Alumno deVerum

The topic is too long to post here so here is a link:

http://dynamicdeism.org/forum/phpBB2...pic.php?t=1802

granpa

I read through most of it, but it seems to be based on a bias in circular argument. It often uses a chain of logic or information in support of the idea of God which infact could just as justifiably be used in support of exclusive cosmological explanations or even string theory idea's. There should be a (better) balance in presentation of arguments, nonetheless it is a very good read.

Alumno deVerum

Well yes since it is based on logic all such arguments are ultimately circular because logic can't prove itself. However I would have to disagree that any of the other premises that follow from that are circular. The definition of nothingness I use for instance is based on the rules of logic itself.

The relationships that terms in a sentence have to each other are defined by the copula, the linking word(s) connecting subject to predicate. We link words either positively or negatively with “is” or “is not”... Negating only one property between two objects only tends to illustrate their closeness to each other. True opposites would have nothing in common. Taking this to its logical conclusion by applying the term “is not” to “being” as a whole we get an opposite of “no being” or absolute nothingness.

That is not circular. Neither is this:

Whatever you can conceive, anything at all that exists, you may negate it without contradiction simply by putting a variation of the words “is not” in front of it. By applying these two words to the totality of existence then we should arrive at the logical definition of "absolute nothingness". But the concept of nothingness itself can still be contemplated. Which means that nothingness is not absolute. Which means nothingness is not nothing. In other words nothingness by itself is a contradiction!

Likewise the properties which concepts seem to me to have is based on observation:

All the evidence I have says that for a concept to exist there must be a mind to consider it. For example I can have 9 coins in one hand and 9 stones in the other but where is the number 9 apart from what I hold? Aside from the fact they are “physical” I can sense no other property they have in common. But changing the quantity doesn’t seem to affect the physical characteristics of either group so that particular integer itself is not intrinsic to either group. 9 has attributes I can understand. It is the square of 3. It is an odd number. And I can distinguish those traits from; say, the number 8 which is even and not a square. So even though it is not tangible it is a thing in its own right. However, I can not point to anything in nature and say, “This is the number 9 by itself.” I can only think about it.

The world more and more does seem to be just numbers, values, and probabilities. A materialist may say that the number nine, for instance, must be expressed physically as stones or coins to exist but what is the physical? Albert Einstein proved that mass (matter) is just energy in particle form. Erwin Schrodinger discovered that matter could be manifested as a wave, which is energy in kinetic form. And Max Born showed that waves are just the probability distribution of a possible event (that is where the particle will actually appear when the wave collapses). That event is mathematical in nature and mathematics itself is nothing more than the rules that govern numbers which, apparently, are concepts that can only be seen by the mind.

Others say the numbers themselves are merely the products of material processes in the brain we impose on the world. But it seems to me this is just substituting one unsubstantiated statement for another. One can not assert the brain and its processes are material in order to prove the brain and its processes are material. The brain is made of tissue composed of cells built from molecules of atoms that are particles of matter which is energy...

So to me it appears as if it is materialsm that is based on circular arguments.

Finally the basic argument is constructed by putting all this together:

Absolute nothingness is paradoxical and thus can not exist. The concept of nothingness, however, does exist but is self-contradictory (a concept is not "no thing" it is an idea that represents "nothing") and therefore it is unstable so it must collapse into a state that is stable but in order to do that it has to have something in common with that state (to avoid a non-sequiter). Since the only property I can say nothingness has is it is a concept, I can only reduce it to something else that is also a concept and because concepts by definition must be observed by a mind that fundamental state can only be a concept that is self-referential (since there is nothing else to see it) and thus all it has to do is bend back on itself. So this is not "nothingness" observing itself but instead it is a stable closed, and thus self aware, concept that because of It's neutrality may still define "nothingness" while at the same time giving potential to everything else. But that is all I can conclude from it.

I just see nothing circular about any of that.

Thanks for reading it though!

Og

I prefer the hindu idea that what is transcendent (brahman/god) is beyond all categories of thought including being and nonbeing.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Alumno deVerum

It very well could be. No matter how reasonable our opinions seem the fact is we're all just guessing.

Og

Some guesses are more informed than others.. Also, some guesses accept the fact that they're an informed guess while other guesses ignore this fact and claim (falsely) that they are the absolute truth instead of a guess.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Alumno deVerum

Thats true. But as for me I'm comfortable with the fact I don't really know anything for sure.

Og

You can know for sure what things are NOT, however.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

jaej

I don't really agree that since the concept of nothing exists that nothingness cannot exist, although the phrase 'nothing exists' is rather paradoxical. Nothing isn't an entity, so it can't be said to exist. Nothing is the absence of matter, much like darkness is the absence of light, silence the absence of sound, etc. Thus, nothing can, for lack of a better word, 'exist'.

__________________
Μολὼν Λαβέ

Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate

somdude85

Wow. Just wow.

I should know better than to sift through that, given it's 12 AM.

This is something one should need to read many of times before it all registers.