The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-02-2017, 01:34 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 11:55 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  He still has not defined "metaphysics", although he was asked several times. Consider

This is because even the biggest names in philosophy of metaphysics would be hard-pressed to actually answer this coherently. The "field" is, as I said, basically "shit that was made up".

This is because metaphysics tries to answer questions like "what is reality?", "what is the soul?", "does free will exist?", "what is the purpose of life?", and things like that - questions which are incoherent, and cannot be answered due to (as with solipsism and its related positions) poorly-defined terms and weak semantics. Metaphysics really only exists as a catch-all category of questions that cannot be answered because the terms are so fuzzy and meaningless, but which people insist on asking anyway because they sound impressive.

"What is reality?", no matter how you slice it, will always boil down to the boring and tautological "reality is, duh". This is the line of questioning that leads to all the various ontologies like idealism, solipsism, dualism, and all the various other -isms. Unfortunately, in the end, reality is what it is, and all you can do is slap a name onto it - most rational people tend to go with materialism or its variants for clarity's sake, though technically speaking any form of monism will do so long as it doesn't try to hijack another term in the bargain (this kicks idealism right out the door, because it stretches the definition of "thought" so far that it becomes worthless as a term).

"What is the soul?", "Does free will exist?", "What is the purpose of life?", and so on are all just incoherent questions. Short answer "no", long answer "no, because you haven't defined the term coherently, and things with no definitions do not exist, but feel free to come back if you ever manage to actually come up with a real definition".

And that's all metaphysics is, really. Just people playing silly games with semantics because they don't realize that's all there is to their supposed high-mindedness.

Learn to define your terms, kiddos. Otherwise you end up like these poor sods, trapped in an eternal hell of questions with no answers, trying to open doors that don't have locks with keys that don't exist.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
08-02-2017, 01:54 PM (This post was last modified: 08-02-2017 02:57 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 10:30 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The demonstration of the first cause is in the original post.

Actually you didn't do that. It was a FAILED ATTEMPT at a demonstration. You never showed that the premises were applicable, or even how they could be. You have been repeatedly told, (first you never heard about it before, obviously as you are basically uneducated, then dismissed it with no supporting reasoning), there are logics that do not obtain in reality. Logic alone is insufficient to do anything. You were shown the flaws and you continue to repeat your garbage. The argument you gave was ineffective. It's an argument for proximate causeS, with very very flawed premises and assumptions.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-02-2017, 03:31 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 01:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 10:30 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The demonstration of the first cause is in the original post.

Actually you didn't do that. It was a FAILED ATTEMPT at a demonstration. You never showed that the premises were applicable, or even how they could be. You have been repeatedly told, (first you never heard about it before, obviously as you are basically uneducated, then dismissed it with no supporting reasoning), there are logics that do not obtain in reality. Logic alone is insufficient to do anything. You were shown the flaws and you continue to repeat your garbage. The argument you gave was ineffective. It's an argument for proximate causeS, with very very flawed premises and assumptions.

I don't think there's any point in discussing anything with you anymore.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-02-2017, 04:19 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 10:21 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 09:37 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Whoever said anyone was seeking "certainty" ?
Isn't he cute.
A 17 YO lecturing at us.

If you have no epistemic certainty at your foundation, then the structure crumbles. Let's say you're 99% certain that your senses are valid. Then you're 99% certain that if your senses are reliable, science works. You can see there will be a cascading effect. By the time you get to any scientific claim, you aren't actually talking about knowledge anymore. You're talking about a probabalistic assessment of any proposition. You have a semi-justified, possibly true, semi-belief. This isn't knowledge.

Except that science doesn't work simply on one person's perceptions, but rather upon the gathered and cross-checked perceptions of many.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
08-02-2017, 04:23 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 10:30 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The demonstration of the first cause is in the original post.

Except that it is deeply flawed, logically.

(08-02-2017 10:30 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Reality being objective is your only first principle? So you don't begin with your own existence or the reliability of your cognitive faculties? You just jump right in with objective reality? I'd say that epistemological dependence is corrolary to metaphysical contingency. Metaphysically, the first cause must be necessary and self-grounding. Epistemologically, your first principle has to be self-evident or immediately apprehended as true by any given mind.

You and I can argue about whether or not that's a cliff in front of us. We can even conceive of a test. He who doesn't believe there's a cliff there should not have any problem throwing himself off of it.

And at that point, reality will have the last word.


(08-02-2017 10:30 AM)Naielis Wrote:  It can't be dependent on other beliefs. The first principles are the things you assume justifiably. Your own reasoning and your existence are first principles. I'd say reality's objectivity could be established as a secondary principle by extrapolating from your own rationality. Once the mind understands existence, it understands the objectivity of reality.

My assumption that reality is objective is certainly justifiable, based on our compared experiences.

You're overthinking it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
08-02-2017, 05:12 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
(08-02-2017 03:31 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(08-02-2017 01:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually you didn't do that. It was a FAILED ATTEMPT at a demonstration. You never showed that the premises were applicable, or even how they could be. You have been repeatedly told, (first you never heard about it before, obviously as you are basically uneducated, then dismissed it with no supporting reasoning), there are logics that do not obtain in reality. Logic alone is insufficient to do anything. You were shown the flaws and you continue to repeat your garbage. The argument you gave was ineffective. It's an argument for proximate causeS, with very very flawed premises and assumptions.

I don't think there's any point in discussing anything with you anymore.

Well of course you'd say that. You've actually brought nothing here except tired old debunked nonsense.
It's hard to LOSE all the time, and you have nothing to respond with that you learned by rote from WLC.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-02-2017, 05:17 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Hey Naielis.
Do you plan to attend college? If so, perhaps wait a bit, study with your professor and then come back.

You appear to be using the members here as a tool for practice.

At least that's how it appears to me.

There have been way too many questions that you failed to answer. This shows more about what you do not know, than what you do.

There is nothing wrong with that. Not knowing I mean. Socrates claimed to know nothing. Yet you are here claiming to know everything.

Question: Who should I side with, Socrates or Naielis?

I think the answer is obvious.

You currently suffer the arrogance of youth. Sadly life will likely get in the way and may beat that down somewhat.

In future when debating, please remember these points.

Answer questions clearly. Ask questions with clarity.

Thus far you have quite simply failed in both.

Good luck.

Frankly I do not understand why the members are even bothering with you. I think they are just having fun. Big Grin

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Banjo's post
08-02-2017, 05:22 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
Chew toys keep our teeth sharp.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
12-02-2017, 09:59 PM
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
I've been shown that every cosmological argument begs the question. They assume the metaphysic of contingency thet attempts to prove. I must return to the default of agnosticism. Thank you all for the conversation.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2017, 10:13 PM (This post was last modified: 12-02-2017 10:16 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Cosmological Arguments Haven't Been Debunked
So much for epistemic certainty. Weeping

There is no coherent definition of a god.
Agnosticism is equivalent to saying one does not know if a huff-a-lump exists.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: