Even though there surely isn’t an elephant in front of you at this moment, I can be sure that if there were, it would be a mammal because of the definition, else it wouldn’t be called an “elephant.”
The problem is that we only know God as a postulated being, not a being that actually exists. Similarly, pink elephants are postulated as being mammals, though they don’t actually exist as such (simply because they don’t exist in the physical world). The weakness of the argument, then, is the loose usage of “exists.” Does God exist in such a way that he could, say, lift my house off the ground? The argument doesn’t assure me of this whatsoever, because God is only defined as a being, but not known in the physical world as such.
That problem would be resolved if we provided definitions. This is one reason why dictionaries were created, after all.
You just flatly contradicted yourself. You can’t say that something doesn’t exist at all but then contend that it exists in a certain way. Again, if you’re talking about physical existence, say so. If not, I’m going to assume you’re using the broadest definition of “existence.” I know that metaphysicians hate to define their terms, but you can do that much for me.
Tiny question. One can postulate a pink elephant because one knows color and size; but how does one postulate God?
Yes, I was aware that most people consider God to be separate from the universe, but that is assuming a specific definition of “universe.” The purpose of this thread was to show that we could arrange an absurdity if we use the word “universe” without anyone offering a more specific definition. The definition being used in my argument was “the sum total of all that exists.” That way, if God existed in any form whatsoever, he would be part of the universe.
The problem occurs when we postulate spiritual entities to explain physical phenomena. My argument is safe so long as we talk about what matter and God supposedly have in common: existence. It would be dishonest of us to assume the conditions that a spiritual entity must live under. I mean, how would we know?
Using the classical definition, God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. I would imagine that people postulate him by imagining a being with power, knowledge, presence, and love while doing their best to imagine those qualities existing in infinite amounts and grasping the implications of such.
I do respect other worldviews because I have profound respect for human life which I believe is sacred. That being said – coming from my personal worldview, I find that the absurdity is leaving out the definitions for that or what exists and assuming the numerical value is limited to sensory data.
Since there is an option for rephrasing, I choose it.
Within the worldview that all reality is matter, one would have to say that God is matter in order to say that matter and God supposedly have existence in common as part of the sum total of all that exists. Obviously, this leads to the problem of cause and the point 5. “No part of a thing can cause itself.”
Just thinking out loud here… Given the definition of “universe” in this thread, isn’t assumption 2 analytic? If that is so, then since assumptions 1, 3, and 4 are safe as well, it’s probably necessary to regard this argument as a refutation of 5 (regardless, it’s only a disproof of the conjunction of 2 and 5). Naturally, it’s more difficult to refute 5 with a counterexample, but it’s tempting to try and make something out of the relation between an organism and its DNA.
All other statements appear to be true – The first three items remind me of the “logical” puzzle which beginning students had to untangle.
