The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-10-2012, 02:08 AM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2012 02:18 AM by TheJackal.)
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
Quote:Nope. first of all, you have not defined existence.

Incorrect, I clearly defined existence in my op.

Quote:you do not get to define words, for a discussion, that is meaningful, if they have a new meaning unless we, a priori, agree what they mean. I have not agreed that I am a "part" (of an all encompassing) "existence", and you have not demonstrated it, just declared it. You cannot also define "existence" without invoking a temporal concept. Also "existence" in the way you are using it is the Reification Fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

Oh? Maybe you can try that argument again without existence.. "/ And I didn't disagree, temporal is a consequence of existence, and thus invokes temporal concept. Existence itself is the time frame of reference, and every instance of existence is a temporal frame. Hence, you can't exist outside of time any more than you could exist outside of existence. And no I am not using it in a fallacy format... And in case you are wondering, I didn't define it myself, I used the definition given:


Wiki:
Existence has been variously defined by sources. In common usage, it is the world we are aware or conscious of through our senses, and that persists independently without them. Others define it as everything that is, or simply everything.

Dictionary source 1:

1
a obsolete : reality as opposed to appearance
b : reality as presented in experience
c : the totality of existent things

2
a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence <the existence of other worlds>
b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being

Dictionary source 2:

existence [ɪgˈzɪstəns]
n
1. the fact or state of existing; being
2. the continuance or maintenance of life; living, esp in adverse circumstances a struggle for existence she has a wretched existence
3. something that exists; a being or entity
4. everything that exists, esp that is living

To which is synonymous with "reality"

re·al·i·ty (r-l-t)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities" (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.)
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact:

Quote:a priori, agree what they mean.

You can't agree, disagree, or even make that post without existence. Your argument is self-refuting, and trying to claim it a fallacy argument is rather amusing. You can't use reality / existence to argue against it... The fallacy argument does not apply here as that to can not exist without existence either. But hey, for you to make that fallacy argument, you need to demonstrate it and show it.. Hence, you will have to demonstrate for us here that existence doesn't exist and isn't "real", or of "reality".. And that would be quite amusing to watch someone attempt to do O.o
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 02:24 AM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
(21-10-2012 02:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-10-2012 01:23 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  Which would be correct..


You just called everyone here GOD.. That is by definition Pantheism, or at best solipsistic Pantheism while ignoring that the conscious state itself can not exist without cause, or without first the inertia of information. Btw, if your GOD is infinite and omnipresent:

Where do I exist, and what boundaries separate your GOD from being who I am? Hence, you can't just use Omni's and not think of their consequences... Your are trying to have your cake and eat it to.


Sorry you can not preexist existence, or create existence so yourself can exist. You statement here is a self-refuting argument. And again, that would just be existence doing its thing as it's irrelevant if we come from conscious processes, unconscious processes, or a combination of both. But since a conscious state can't exist without first the inertia of information or a complex adaptive system with feedback to form the foundation and structure of a cognitive system, the best answer possible is through both unconscious and conscious processes. Hence information is higher on the pecking order that a conscious entity that is slave to require it to even know itself exists, or to be conscious at all.. Hence, you are forcing me unnecessarily to go into information science and theory. But I did write a nice little ABC list for fun to express that:

A: There can be no choice, or decision made without information
B: There can be no consciousness or awareness without information, or the inertia of
C: One can not have knowledge without information
D: One can not do anything without information
E: One can not exist without informational value
F: One can not think without information
G: One can not even know one's self exists without information
H: One can not reply, respond, or react without information
I: There can be no "I" without the information that gives I an Identity.
J: There can be no morals, ethics, or laws without information
K: One can not have or express emotions, or feelings without information
L: One can not have experiences, or experience anything at all without information
M: One can not have a place to exist in order to be existent without informational capacity, structure, system, or value.
N: One can not Create, or Design anything without information
O: One can not have the ability to process things without information
P: Intelligence can not exist without information to apply
Q: No system, or process can exist without information
R: Cause and effect can not exist without information
S: Logic can not exist without information
T: Reason can not exist or things can not have a reason / purpose without information
U: There can be no meaning without information
V: There can be no value without information
W: There can be no capacity without informational value
Y: There can be no complexity without informational structure
Z: One can not convey, send, or express a message without information

A-Z all require time.

Yep, and time is an inherent property of existence. Now the question is the inertia of information as there is a difference between a static state, and a dynamic state to which has inertia.. Or you can look at it in terms of animation vs suspended animation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 02:24 AM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
(21-10-2012 02:08 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  
Quote:Nope. first of all, you have not defined existence.

Incorrect, I clearly defined existence in my op.

Quote:you do not get to define words, for a discussion, that is meaningful, if they have a new meaning unless we, a priori, agree what they mean. I have not agreed that I am a "part" (of an all encompassing) "existence", and you have not demonstrated it, just declared it. You cannot also define "existence" without invoking a temporal concept. Also "existence" in the way you are using it is the Reification Fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29

Oh? Maybe you can try that argument again without existence.. "/ And I didn't disagree, temporal is a consequence of existence, and thus invokes temporal concept. Existence itself is the time frame of reference, and every instance of existence is a temporal frame. Hence, you can't exist outside of time any more than you could exist outside of existence. And no I am not using it in a fallacy format... And in case you are wondering, I didn't define it myself, I used the definition given:


Wiki:
Existence has been variously defined by sources. In common usage, it is the world we are aware or conscious of through our senses, and that persists independently without them. Others define it as everything that is, or simply everything.

Dictionary source 1:

1
a obsolete : reality as opposed to appearance
b : reality as presented in experience
c : the totality of existent things

2
a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence <the existence of other worlds>
b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being

Dictionary source 2:

existence [ɪgˈzɪstəns]
n
1. the fact or state of existing; being
2. the continuance or maintenance of life; living, esp in adverse circumstances a struggle for existence she has a wretched existence
3. something that exists; a being or entity
4. everything that exists, esp that is living

To which is synonymous with "reality"

re·al·i·ty (r-l-t)
n. pl. re·al·i·ties
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities" (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.)
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact:

Quote:a priori, agree what they mean.

You can't agree, disagree, or even make that post without existence. Your argument is self-refuting, and trying to claim it a fallacy argument is rather amusing. You can't use reality / existence to argue against it... The fallacy argument does not apply here as that to can not exist without existence either. But hey, for you to make that fallacy argument, you need to demonstrate it and show it.. Hence, you will have to demonstrate for us here that existence doesn't exist and isn't "real", or of "reality".. And that would be quite amusing to watch someone attempt to do O.o

"Existence is the totality of all that exists as well as causality itself. Hence Existence is Causality and Reality"

Your OP's premise was directed to Christians. You redefined "existence" in a way they would not agree with, so you're whistling in the wind. If you expect an argument to work with a Christian, you have to agree on the meanings of the words. They would not agree with your's. You wold be cut off, before you got to first base.

The "concept" of existence can't exist without you brain's molecules moving. Thus your "existence as Ultimate Reality" is false.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 02:31 AM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2012 02:52 AM by TheJackal.)
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
Quote:"Existence is the totality of all that exists as well as causality itself. Hence Existence is Causality and Reality"

Your OP's premise was directed to Christians. You redefined "existence" in a way they would not agree with, so you're whistling in the wind. If you expect an argument to work with a Christian, you have to agree on the meanings of the words. They would not agree with your's. You wold be cut off, before you got to first base.

The "concept" of existence can't exist without you brain's molecules moving. Thus your "existence as Ultimate Reality" is false.

Self-refuting argument.. Existence does not require consciousness to exist, its the other way around.. Consciousness would be an emergent property of existence itself. What you are arguing is just a conscious state of existence.. Hence, your argument of saying it is false is nonsense. And any reality denier is of course not going to agree to anything... They still can't even deny anything without existence to do so, or being in and of existence. Their denial is irrelevant actually. And good luck getting a definition of existence from a christian because no matter the definition, they are still in the same quagmire.. You can't have anything or do anything without existence regardless of what definition of existence they want to play with, and it's amusing to see them beg everyone to believe their GOD is in and of existence like the rest of us.. And regardless of how they want to play the game, causality has to be of existence as they can only be an emergent property of it.

Here's another way to look at it... :

Where are you? ... Are you in existence or not? You have to exists somewhere in existence as it's pretty difficult to exist nowhere, or in a place of non-existence. And wost of all, you need a "Where" to be "aware".. And again you can not create that which yourself is slave to require in order to exist. So no matter what, no conscious entity can solve infinite regress, or represent a universal set of all sets. Sorry, no conscious being can ever be the source origin of existence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 02:55 AM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
(21-10-2012 02:31 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  
Quote:"Existence is the totality of all that exists as well as causality itself. Hence Existence is Causality and Reality"

Your OP's premise was directed to Christians. You redefined "existence" in a way they would not agree with, so you're whistling in the wind. If you expect an argument to work with a Christian, you have to agree on the meanings of the words. They would not agree with your's. You wold be cut off, before you got to first base.

The "concept" of existence can't exist without you brain's molecules moving. Thus your "existence as Ultimate Reality" is false.

Self-refuting argument.. Existence does not require consciousness to exist, its the other way around.. Consciousness would be an emergent property of existence itself. What you are arguing is just a conscious state of existence.. Hence, your argument of saying it is false is nonsense. And any reality denier is of course not going to agree to anything... They still can't even deny anything without existence to do so, or being in and of existence. Their denial is irrelevant actually. And good luck getting a definition of existence from a christian because no matter the definition, they are still in the same quagmire.. You can't have anything or do anything without existence regardless of what definition of existence they want to play with, and it's amusing to see them beg everyone to believe their GOD is in and of existence like the rest of us.. And regardless of how they want to play the game, causality has to be of existence..

Here's another way to look at it... :

Where are you? ... Are you in existence or not? You have to exists somewhere in existence as it's pretty difficult to exist nowhere, or in a place of non-existence.

The only reason you have those thoughts is because your brain is working. There is no such *thing* as "existence". You could not BE discussing "existence" without a working brain that has learned to think in that manner. You learned to associate what you think you mean when you say that word, with a concept. The word is "existence". Existence is not the Ultimate Reality.

As far as the "good luck" goes...then why talk to them at all ? If you can't get someone to agree on premisses, and assumptions, there is no point in the discussion. There are better things to do.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 03:08 AM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2012 03:35 AM by TheJackal.)
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
Quote:The only reason you have those thoughts is because your brain is working. There is no such *thing* as "existence". You could not BE discussing "existence" without a working brain that has learned to think in that manner. You learned to associate what you think you mean when you say that word, with a concept. The word is "existence". Existence is not the Ultimate Reality.


Again you made a self-refuting argument. And the term existence is just a place card or name to what it is we are talking about. I can use the term Reality as much as I can use "existence".. And I can use the same manner to learn that the conscious state can't exist without cause, and that you have to have a place to exist in, and be a part of.. The attempted circular logic you are trying to impose can only at best prove the premises I made correct.

Quote:As far as the "good luck" goes...then why talk to them at all ? If you can't get someone to agree on premisses, and assumptions, there is no point in the discussion. There are better things to do.

The point is to show they can't and won't and why those two questions invalidates their arguments.. Nobody here has provided an alternative argument that isn't self-refuting thus far. And it's kind of an exercise to see how people react and respond. Hence thought experiment.

Quote:There is no such *thing* as "existence"

So your argument is that there is nothing of existence, or in existence? Or should we say no existence at all.. That is what you are trying to state here correct?

Quote:without a working brain that has learned to think in that manner.

That's great, that only proves my point... You aren't making any relevant arguments here as I am well aware that I require a working brain.. , and that my working brain needs to be in and of existence / reality to function or exist. You are not circumventing the argument here, you are best demonstrating it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 08:22 AM (This post was last modified: 21-10-2012 08:48 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
(21-10-2012 03:08 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  Hence existence itself being the very entity from which all things derive from.

That's part of your problem.

1. Existence is not an "entity". I already told you why that is the Reification Fallacy.
2. "the very entity" is self-limiting, and not "another" entity. An "entity" is a sub-structure in Reality. The very notion of "entity" presumes a higher structure, as "does "existence" vs "non-existence".

(21-10-2012 03:08 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  I can use the term Reality as much as I can use "existence"

No you can't, unless non-existence and existence are the same thing.

(21-10-2012 03:08 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  The point is to show they can't and won't and why those two questions invalidates their arguments.. Nobody here has provided an alternative argument that isn't self-refuting thus far. And it's kind of an exercise to see how people react and respond. Hence thought experiment.

"Nobody here" is a Christian, so it's irrelevant here.
Go to a Christian forum and try that, and see how far you get. Christians are not going to agree with your premise that "in their context, Existence is the totality of all that exists", so you're not "showing" them anything other than you both don't agree on your premise. You have not demonstrated the truth of your premise to them, or why they MUST accept it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
"And you quit footing the bill for these nations that are oil rich - we're paying for some of their *squirmishes* that have been going on for centuries" - Sarah Palin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 08:37 AM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
(21-10-2012 12:34 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  Actually not.. The questions I had can be attributed to everything including your own.. What are questions without existence? What is hell without existence? What is anything at all without existence?
Cogito ergo sum.

Q.E.D.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 08:50 AM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
(21-10-2012 01:41 PM)TheJackal Wrote:  
(21-10-2012 01:26 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You might've read it but 30 years ago Girly didn't have no Google or Wikipedia navigation shit for help, I drove that truck myself without their aid. One of the most instructive and formative truck rides of my life. Thumbsup


The soundness of an argument is far more important than it's validity. Any fucking vulgar drunken hairless talking girly monkey can crank through the making and checking of a valid argument. But if the premises ain't self-evident and indisputable, Girly's just getting off on mental masturbation. ... Not that there's anything wrong with that. Big Grin

Let me remind you that this is a thought experiment and not a troll thread.. I am challenging positions for the intrigue to see where it goes. So far we have a few interesting arguments against the OP.

Let me remind you that the universe does not revolve around you.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-10-2012, 10:57 AM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
Quote:That's part of your problem.

1. Existence is not an "entity". I already told you why that is the Reification Fallacy.
2. "the very entity" is self-limiting, and not "another" entity. An "entity" is a sub-structure in Reality. The very notion of "entity" presumes a higher structure, as "does "existence" vs "non-existence".

Now see you're using the term Reality here, or "in Reality" to which is synonymous with Existence. And worse yet, you used it in the context of it being an entity. You are still using a circular self-refuting argument to try and circumvent the op. Hence you literally avoided answering the questions to try to play on the Reification Fallacy card so you don't have to answer them. And it does not presume a "higher structure", it states the entire structure of what is, and that all things are of that structure. And any structure in and of existence/reality is a part of existence/reality, and must be if it is to exist at all.

Also, you need to learn what a Universal set of all sets is.. An entity can be the sum total structure and the structure of all the subsets of it. Hence Reality/Existence itself
is an entity to which all things must come from, exist in, and be a part of.

And as far as existence being an entity:
Quote:entity
noun
1. thing, being, body, individual, object, presence, existence, substance, quantity, creature, organism the concept of the earth as a living entity
2. essential nature, being, existence, essence, quintessence, real nature, quiddity (Philosophy) key periods of national or cultural entity and development

So when I ask you what and where you come from and where you do you exist, exist in, and exist as a part of, it's going to be that of reality itself / existence itself.


Quote:No you can't, unless non-existence and existence are the same thing.

Yes I can.., and I just did. And your argument here is incoherent as non-existence and existence would not be the same thing. Your argument is like trying to claim that for reality to be real, it must magically be the same as unreal or unreality. You're trying to appeal to ignorance.

(21-10-2012 03:08 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  The point is to show they can't and won't and why those two questions invalidates their arguments.. Nobody here has provided an alternative argument that isn't self-refuting thus far. And it's kind of an exercise to see how people react and respond. Hence thought experiment.

Quote:"Nobody here" is a Christian, so it's irrelevant here.
Go to a Christian forum and try that, and see how far you get. Christians are not going to agree with your premise that "in their context, Existence is the totality of all that exists", so you're not "showing" them anything other than you both don't agree on your premise. You have not demonstrated the truth of your premise to them, or why they MUST accept it.

Just browsing the introduction section would attest there is.. Though Christianity was just used for example purposes in this thought experiment.. And whether they choose to agree is irrelevant as they still beg us to believe that their GOD is in and of existence, or in and of reality.. Hence their denial would be a self-refutation and would be self-dismissed by consequence regardless.. You aren't going to find a Christian say "My GOD isn't in existence"..
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: