I have been explaining what Alfred North Whitehead proposed, but I am not saying it is real nor that I follow his reasoning (I don’t, but I do understand it).How do you know that time is not discrete and that a time line interval is not composed of a finite number of quantum points?
Whatever. There is no proof that the time interval is composed of an infinite number of points, and not that it is discrete in nature, somewhat similar to the real world of quantum or atomic particles.I have been explaining what Alfred North Whitehead proposed, but I am not saying it is real nor that I follow his reasoning (I don’t, but I do understand it).
This is also what Bahman (the OP) is proposing in line with Whitehead.
When I am typing, my keyboard exists. Alcohol exists when I drink it; it just goes into my body is all. And I am currently experiencing pericoronitis; do not tell me my tooth and the gum flap over it and the bacteria and the inflammation don’t exist.What I wrote was what I meant. Here you can find an argument supporting it:
What I am trying to say is that things exist in absence of experience and does not exist when they are experienced.
What? Is this a joke?
- Experience of reality just can happen in absence of reality and vice versa
As I mention nothing is there at now. How you could possibly create a situation by changing thing if now is already occupied?Again, I don’t agree that nothing is there. What we experience may be in the past but there is always something there. I think the post from John Martin about the philosophy of Alfred Whitehead expressed it more clearly.
What I am trying to say is that there exist a sequence of existence, experience, existence, experience… or objective, subjective, objective, subjective where objective has to die to make room for full subjective experience. What he is trying to say is that an objective reality has to die to give room for another objective reality forgetting that you could not accommodate consciousness in his picture where as in mine you could.If this is what you’re trying to say then I can go along with that as an argument. Our “now” may be the past for something else, but there is always another moment coming along. The way you put it, events jump from past to future with nothing in between, which is not possible.
It is not. I have another thread for this topic and I would be happy to discuss it with you in full details.Non sequitur.
So, am I right in saying that Whitehead’s idea does not requires a consciousness to experience anything for it to operate? In contrast, Bahman seems to invoke a consciousness when trying to explain his proposition.This theory is more for material causation from instant to instant over time than for conscious thought.
How did Whitehead get from the way of thinking about successive moments to justification for the existence of a deity? Did I miss that?It is a “deistic” philosophy, with a god that is hoping all the created trajectories have meaning in them in any given moment.
If that’s what you’re saying then never mind God, you can’t deduce the existence of anything at all.As I mention nothing is there at now. How you could possibly create a situation by changing thing if now is already occupied?
What I am trying to say is that there exist a sequence of existence, experience, existence, experience… or objective, subjective, objective, subjective where objective has to die to make room for full subjective experience. What he is trying to say is that an objective reality has to die to give room for another objective reality forgetting that you could not accommodate consciousness in his picture where as in mine you could.
What I meant is that the experience is the very basic column for understanding, changing (as Jon clearly elaborated), etc. everything is built upon it. Our notion of God is very similar to a constructor which the later has an objective meaning for us. We know for very sure that once we see something constructed then there must exist a constructor. We take this for granted and deduce the concept of God since we are cognitively open to the notions of construction and constructor because we experience them. I can define God as a being which does A, in short notion, God->A, then A->B,… then eventually Z does create if there is really a creation. A, B, etc are beings that we have never experience them hence we cannot know them. Z is closest thing to us so we can partially but not wholly understand it.What does “We are cognitively closed to what we cannot experience” mean?
I didn’t say that they don’t exist at all. I did say that they don’t exist at now and there is no way you can prove otherwise.When I am typing, my keyboard exists. Alcohol exists when I drink it; it just goes into my body is all. And I am currently experiencing pericoronitis; do not tell me my tooth and the gum flap over it and the bacteria and the inflammation don’t exist.
Why so?If that’s what you’re saying then never mind God, you can’t deduce the existence of anything at all.
Why don’t they exist “now”? What is the point under dispute in that sentence - “They don’t exist at now”?I didn’t say that they don’t exist at all. I did say that they don’t exist at now and there is no way you can prove otherwise.
That is not what is meant by logically deducing the existence of God. Plato, Aristotle and many others did have the capacity and have been able to show the existence of God using deductive logic. If you wish to refute this, post logical refutation against their arguments.You have not addressed their logical deductions.Ignatius;12580982:
This I have discuss it on other posts. The argument is as following: Let consider a system at a given state S. This state can cause another state yet both states cannot coexist hence S must be annihilated before S’ which is problematic unless the awareness of state of S exist in consciousness. In simple word, past has to die because it has to be replace with future. We only experience what was there and it is not there at the moment, namely “now”.Re: Logically deducing the existence of God.
I would have to dispute the first statement, unless it is a typographical error.
Perhaps you do not have the capacity, But Plato, Aristotle and many others did have the capacity and have been able to.
That is the half part of proof. It simply state that we are impeded in a situation that we deal with a set of E={[existence, absence of existence], [non existence, experience],…} hence existence goes of and on hence God if we define it as pure existence is outside of our boundary of experience. In second part of proof, we show that we are cognitively closed to what we have not experienced hence we are close to the concept of what God is.That is not what is meant by logically deducing the existence of God. Plato, Aristotle and many others did have the capacity and have been able to show the existence of God using deductive logic. If you wish to refute this, post logical refutation against their arguments.You have not addressed their logical deductions.
Again, you have not addressed Plato, Aristotle and the many others who have shown the existence of God using deduction. If you wish to show that their propositions are not correct, you must present your refutation to each of their points.Ignatius;12597344:
That is the half part of proof. It simply state that we are impeded in a situation that we deal with a set of E={[existence, absence of existence], [non existence, experience],…Perhaps you do not have the capacity, But Plato, Aristotle and many others did have the capacity and have been able to.
That is not what is meant by logically deducing the existence of God. Plato, Aristotle and many others did have the capacity and have been able to show the existence of God using deductive logic. If you wish to refute this, post logical refutation against their arguments.You have not addressed their logical deductions.
If you wish you can open another thread presenting one of their proof so I can engage to the discussion. You can also give me the links to their proof so I can read their proofs and open a thread starting discussion there.Again, you have not addressed Plato, Aristotle and the many others who have shown the existence of God using deduction. If you wish to show that their propositions are not correct, you must present your refutation to each of their points.
You simply state some formula that has not addressed any of their points, indicating that either 1) you have not read the exposition of their case or 2) you are unable to refute them.
Until you address, point by point, the presentations of those who have shown how to deductively show the Existence, your denying them is meaningless. You must disprove their hypotheses. If you cannot successfully refute them point-by-point, your contention is meaningless.
This thread is about the deductive reasoning that shows the existence of God. As is almost universally known, Plato, Aristotle and the many others who have done so.Ignatius;12600614:
If you wish you can open another thread presenting one of their proof so I can engage to the discussion. You can also give me the links to their proof so I can read their proofs and open a thread starting discussion there.Again, you have not addressed Plato, Aristotle and the many others who have shown the existence of God using deduction. If you wish to show that their propositions are not correct, you must present your refutation to each of their points.
You simply state some formula that has not addressed any of their points, indicating that either 1) you have not read the exposition of their case or 2) you are unable to refute them.
Until you address, point by point, the presentations of those who have shown how to deductively show the Existence, your denying them is meaningless. You must disprove their hypotheses. If you cannot successfully refute them point-by-point, your contention appears to be a sophistic attempt to avoid directly addressing what they have already shown to be true.
I read the proof Aquinas and I have serious issues with it.This thread is about the deductive reasoning that shows the existence of God. As is almost universally known, Plato, Aristotle and the many others who have done so.
So, you haven’t even read the deductive reasoning by Aristotle, Plato, or Aquinas for the existence of God? Good scholarship would dictate that would be the first step your study of the matter.
If you expect to be taken seriously, that is where you need to start.
If we say that God exists, we know this either through deduction or through a direct Divine Revelation or we can know it through both. Take your choice.
- Experience of reality just can happen in absence of reality and vice versa
- Awareness occurs in consciousness
- Lets assume that God is pure existence (a part of reality that never disappear)
- From (1), (2) and (3) we can deduce that God cannot be experienced
- We are cognitively closed to what we cannot experience
- We cannot deduce the existence of God
Deduction would be mine. :bounce:If we say that God exists, we know this either through deduction or through a direct Divine Revelation or we can know it through both. Take your choice.
Linus2nd