Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2015, 11:42 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 10:41 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  OK, here's the Coles Notes version. A quick Google search for Pachomius' odd phrase "existence is the default status of things" brings to you the wonder of all the other boards that Pachomius has argued this on. He has spent a truly mind-boggling amount of effort repeating himself ad nauseum and an equal amount ignoring all the other people who have told him to go screw himself.

Pachomius' problem is that he is miring the discussion in jargon such as "default status" that serves only to confuse. Stripped of the word salad, his argument reads as follows:

(1) I exist
(2) I have not always existed. I was born and will die.
(3) My existence was caused by something that existed before me. My parents fucked.
(4) Extend this argument to my parents, their parents, everybody and everything in the Universe and the Universe as a whole.
(5) Existence does not come from non-existence. Something does not come from nothing.
(6) Thus, something must have always existed. If it had not, non-existence would have led to yet more non-existence and we would not exist. This is clearly not the case as it contradicts point 1.
(7) Lacking a meaningful placeholder, we will call this eternally existant entity God.

Pachomius, kindly read that over carefully and correct any misrepresentations that I may have made. It is not my intent to create strawmen. For future use, feel free to shamelessly copy-N-paste it. It will save your next audience six pages of trying to figure out what you are carrying on about. In debate, clarity and simplicity are vital.

Depending on how you read this, it is either a poor representation of Thomas Aquinas' Argument from Contingency or Argument from First Cause. Regardless, it inevitably boils down to Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, from which Aquinas borrowed so heavily. You should look these up Pachomius, they will help you improve this argument and their refutations may show you why you should abandon this approach.

I won't take issue with points 1 through 4, though some of the existentialists in the crowd may wish to play with them.

Points 5 and 6 are not shown for the context in which they are being used. They work well enough for everyday life, but applying them to the conditions prior to the existence of the universe is an error. Space, time and causality are features of our universe so prior to our universe they may well not have operated. The rules may have been utterly different and something may well have come from nothing on a regular basis.

Point 7 is a non-sequitur that as easily demonstrates the existence of Odin, Pele, Vishnu or some inanimate, unthinking and uncaring natural process.

Next time Pachomius, kindly read the "Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies" thread. Your argument was dealt with in the OP.

Nothing more irritating than being forced to put the OPPONENT'S argument in comprehensible and concise English. That's supposed to be their job.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2015, 11:47 AM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(17-12-2015 02:14 PM)Pachomius Wrote:  I have some ideas on how humans prove to themselves that something exists in reality outside their mind.

For example -- and I am not being funny, to prove the existence of the nose in our face, you and I each touch our respective nose, and then we touch each other's nose, and we thus are certain that you and I have a nose in our face.

What do you say?

Please, if you see something you feel not acceptable in my posts, please tell me in details what it is, and I will try to write it again so that you will not anymore complain.

So pachy are you telling us something about your nose?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2015, 12:15 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  In re "Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

========================


Thanks a lot for your replies.

I guess we have to re-start from the beginning.

You see, you keep up bringing up old things from your reading, but I like us all to start with a fresh mind and ground ourselves on critical thinking.

The hardest thing with starting a thread is how to obtain connection with posters; because the way I see it, there are words in a title which a poster will as from a cue react to, not to the understanding of the whole thread, and even not relevant to the thread at all, it is like a poster is a search engine, say like Google.

Take this experiment, enter into Google the word, justice, and see what the first hit of Google is going to be, in fact it is the following:

Quote:https://www.google.com/search?q=justice&...8&oe=utf-8


About 683,000,000 results (0.55 seconds)
Search Results

Justice: Tween Clothing & Fashion For Girls
http://www.shopjustice.com/

Justice is your one-stop-shop for the cutest & most on-trend styles in tween girls' clothing. Shop Justice for the best tween fashions in a variety of sizes.
Store Locator
Find a Justice girls' clothing store near you. ... more with our ...

New Arrivals
Shop girls' new arrivals to find all the newest styles & fashion for ...
Clothes
Discover the hottest new girls' clothes in our New Arrivals ...

Tops
Home • clothes • tops. Order by 12/21 for Christmas delivery ...
Girls Clothes Sale
Shop fashionable girls clothes sale at Justice. Our selection of the ...

Backpacks & Lunch Totes
backpacks & lunch totes. Medallion Backpack ... Dye ...
More results from shopjustice.com »


I chose the place to put the present thread in, namely,
The Thinking Atheist Forum › The Heavy Stuff › Atheism and Theism

So, as this is the website with the name, The Thinking Atheist, I assume that atheists here will do thinking, and first and foremost, doing thinking that can be described as critical thinking.

Then it is about The Heavy Stuff, so we have to do real heavy thinking, not just writing on the first thing that comes to your mind like Google, which is neither thinking, much less heavy.

Lastly, it is about about heavy stuff, Atheism and Theism, so it is about existence or non-existence of an entity with the name God.

I notice time and again that when atheists see the word God, they already start from their attitude that God is a flying spaghetti monster, and that is not the way to contribute to a thread with the title,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

The title has to do with existence or non-existence, but the focus is on existence, and directly not on God, but on something, anything at all, that exists.

I am inviting everyone to work together, you and I, to agree on how to prove that something, anything at all, exists.

So, don't bring in God and much less with your attitude that God is a flying spaghetti monster: because that is no way to be into thinking, thinking as in The Thinking Atheist, and it is nothing of any heavy stuff, but speaking from as from a cue like Google.

Anyway, may I invite us all starting with yours truly to locate what is the important word in the title of the present thread, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists."

The important word is 'exists', then the word something, and the author of the thread is inviting everyone, us all whether atheists (and I presume predominantly the members here are atheists) or not, and yours truly is non-atheist, to work with thinking, that is heavy stuff, not anything like writing as from a cue on the flying spaghetti monster.

Perhaps I should have started the present thread with trying to invite us all to work together seriously, grounding ourselves on critical thinking, on what is existence as opposite to non-existence, instead of bringing up the idea that the default status of things in the world is existence.

What about this suggestion, suppose one of you an atheist propose the thread, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

Forgive me, let us take a diversion and think about this title for a thread from you or from me, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

That is an experiment, to find out what is our each one's instinct right away to the proposal on starting a thread with the following title,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

Forgive me, what I have in mind is that we start from our own personal thinking, instead of bringing in what you read and retained in rote memory in your heart and mind, the attitude like God is a flying spaghetti monster.

Yes, you will react that for you atheists the idea of God is so irrational that you have to resort to ridiculous analogies to what? to avoid thinking seriously, with some fresh examination on critical thinking, what exactly is so absurd and ridiculous about the concept of God; but first, may I, and forgive me, request that you have to ask yourselves, what is my [your] concept of God, or more correctly what is the concept of God that is propounded by serious thinkers who do not take refuge in ridiculous analogies, but sincerely and with heavy examination, investigate the concept of God as propounded by theists, like perhaps, in His role in the universe, or even more broadly, in the realm of existence, existence as opposite non-existence.

You will challenge me, that there is no role for God in anything at all, but that is already a presumption, specifically a gratuitous allegation; it will not be a gratuitous allegation if you have examined the idea of role in existence, then present your conclusion, on what is a role, what is God, and why from your critical thinking God cannot be at least in term of concepts, having any role in existence.

So, let us all take a diversion, to take up seriously the feasibility of a thread with the title, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."


I await with excitement your reactions to that proposal above, and forgive me, I will concentrate on your reactions to that proposal above.

And I promise you, I will follow your lead to contribute to the development of the thread,

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2015, 12:38 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
Oppss
I think I push the wrong button.
But anyway. Lets us prove that our nose doesn't exist.
You can't prove the nose exist or not when there are nothing to interact with. To interact means to touch it with your finger. Without interaction or touching the nose both exist and not exist at the same time. We can guess but again there is no way to resolve this unless you touch it. Quantum nature win... We lost. .
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2015, 12:44 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 12:38 PM)5senses Wrote:  Oppss
I think I push the wrong button.
But anyway. Lets us prove that our nose doesn't exist.
You can't prove the nose exist or not when there are nothing to interact with. To interact means to touch it with your finger. Without interaction or touching the nose both exist and not exist at the same time. We can guess but again there is no way to resolve this unless you touch it. Quantum nature win... We lost. .

You're fundamentally misunderstanding a number of things here.

I'd suggest taking a philosophy 101 class.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2015, 12:51 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 11:00 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(20-12-2015 10:41 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  (1) I exist
(2) I have not always existed. I was born and will die.
(3) My existence was caused by something that existed before me. My parents fucked.
(4) Extend this argument to my parents, their parents, everybody and everything in the Universe and the Universe as a whole.
(5) Existence does not come from non-existence. Something does not come from nothing.
(6) Thus, something must have always existed. If it had not, non-existence would have led to yet more non-existence and we would not exist. This is clearly not the case as it contradicts point 1.

Point 1 is not only unsubstantiated it is likely unsubstantiable. Drinking Beverage

Point 1 is an assumption, but one upon which almost all epistemological systems are based on. Without that assumption you have nowhere to go, it's game over, end of the line.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
20-12-2015, 01:22 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2015 03:15 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  The hardest thing with starting a thread is how to obtain connection with posters;

No. It's not hard at all. You just have to write reasonably, and not assume everyone thinks in your narrow and rigid patterns which you learned at church school.

(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  I am inviting everyone to work together, you and I, to agree on how to prove that something, anything at all, exists.

It's not going to help you, Wacky Pachy. There is no way to "prove" the existence of god. If there were, FAITH would not be necessary. Are you going to try to tell us it's not necessary for you to have faith ?

No atheist REALLY believes in a spaghetti monster. it's a 'figure of speech' ... something that is WAY beyond your infantile, rigid level of thinking.

Give it up. We're not going to jump into your little sand-box and play your idiot childish mental games...the games you think are important, that you learned from your idiot religions teachers.
You bought into their nonsense ... hook. line, and sinker. We're not as gullible as you are.

(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  Perhaps I should have started the present thread with trying to invite us all to work together seriously, grounding ourselves on critical thinking, on what is existence as opposite to non-existence, instead of bringing up the idea that the default status of things in the world is existence.

What about this suggestion, suppose one of you an atheist propose the thread, namely:

"Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."

How about you GET TO THE POINT, and tell us what you're doing here. We don't need your idiot lessons about existence. We all know you're going to try to link it to your stupid deity, eventually, because YOU were trained to think in your little rote set of playbox pre-formed ideas, and are unable to get out of your sand box/nursery.
There is no coherent definition of "god". You can't come up with one. No one can. ANY one you come up with, we can shoot down.
FAITH is a not subject to reason. It's the abandonment of reason. YOU have abandoned reason.

(20-12-2015 06:13 AM)Pachomius Wrote:  "Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something DOES NOT exist."
I await with excitement your reactions to that proposal above, and forgive me, I will concentrate on your reactions to that proposal above.

I await with excitement your exit yet again, from TTA.
Obviously you have learned nothing in the last few years since you last crapped in our forum with this same old tired meaningless nonsense.

Happy Holidays.
Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
20-12-2015, 01:25 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2015 02:03 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 12:51 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(20-12-2015 11:00 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Point 1 is not only unsubstantiated it is likely unsubstantiable. Drinking Beverage

Point 1 is an assumption, but one upon which almost all epistemological systems are based on. Without that assumption you have nowhere to go, it's game over, end of the line.





Best you can do is forgive.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
20-12-2015, 01:38 PM
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.



#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
20-12-2015, 02:18 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2015 02:29 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Let us work together to concur on how to prove that something exists.
(20-12-2015 01:25 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(20-12-2015 12:51 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Point 1 is an assumption, but one upon which almost all epistemological systems are based on. Without that assumption you have nowhere to go, it's game over, end of the line.





Best you can do is forgive.

Empty chair was Roy Orbison. He sang for the lonely.





Roy Orbison sings for the lonely. Hey that's me and I want you only.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: