Existence is reducible to the singular.

[lifegazer]

Even science - with her desire and efforts to find a theory of everything - agrees with the premise/title of this thread.

Given this, we see that existence is indivisibly singular. Ultimately, existence is of one source with a singular set of laws/order, governing the effects of this source's work/actions.

Therefore, ultimately, it is impossible to disregard will as an aspect of any-thing which emanates from this singular-source. By reasonable default, a singular-source of effects must emanate from the will of that source.

[Yahweh]

I dont understand what you mean by "Existence is reducible to the singular"...

I consider existence as a concept which describes things which are real in objective reality.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I dont understand what you mean by "Existence is reducible to the singular"...

It really means that everything is one ~thing~. The whole as singular.

I consider existence as a concept which describes things which are real in objective reality.
Existence is something definite. It's not just some vague abstraction. We know that Something is. There is tangible being. So please don't try to sweep the term under the rug.

Also, these "things" you speak of are not real in objective existence. The perception of solid objects is reducible to subatomic particles that are not at definite points of space and time. Only the mind sees objects at definite points in space and time.

Even science seeks to reduce everything to one thing with one short set of equations. Rationally, science already accepts what I am basically saying here.

So, does anyone want to address the notion of a singular existence which possesses will?

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Even science - with her desire and efforts to find a theory of everything - agrees with the premise/title of this thread. Bull.

[DanishDynamite]

Yes, everything is reducible to the singular - it is called The Universe. And no, the universe doesn't have a will.

[lifegazer]

Do either of you two know how to partake of rational discussion?
Please explain, using reason, your assertions.
Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Yes, everything is reducible to the singular - it is called The Universe. And no, the universe doesn't have a will.
Then "the universe" must have will, by the same process of reason. For "the universe" is seen to be the source of her own actions/behaviour/order. Therefore, as the source, the universe has exhibited will in her actions, since there is no other agent involved.

[DanishDynamite]

lifegazer:Then "the universe" must have will, by the same process of reason. For "the universe" is seen to be the source of her own actions/behaviour/order. Therefore, as the source, the universe has exhibited will in her actions, since there is no other agent involved. Physical processes don't require a will to occur. Tell me, which will is controlling the fusion processes going on in the Sun? Or formation of waves on the ocean? Or....

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
lifegazer:Physical processes don't require a will to occur. Tell me, which will is controlling the fusion processes going on in the Sun? Or formation of waves on the ocean? Or....
Thankyou. Something to talk about.
All objects in space and time are effected to be there by forces which emanate from the aforementioned source.
It is the origin of these forces, from said source, which requires a will. For in the absence of another agent, those forces are self-driven. Therefore, a will was required to give life to them. Without a will, there is no cause for the existence of those forces.

[DanishDynamite]

lifegazer:All objects in space and time are effected to be there by forces which emanate from the aforementioned source. It is the origin of these forces, from said source, which requires a will. Why?
For in the absence of another agent, those forces are self-driven. Yes. And is this a problem?
Therefore, a will was required to give life to them. Without a will, there is no cause for the existence of those forces. Not understood. The existence of a cause doesn't equal the existence of a will.

BTW, my lunchhour is up, so I won't be able to reply further untill tonight.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by lifegazer

All objects in space and time are effected to be there by forces which emanate from the aforementioned source.
What, if anything, do you think this sentence means?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
"All objects in space and time are effected to be there by forces which emanate from the aforementioned source."


What, if anything, do you think this sentence means?
Any state of any-thing is effected to be like that by a set of universal forces which manipulate the substance of the universe to the given states of that universe.
Picture the substance of the universe as clay and universal forces as the energy which shapes the clay.

A force is an action upon the substance of existence. Hence, as a singular whole, the universe is the source of her own actions/forces. There is no other agent involved when we have reduced existence down to a singular whole, so we can know that the universe is self-acting.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
"It is the origin of these forces, from said source, which requires a will."

Why?

Because there is no other agent or force involved. Once we reduce existence down to her singular nature - as the source
of ALL force/action - then the instigation of any action/force is shown to be a self-act, by the essence of existence itself. Absolutely so.
And it is in this absoluteness of self-action where we see will exhibited. If will did not exist, then no action/force would be caused to occur since there is nothing else to make those actions/forces occur. They can only occur if the essence of existence wills them to do so.

[Upchurch]

You have a potential fallacy of composition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html) (of the second type described in the link) here, lifegazer. That is,The second type of fallacy of Composition is committed when it is concluded that what is true of the parts of a whole must be true of the whole without there being adequate justification for the claim. More formally, the line of "reasoning" would be as follows:

1. The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
2. Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.

That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot be inferred that simply because the parts of a complex whole have (or lack) certain properties that the whole that they are parts of has those properties.
I say "potential" because it is possible that the whole has the characteristics, but you must justify the claim. Specifically, you must back your claim that because some parts of the universe are conscious, the universe as a whole is conscious.

I'd also like to point out that some parts of the universe are non-conscious. What would that imply?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
You have a potential fallacy of composition (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html) (of the second type described in the link) here, lifegazer. That is,
I say "potential" because it is possible that the whole has the characteristics, but you must justify the claim. Specifically, you must back your claim that because some parts of the universe are conscious, the universe as a whole is conscious.

I'd also like to point out that some parts of the universe are non-conscious. What would that imply?
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have not stated that the whole is concious because some of its parts are concious. I have stated that the whole exhibits will because the actions of its parts are its responsibility.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I have stated that the whole exhibits will because the actions of its parts are its responsibility. My appologies. Please allow me to restate the question using explicitly what you are actually claiming:

You must show that because some of the universe's parts requires will to cause actions, then it follows that the universe as a whole requires will to cause actions.

edited to soften the tone. Apparently I've lost my good manners from dealing with Fraith

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
You must show that because some of the universe's parts requires will to cause actions, then it follows that the universe as a whole requires will to cause actions.

Have you read my posts? This is not relevant to my argument.
I have not even spoken of a "will of the parts".

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have not even spoken of a "will of the parts". Not specifically, no. But it is heavily implied when you speak of ruduction of the many down to the singular. Not to mention the athropomorphic personification you use in the following line where you equate attributes of parts (in this case, gender) to the whole.For "the universe" is seen to be the source of her own actions/behaviour/order. Therefore, as the source, the universe has exhibited will in her actions, since there is no other agent involved.
Regardless, you have yet to show or explain the process of reason you refer to when you made the statement earlier in the same post:Then "the universe" must have will, by the same process of reasonWhy must the universe have a will? (which, btw, does also imply that the universe has a consciousness in order to apply its will)

You sort of jumped into this question with a whole mess of unstated assumptions that you need to establish and justify if we're going to be able to talk about this on a common ground.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Even science - with her desire and efforts to find a theory of everything - agrees with the premise/title of this thread.

Given this, we see that existence is indivisibly singular. Ultimately, existence is of one source with a singular set of laws/order, governing the effects of this source's work/actions.

Therefore, ultimately, it is impossible to disregard will as an aspect of any-thing which emanates from this singular-source. By reasonable default, a singular-source of effects must emanate from the will of that source.

Um, do you want to debate, or just to agree with you?

Point one: are you saying that you can predict the behavior of a single particle outside of the aggregate?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have no idea what you are talking about. I have not stated that the whole is concious because some of its parts are concious. I have stated that the whole exhibits will because the actions of its parts are its responsibility.

Which gets back to the lack of purpose for evil.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Point one: are you saying that you can predict the behavior of a single particle outside of the aggregate? I don't really think that's what he's trying to say. I think he's going for a "TLOP + The Whole Universe = God" approach. Complete knowledge of the laws of physics aren't really necessary for the argument.

edited to add

Actually, maybe I'm the one who isn't understanding what you are saying. What do you mean by "a single particle outside of the aggregate?"

By definition, wouldn't the universe (i.e. the aggregate) comprise all particles ? How do you define a single particle that is outside of that set?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt

What, if anything, do you think this sentence means?

God did it....

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
"I have not even spoken of a "will of the parts".

Not specifically, no. But it is heavily implied when you speak of ruduction of the many down to the singular.

No it's not. Reducing existence to a singular whole says nothing about its parts having a will of their own. In fact, it is my position that 'will' only exists for the whole itself... so that it is an illusion that any of the parts might have a will of their own.
Thus, the athropomorphic complaints won't wash, since it's my opinion that the will of man emanates from existence as a whole, and not from the body/mind of man himself.

Regardless, you have yet to show or explain the process of reason you refer to when you made the statement earlier in the same post:Why must the universe have a will? (which, btw, does also imply that the universe has a consciousness in order to apply its will)

I agree that self-awareness is necessary. You can add that to my earlier conclusion.

You sort of jumped into this question with a whole mess of unstated assumptions that you need to establish and justify if we're going to be able to talk about this on a common ground.
It's your unfounded and irrelevant complaints which are messy and which are detracting from the substance of my argument.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Um, do you want to debate, or just to agree with you?

Either. But I can do without smartass cynicism. It's very boring.

Point one: are you saying that you can predict the behavior of a single particle outside of the aggregate?
Nope. I leave behavioural predictions to the physicists.

Which gets back to the lack of purpose for evil.

'Evil' is another discussion. It's irrelevant to the particular argument suggested here.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David


God did it....
Actually, this is what I am saying.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, this is what I am saying.

Okay, then, discussion's over. By the way, weren't you supposed to take us on a magical airplane flight a while back? Because I heard that the tickets are non-refundable.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

No it's not. Reducing existence to a singular whole says nothing about its parts having a will of their own. In fact, it is my position that 'will' only exists for the whole itself... so that it is an illusion that any of the parts might have a will of their own.
Ah. See? This is why it is important to present all of the assumptions that you use to base your argument when you present something like this. How were any of us supposed to know this is where you were coming from?
Thus, the athropomorphic complaints won't wash...Whoa. Time out, cowboy. I'm not "complaining", I'm presenting counter-arguments and questioning the finer points of your argument. That's how discussion works.
I agree that self-awareness is necessary. You can add that to my earlier conclusion.That's fine, but I still want some sort of justification or argument to support this assumption. At this point, all you've done is assume the point that the universe is conscious (or self-aware, fi you prefer) and willful. All of your other conclusions are merely based on this assumption. To use your conclusions as proof of the assumption is circular reasoning.
It's your unfounded and irrelevant complaints which are messy and which are detracting from the substance of my argument. Again, I prefer "counter-argument" and "probing questions". Regardless, what kind of response did you expect when you asked for a discussion? "Right on! Very well! You must be absolutely right!"?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


Okay, then, discussion's over. By the way, weren't you supposed to take us on a magical airplane flight a while back? Because I heard that the tickets are non-refundable.
If you just close the door to the notion of God's existence then the discussion is indeed over.
That flight was grounded due to rowdy passengers. My patience has wore thin with experience.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

My patience has wore thin with experience. But I can do without smartass cynicism. It's very boring.
I would highly recommend growing a thicker skin. If you can't take a few quips, you really won't survive.

At least, not on this board. ;)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
"I agree that self-awareness is necessary. You can add that to my earlier conclusion."

That's fine, but I still want some sort of justification or argument to support this assumption. At this point, all you've done is assume the point that the universe is conscious (or self-aware, fi you prefer) and willful.

This is untrue. I have given reasons why I think existence as a whole has exhibited will-power. Reasons which you have danced around and evaded.
Address this, for example: "Because there is no other agent or force involved. Once we reduce existence down to her singular nature - as the source
of ALL force/action - then the instigation of any action/force is shown to be a self-act, by the essence of existence itself. Absolutely so.
And it is in this absoluteness of self-action where we see will exhibited. If will did not exist, then no action/force would be caused to occur since there is nothing else to make those actions/forces occur. They can only occur if the essence of existence wills them to do so."

Again, I prefer "counter-argument" and "probing questions". Regardless, what kind of response did you expect when you asked for a discussion? "Right on! Very well! You must be absolutely right!"?
I expect that your points be relevant and factual. Neither is the case so far.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I would highly recommend growing a thicker skin. If you can't take a few quips, you really won't survive.

At least, not on this board. ;)
You misunderstand me. I don't care for my own pride's sake that morons try to ridicule me. What irritates me is that the discussion itself - my argument - is always lost amongst the childishness. So when it gets out of hand, I give-up on the thread. I can no longer be bothered presenting serious philosophy to idiots who aren't interested in having a rational discussion. It's a waste of my time.
I carry on where I can because there are some sincere skeptics out there. Hopefully, anyway.

[DanishDynamite]

lifegazer:Because there is no other agent or force involved. Once we reduce existence down to her singular nature - as the source
of ALL force/action - then the instigation of any action/force is shown to be a self-act, by the essence of existence itself. Absolutely so. Although your phrasing makes it difficult to understand what you are trying to say, I think I agree with this. The problem is the next bit:
And it is in this absoluteness of self-action where we see will exhibited.How? Where does "will" come into the picture? I presume you are aware that at its most fundamental level, the universe is acausal.
If will did not exist, then no action/force would be caused to occur since there is nothing else to make those actions/forces occur. See above.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Dancing David

God did it....
Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, this is what I am saying.

Well, I guess that wraps up this thread. See you.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, this is what I am saying.

Well, duh, and how dare you slam me lifegazer, you ****, I agreed to be polite to you, but you just sweep any counter point under the rug, remember saying i was naive, I am not naive you just don't have a counter argument.


You are the cynic lifegazer because you don't understand your beliefs well enough to explain or defend them. Sigh.


So I was polite and asked if you wanted to debate which I will now do, starting with your original post.

And now that I know you want to debate ...

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer


Uh, sarting with the title, there is no scientfic example of a theory of 'everything', and while a physictist may wish for such a thing , the GUT does not exist. And there is little evidence that any scientist is going to prove that everything is the same thing. Maybe a great wish, but not a valid thoery.

Even science - with her desire and efforts to find a theory of everything - agrees with the premise/title of this thread.
No it proves that some scientists suffer from mental monism, it doesn't prove anything. there may be a unifying field behind electrons but that doesn't mean that they are all the same electrons. At least not yet...

Given this, we see that existence is indivisibly singular. Ultimately, existence is of one source with a singular set of laws/order, governing the effects of this source's work/actions.

Given what, a philosphical idea, that doesn't prove that reality is any 'one' thing , it merely proves that you think that it is. Show your work man, just saying it is given doesn't make it so! I say that there are 10 to the seventieth power bosons out there, and that they are not all the same thing. No credit given for this point as you have not shown your work. You are assuming that existance is a singularity, you have not proved it.


Therefore, ultimately, it is impossible to disregard will as an aspect of any-thing which emanates from this singular-source. By reasonable default, a singular-source of effects must emanate from the will of that source.

Wee, I guess if you take there first premise that everything is one thing, then it still doesn't follow that there is any will behind it, this just seems to be a further assumption. Any proof?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It really means that everything is one ~thing~. The whole as singular.

Duh, no brainer except for all sorts of analogies that are contrary. So the universe is one big thing composed of an inestimable number of smaller parts. they could act with purpose or they could all behave randomly under set limits.

Existence is something definite. It's not just some vague abstraction. We know that Something is. There is tangible being. So please don't try to sweep the term under the rug.

Quite right, it is idealism and monism that try to sweep under the rug. But it would also appear that that something tangible is composed of a lot of different parts. So where is the singularity?


Also, these "things" you speak of are not real in objective existence. The perception of solid objects is reducible to subatomic particles that are not at definite points of space and time. Only the mind sees objects at definite points in space and time.

Ah, but they behave as though they have an objective existance, although they may disappear when there is no observer.

And the substance of physical objects is created by the fields created or associated with the particle. And no , you can never have an exact location, but you do have an area of probability associated with the particle. And when you zoom back to the macro level, it just doesn't matter. matter behaves as though it is there, and philosphicaly it may not exist, but scientificaly it does.


Even science seeks to reduce everything to one thing with one short set of equations. Rationally, science already accepts what I am basically saying here.

I disagree, science seeks to simplyfy approxiamations, if the approximation requires fiveteen objects then it will not reduce any further, at this point we need sets with considerably more than four memebers to the set.

maybe some scientists are suffering from momism as well. Not proved at all.


So, does anyone want to address the notion of a singular existence which possesses will?

You haven't poroved anything other than your belief in the singularity, but I do believe in free willy.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Do either of you two know how to partake of rational discussion?
Please explain, using reason, your assertions.

Then "the universe" must have will, by the same process of reason. For "the universe" is seen to be the source of her own actions/behaviour/order. Therefore, as the source, the universe has exhibited will in her actions, since there is no other agent involved.

Uh, no the burden is on you dear one, you are the one thatasserted that the universe has will, your theory, your need to prove.

Reason, reason, isn't that the same tool thats said men were right to be slaves , reason is just a tool and sometimes a very bad one.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by lifegazer
"Because there is no other agent or force involved. Once we reduce existence down to her singular nature - as the source
of ALL force/action - then the instigation of any action/force is shown to be a self-act

I'm with DanishD here, I agree with you here (as I understand you).

, by the essence of existence itself.

Hmmmm, I would really want to feel that out for a better explanation.

All we really know is that 'this is how "existence" behaves'. Where "existence" is 'the one thing that exists', or 'the universe', or whatever else you want to call it. To say it is a 'self-act by the essance of existence' uses language that loosely implies it was a conscious act. If you didn't mean that at all, and instead just meant what I was trying to describe, somethign like "it is how "existence" manifests or behaves or 'just is'.... then I'm still with you 100%.

Did you mean anything more than that?

And it is in this absoluteness of self-action where we see will exhibited. If will did not exist, then no action/force would be caused to occur since there is nothing else to make those actions/forces occur. They can only occur if the essence of existence wills them to do so."

Ok, again I'm with you to an extent. But only if 'will' used above is not equivalent to what we normally associate with human will, i.e. conscious intent. If 'will' now means just plainly means 'self-act', then of course I'm with you, by definition it must be true. There is only one being, so all happenings are 'self-acts'. This doesn't prove there was conscious intent of course. :)

It could be a sort of 'blind will' as schopenhauer describes.

So the word 'will' is now being used contrary to common usage. Which I'm fine with :)

But if you mean to use the common definition and imply that there must be conscious intent behind this 'will', then I would disagree.

As I mentioned, see schopenhauer's 'blind will' option.

Or lots of people would be just happy saying there is no underlying reason. That's just the way things are. The best we can do is describe how the universe has manifested so far and try to predict 'self-acts' using induction ;)

I can't really remember where this thread is going exactly, but what do you say to the above?

Adam

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Thankyou. Something to talk about.
All objects in space and time are effected to be there by forces which emanate from the aforementioned source.
It is the origin of these forces, from said source, which requires a will. For in the absence of another agent, those forces are self-driven. Therefore, a will was required to give life to them. Without a will, there is no cause for the existence of those forces.

causality requires will, hmm... interesting but no.

You just believe it to be true , you haven't shown any reason for it to be so, the universe could be part of a set of causal but totaly undetermined events.

Say for example that the Great Geometer walks aways from the Great Table for a while and the Great Baby knocks over the ink which cause a chain of events leading to our universe, causal but not determined.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Have you read my posts? This is not relevant to my argument.
I have not even spoken of a "will of the parts".

Have you read UpC's posts, they are not irrelevant, you dear one suffer from singular visison, we ask questions that are important to us.

Why don't you explain your views instead of just commiting the error of saying 'irrelevant' to you maybe but not to the rest of us.

Sometimes people disagree with my views, you ought to talk to Dull Dian, he uses similar arguments all the ime.

It is not irrelevant, the question is an easy one.

Why if some acts of the physical world appear to be random and chaotic would yo8u care to say thet there are act which are not. Could you explain which acts of the universe you feel require will.

Or should I say it twice and type more slowly for you?

[Fun2BFree]

He's gone---but the whole thing still breaks down over the "...and what will created the initial will" "what created the creator" nonsense that can never be logically addressed...as usual when one gets down to the core of "belief in God" what you have is simple "i don't know" ignorance...and as someone once said (I paraphrase)- "giving ignorance a name- God -does not turn ignorance into knowledge."

Faith = ignorance pretending to be reason

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Because there is no other agent or force involved.
(Thanks for giving me the context of your comment, btw)

First, let's summerize:

This was in response to the question "Why?" in response to your statement
All objects in space and time are effected to be there by forces which emanate from the aforementioned source. It is the origin of these forces, from said source, which requires a will.
The source mentioned was from this comment
Then "the universe" must have will, by the same process of reason. For "the universe" is seen to be the source of her own actions/behaviour/order. Therefore, as the source, the universe has exhibited will in her actions, since there is no other agent involved.And what was that reasoning?Existence is reducible to the singular.

Even science - with her desire and efforts to find a theory of everything - agrees with the premise/title of this thread.

Given this, we see that existence is indivisibly singular. Ultimately, existence is of one source with a singular set of laws/order, governing the effects of this source's work/actions.

Therefore, ultimately, it is impossible to disregard will as an aspect of any-thing which emanates from this singular-source. By reasonable default, a singular-source of effects must emanate from the will of that source.
Okay, now that other posters and I don't have to scramble back up the thread to understand all the references. Let's address the points of your argument. I will start by parsing the original basis of your argument.

Claim 1: Existence is reducible to the singluar.
Claim 2: Science agress with Claim 1 because of attempts to find a GUT
Conclusion 1: From Claim 1 & Claim 2, Existence is indivisibly singluar.
Claim 3: From Conclusion 1, existence is of one source with a singular set of laws/order, governing the effects of this source's work/actions.
Conclusion 2: From Claim 3, it is impossible to disregard will as an aspect of any-thing which emanates from this singular-source.
Conclusion 3: From Conclusion 2, a singular-source of effects must emanate from the will of that source.

Now, Claim 1 is the essense of your claim and ultimately that which you are trying to prove. In the end, for this not to be a circular argument, your arument must conclude Claim 1 without assuming that it is true.

Claim 2 is only conditionally true. There are scientists who are attempting to find a Grand Unified Theory (GUT), but have been thusfar unsuccessful, nor is anyone certain that they ever will be. However, it is possible. Further, Grand Unified Theory alone only depicts a single theory for the behavior of the universe, not that the universe is, itself a single entity. Remember, science also deals with multi-particle problems as well. We shouldn't focus only on those details that agree with your desired conclusion. We must also consider those that disagree as well.

Conclusion 1, then is based on Claim 1, which is what you are trying to prove, and Claim 2, which is not as sweepingly true as you presented it to be. For the purposes of avoiding a cirular arument, we must ignore Claim 1 as an acceptable assumption to build the rest of the argument on. Conclusion 1 then rests on Claim 2, which in turn, is dependent on the future success or failure of scientists to discover a GUT.

Also, Conclusion 1 also subtly introduces a new claim that existence is indivisibly singluar. This was not addressed by either of the supporting claims and, thus, is unsupported. As such, I cannot accept or refute this indivisibility until I know the basis of the claim.

Claim 3, which is based on a very shaky and not completely supported Conclusion 1, introduces a new aspect to the argument, that of the source of the singular set of laws/order (i.e. GUT). This claim does nothing towards justifies the existence of this source but merely posits its existence. I do not see any method of deciding whether this claim is true or false without more information on the either the source itself or how it was deduced.

Conclusion 2, despite its basis on the ambiguous Claim 3, is absolutly false. It is, indeed, possible to disregard will as an aspect of anything which emanates from this singular source. This is further shown by the fact that Claim 3 is ambiguous, making any conclusion based on it also ambiguous. But to the point, there are entire systems of thought that do not consider (1) there to be a source to the laws of physics and (2) a concious, or willful, source to the laws of physics. This conclusion would, perhaps, be better stated as a claim.

If however, we assume that Conclusion 2 was meant to read "will is an aspect of anything that eminates from this singular source", it is still unsupported by Claim 3 as the "singular source" of the laws of physics have neither shown to exist. Further, it is unclear how such a source must necessarily have will given the claims presented.

Conclusion 3 is self-evident if Conclusion 2 (or rather, the alternate version) is true. As Conclusion 2 is still undetermined, Conclusion 3 is also undetermined.

To go on:
Conclusion 4: By Conclusion 2 & Conclusion 3, "the universe" must have will.

As Conclusion 2 & Conclusion 3 are yet undetermined, unsupported, and/or undefined, Conclusion 4 is undetermined.

Claim 4: "the universe" is seen to be the source of her [sic] own actions/behaviour/order.

Based on my experience with physics, I agree with this statement and will conceed it as a given, although I take the pronoun "her" in the generic non-gender sense. (e.g. refering to a boat as "she")

Claim 5: there is no other agent involved [in the actions of the universe].

I agree with this statement to the best of my knowledge of the subject and will conceed it as a given.

Conclusion 5: By Conclusion 4, Claim 4 & Claim 5, the universe has exhibited will in her actions

Well, obviously, Conclusion 4 is still undetermined, making Conclusion 5 also undetermined. If Conclusion 4 is later determined to be true (and all the previous arguments leading up to Conclusion 4), I conceed that Conclusion 5 would also be true.

Claim 6: All objects in space and time are effected to be there by forces which emanate from the aforementioned source.

Claim 6 is dependent on Claim 3 and Claim 5. As Claim 3 is unsubstantiated, Claim 6 is also unsubstantiated.

Note: "It is the origin of these forces, from said source, which requires a will" is a restatement of Conclusion 4 from a different post. Likewise, "Because there is no other agent or force involved" is a restatement of Claim 5.
[b]Once we reduce existence down to her singular nature - as the source of ALL force/action - then the instigation of any action/force is shown to be a self-act, by the essence of existence itself.
Conclusion 6: By Conclusion 1, Claim 3 & Claim 5, the instigation of any force action is shown to be a self-act.

Conclusion 1 and Claim 3 are both ambiguous and unsupported making Conclusion 6 unsupported.

Note: "Absolutely so. And it is in this absoluteness of self-action where we see will exhibited" is simply reiterations of earlier arguments.
If will did not exist, then no action/force would be caused to occur since there is nothing else to make those actions/forces occur. They can only occur if the essence of existence wills them to do so."
Conclusion 7: By Conclusion 4, Claim 4, Claim 5 & Conclusion 5, If [universal] will did not exist, then no action/force would be cause to occur.

Again, Conclusion 4 & Conclusion 5 is undetermined, making Conclusion 7 also undetermined.

In summary, your entire argument hinges on whether (1) scientists can discover a grand unified theory and (2) that it can be applied in such a way that the entire universe can only be expressed as a single entity and not also expressed a collection of smaller entities.

Edited to add:
That's not true. There are several other unfounded and undeterminable assumptions that your argument is also based on that are unrleated to the GUT claim (Claim 2). My appologies.

*whew*
I expect that your points be relevant and factual. Neither is the case so far. I find that what people consider to be "relevant" and "factual" tends to vary wildly, especially when they hold a very tight grip on what they consider to be "The Truth".

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by slimshady2357
Ok, again I'm with you to an extent. But only if 'will' used above is not equivalent to what we normally associate with human will, i.e. conscious intent. If 'will' now means just plainly means 'self-act', then of course I'm with you, by definition it must be true. There is only one being, so all happenings are 'self-acts'. This doesn't prove there was conscious intent of course. :)

It could be a sort of 'blind will' as schopenhauer describes.

Hello.
By 'will', I imply deliberate mindful-intent associated with the knowledge that 'it' has the power to effect the proceeding changes.

An absolute self-act (a force by a primal-cause) cannot be caused by another agent or force. Indeed, there are no other agents or forces involved once we reduce existence to a singular whole.
Therefore, the reason for the existing forces is that the essence of existence (as a whole) caused them to happen.
Now, if you subtract 'will' from this process, there is no reason for the forces to occur. Is there? There is nothing to instigate change (via force), except will. This is why I think that will is exhibited in the existing forces.

If there is no reason for universal forces, then there would be no forces. They would not have come into existence. And as you agreed, there is no reason why these forces exist, except through 'it'. Subtract 'will' from the process, and you subtract reason from the process. Therefore, will is a requirement of an absolute self-act.
I hope this explains my reason for my position. Cheers.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite



Well, I guess that wraps up this thread. See you.
How can you close your mind to the notion of a concept (God) you cannot disprove, particularly when you cannot explain existence?
Being sincere in the quest for existential truth is a must. You only get one shot at it. Don't blow it with a closed mind.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
I presume you are aware that at its most fundamental level, the universe is acausal.

This statement says that existence is without cause = existence is eternal. I actually agree with this. However, this says nothing about the existence of forces emanating from this existence.
Without doubt, a force must proceed from an enforcer. A force is an effect - an action.
Therefore, without hesitation, I say that there was an origin of universal forces. A beginning.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

existence is without cause = existence is eternal.
How and external from what? Are you aware that he's refering to quantum fluctuations, which are an aspect of the laws of physics?
Without doubt, a force must proceed from an enforcer. A force is an effect - an action.Actually, motion is an effect. Force is the cause of the movement.

How familiar are you with physics?

[DanishDynamite]

lifegazer:How can you close your mind to the notion of a concept (God) you cannot disprove, particularly when you cannot explain existence?I can close my mind in the same way that I close my mind to the existence of invisible pink unicorns or Santa Claus. Here is how: "There is no evidence that they exist".

As far as "explaining existence", a fair number of scientific theories already exist. None of them require some sentient being with "will". However, as you hopefully know, theories must be tested in order that a determination can be made of which theory holds up to real-life scrutiny, and the experiments necessary to test current theories are currently beyond our means.
Being sincere in the quest for existential truth is a must. You only get one shot at it. Don't blow it with a closed mind.Likewise.
An absolute self-act (a force by a primal-cause) cannot be caused by another agent or force.No agent is necessary in QF.
Indeed, there are no other agents or forces involved once we reduce existence to a singular whole.See above, and remeber that the universe is fundamentally acasual.
Therefore, the reason for the existing forces is that the essence of existence (as a whole) caused them to happen. Indeed.
Now, if you subtract 'will' from this process, there is no reason for the forces to occur. Is there? There is nothing to instigate change (via force), except will. This is why I think that will is exhibited in the existing forces. There is no need for "will" when the universe is acasual. Do you understand what acausal means?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
But it would also appear that that something tangible is composed of a lot of different parts. So where is the singularity?

The state of this universe of 'things' emanates from the forces which exist, which themselves emanate from existence as a whole.
From reading your posts, you seem to infer that the whole is a product of its parts. This is incorrect. The parts are products of a singular whole. They exist, somehow, inside that singular whole.

[DanishDynamite]

lifegazer:This statement says that existence is without cause = existence is eternal. I actually agree with this.No. Existence is very much a property of this universe. And there is nothing "external" about it. It is simply acausal.
However, this says nothing about the existence of forces emanating from this existence.Not understood.
Without doubt, a force must proceed from an enforcer. A force is an effect - an action. No. As an example, witness beta decay. We can predict the average rate of decay, however we can say nothing of when exactly the next decay occurs because it is...acausal.
Therefore, without hesitation, I say that there was an origin of universal forces. A beginning. Indeed there was. See Big Bang.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

From reading your posts, you seem to infer that the whole is a product of its parts. This is incorrect. The parts are products of a singular whole. They exist, somehow, inside that singular whole. So, what you're saying is that there is a singular whole that contains parts that are not of it's make up? If this were true, then there are elements of existence that are not of the singular whole, thus there is that which exists that is not of the singular whole.

edited to add
and thus, the singular whole is not the whole of existence and existence is not reducible to the singular.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
How and external from what?

If existence is eternal, it becomes nonsensical to ask "how?" or "from what?". Think about it.

Are you aware that he's refering to quantum fluctuations, which are an aspect of the laws of physics?

To state that the actions of particles are acausal because we do not understand the cause nor source of their actions, is nonsense.

Actually, motion is an effect. Force is the cause of the movement.

Force is not the absolute cause of movement. A force must proceed from an enforcer.

How familiar are you with physics?
How familiar are physicists to reason? Forces are effects, ultimately. All of them.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If existence is eternal, it becomes nonsensical to ask "how?" or "from what?". Think about it. My appologies. I misread what you wrote.
To state that the actions of particles are acausal because we do not understand the cause nor source of their actions, is nonsense. No one said we didn't understand the situation. We do. It just happens to be acausal. To credit actions to something when we clearly know that it is something else is also nonsense.
How familiar are physicists to reason? Now really. Weren't you just complaining about how boring smartasses are? Please keep it civil.

Oh, and don't forget my response at the top of the page.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
lifegazer:I can close my mind in the same way that I close my mind to the existence of invisible pink unicorns or Santa Claus. Here is how: "There is no evidence that they exist".

Then you are deluded. For the concept of 'God' is one which reason has flirted with for thousands of years. There are countless intelligent philosophers associated with many intelligent reasoned-arguments associated with the concept of 'God'. Yet in the whole history of philosophy, you will not find one intelligent and reasoned-argument for the existence of santa or unicorns. Simply because reason cannot formulate such an argument. Yet in the case of 'God', reason can and does, as I have here for example.
Your response does not justify a closed-mind to God. Not rationally.

As far as "explaining existence", a fair number of scientific theories already exist.

That explain the whole of existence?! Spill the beans then.

There is no need for "will" when the universe is acasual. Do you understand what acausal means?
Yes. It's a cop-out phrase which exempts science from facing the music.

[jj]

Originally posted by lifegazer

How can you close your mind to the notion of a concept (God) you cannot disprove, particularly when you cannot explain existence?

How can you close your mind to the idea that there is green cheese on the moon, when we have not searched the whole moon, including sub-surface parts, and thus can not disprove the idea?

Sorry, the two questions are logically equal, and both are absurd, presumptive, and insulting. Was it your intent to be offensive and insulting?

I haven't closed my mind to the idea, there is simply NO EVIDENCE to conclude that there is any need whatsoever to introduce a concept such as god. Until there is a need, I am not introducing the concept.

Being sincere in the quest for existential truth is a must. You only get one shot at it. Don't blow it with a closed mind.

I have an open mind, I just haven't any evidence. That applies, in my experience, to most everyone here.

Why did you make another insulting, offensive statement based on suborned logic, and without evidence.

Show me god, I'll accept the idea. Until you DO show me god, I'm not going to presume any need for the idea. Bear in mind that "show" means "testable, verifiable, repeatable, confirmable".

Please either do so, or stop ranting about which of use has closed their mind.

[DanishDynamite]

lifegazer:To state that the actions of particles are acausal because we do not understand the cause nor source of their actions, is nonsense. Wrong on so many levels. The fact is that there are "no hidden variables", as has been demonstrated. No Hidden Variables. Do you understand? There can be no causal factors behind the randomness we observe in QF. QF is acausal.
Force is not the absolute cause of movement. A force must proceed from an enforcer. No. Some initial "enforcements" are not themselves caused by an enforcer. See acausal.
How familiar are physicists to reason? Forces are effects, ultimately. All of them. Physicists are extremely familiar with reason. Witness the microchip (based on QM) in your computer.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by lifegazer

How can you close your mind to the notion of a concept (God) you cannot disprove, particularly when you cannot explain existence?
Being sincere in the quest for existential truth is a must. You only get one shot at it. Don't blow it with a closed mind.

Here's how. In order for me to go along with this position of yours, I'm going to have to accept a literal infinity of other concepts I can't disprove. So: please disprove the existence of Great Zeus, whose lightning will strike down the insolent, Mighty Cthulhu sleeping in R'lyeh, Superawesome Unicornface who hovers above our heads, Generic Godconcept #34,761 who's just like those other gods but slightly different, et cetera, etc cetera. If you have evidence you'd like to share other than some community college dormroom clambake philosophy that attributes consciousness and will to an Universe in which it is unnecessary, please do so. Until then, you're repeating the same belabored points that I hear every time Phish comes to town.

With what does this universal consciousness think? How does it communicate? Where did you derive this information? Is a conscious Universe somehow fundamentally different from a mindless one? If so, what is that difference? If not, what's the point?

Start asking yourself these questions before expecting us not to.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by jj
How can you close your mind to the idea that there is green cheese on the moon, when we have not searched the whole moon, including sub-surface parts, and thus can not disprove the idea?

Because there is no reason to consider the notion. My previous post to the Danish guy expressed the distinction which exists between God and pixies, santas... and green cheese on the moon.
The bulk of philosophy, arguably, has been centred around the concept of God. There's a mountain of reason for accepting that concept as a credible existing entity. I find these remarks about santas and the like to be way off-target and philosophically naive.

Sorry, the two questions are logically equal, and both are absurd, presumptive, and insulting. Was it your intent to be offensive and insulting?

Only if you repeat the same nonsensical argument.

I haven't closed my mind to the idea, there is simply NO EVIDENCE to conclude that there is any need whatsoever to introduce a concept such as god. Until there is a need, I am not introducing the concept.

Brush 3000 years of divine philosophy under the rug and claim that no evidence exists. Interesting. How about addressing the reason of my own arguments, here? Gonna brush these under the rug too?

Bear in mind that "show" means "testable, verifiable, repeatable, confirmable".

Consider this an insult at your leisure: to demand observable proof of an absolute-God is philosophical stupidity.

Please either do so, or stop ranting about which of use has closed their mind.
Please, stick to cussing christians. There's no room for your brand of reasoning here.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

How about addressing the reason of my own arguments, here? Gonna brush these under the rug too? *cough* (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29956&pagenumber=2)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The fact is that there are "no hidden variables", as has been demonstrated. No Hidden Variables. Do you understand? There can be no causal factors behind the randomness we observe in QF. QF is acausal.

Do you think that because quanta exhibit freedom/independence from law/force, that this means quanta are acausal? Then you are mistaken. For at the very least, we can state that quanta are their own cause, ultimately, and are thus related to existence as a whole.
Existence as a whole is its own cause of all proceeding effects.
Nothing which exists - except existence as a whole - can be said to be acausal.
I do not profess to know the manner in which existence imposes behavioural order upon our awareness. What I do know, is that every-thing is its cause... and to suggest that some things are acausal is nonsensical. Only it is acausal.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
*cough* (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29956&pagenumber=2)
Sigh. I must confess that the length of that post put me off. Not the content. But if it's important to you and relevant counters begin to dry-up, I'll take another look at it tomorrow or wednesday.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

But if it's important to you I have little ego invested in counter-argument personally. What is important to me is that no argument go unchallenged, especially one I consider to be groundless as I consider your's to be.

If you want to discuss this, fine. Let's discuss it. I'll match you point for point. Don't batch to me that I'm being closed-minded, just don't get it, or not addressing the argument. You've made the claim, its your responsibility to convince me. As counter-point, it is my responsibility to point out the holes in your reasoning and flaws in your facts. If you make a point that I agree with or can not argue against, I'll conceed the point as I have done above. I expect you to do the same.

So, are we going to knock off this "How familiar are physicists to reason?" BS and get down to the argument or what?

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Hello.
By 'will', I imply deliberate mindful-intent associated with the knowledge that 'it' has the power to effect the proceeding changes.


Then I most definitely disagree that this must be the case once we have accepted that 'everything' can be seen as 'one whole'.

I find it interesting that you want to say the individual parts are not the whole, and in fact you have said they have no real 'will' themselves, yet you insist on putting human traits into the very essence of 'the whole'.

How many other human traits are part of 'the whole'? Does 'the whole' live and die? Does 'the whole' need to eat and sleep?

How do you decide which attribtes 'the whole' has that are not detectable and which ones it doesn't?

An absolute self-act (a force by a primal-cause) cannot be caused by another agent or force. Indeed, there are no other agents or forces involved once we reduce existence to a singular whole.

Indeed, there are no such things as an agent either. Or rather you have certainly not shown there are any :)

Therefore, the reason for the existing forces is that the essence of existence (as a whole) caused them to happen.

Once again, I would disagree with your language. It has an "agent" implied where none has been shown to exist.

Now, if you subtract 'will' from this process, there is no reason for the forces to occur. Is there? There is nothing to instigate change (via force), except will. This is why I think that will is exhibited in the existing forces.

It needn't be will. The explanation that 'that is just the way things are' is acceptable also.

And I noticed you totally dodged the idea of a 'blind will' as Schopenhauer suggests.

If there is no reason for universal forces, then there would be no forces.

Why do you believe this? Can you please demonstrate the proof of this?

They would not have come into existence. And as you agreed, there is no reason why these forces exist, except through 'it'.

I did not say that at all. They do not exist 'through' "it". They exist as part of "it". Still no consciousness showing up though :)

Subtract 'will' from the process, and you subtract reason from the process. Therefore, will is a requirement of an absolute self-act.
I hope this explains my reason for my position. Cheers.

Sort of, it shows that you think there must be a reason for the universe. I don't see that that is a requirement :)

Nor do I see that you have shown 'conscious will' must be that reason anyway :)

So far, you have merely stated it as such.

Have you read Schopenhauer?

Adam

[jj]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Because there is no reason to consider the notion. My previous post to the Danish guy expressed the distinction which exists between God and pixies, santas... and green cheese on the moon.

There is EXACTLY as much evidence for god as there is for a package of green cheese hidden at the core of the moon.

Exactly. No more, no less.

The bulk of philosophy, arguably, has been centred around the concept of God.


Philosophy isn't evidence.

Now either produce EVIDENCE or stop acting like you have any.

So, di you know "interesting ian"? He also insults people when they won't accept his suborned logic as trvth.


There's a mountain of reason for accepting that concept as a credible existing entity. I find these remarks about santas and the like to be way off-target and philosophically naive.

You don't have the luxury to "find ..." unless you claim to be God yourself. Do you?

If you don't, you have to accept that all the philosophy and all the sophistry in the world doesn't replace solid, good, hard evidence.

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE?

If you don't, stop acting like you do.


Only if you repeat the same nonsensical argument.

I could say the same of you.

Again, all the sophistry and (now, quite obviously) dishoenst, ill-intended insult on your part DOES NOT REPLACE THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE. GOT ANY?

Brush 3000 years of divine philosophy under the rug and claim that no evidence exists.

Philosophy isn't evidence, as you've shown yourself by deigning to mention the green-cheese argument. You can think about it, but that doesn't prove a single, solitary thing.

GOT ANY EVIDENCE?

Interesting. How about addressing the reason of my own arguments, here? Gonna brush these under the rug too?

DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE?

Consider this an insult at your leisure: to demand observable proof of an absolute-God is philosophical stupidity.

I am demanding exactly that, since you're demanding that I accept that a god exists. UNTIL YOU CAN PRODUCE EVIDENCE, I don't accept your apparently baseless assertion.

Either PRODUCE EVIDENCE or admit that you haven't any, and that all you have is empty, meaningless thoughts.

Please, stick to cussing christians. There's no room for your brand of reasoning here.
I require you to retract your implication that my "reasoning" is in any way flawed.

You have ignored one basic fact in this matter, PHILOSOPHY IS NOT EVIDENCE. I can dream about the great banana in the sky, that doesn't mean it exists. I can create a philosophical system where in the sun goes around the earth, but the earth keeps circling the sun, etc, etc.

Philosophy can prove NOTHING without good, hard evidence.

So, unless you have GOOD HARD EVIDENCE stop acting like you have it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by slimshady2357
I find it interesting that you want to say the individual parts are not the whole, and in fact you have said they have no real 'will' themselves, yet you insist on putting human traits into the very essence of 'the whole'.

Which human traits? I've already stated that only existence as a whole possesses absolute will. The definition of will or intent does not spring from humanity, but from absolute causality. Will, as an existing concept, does not need humanity.

How many other human traits are part of 'the whole'? Does 'the whole' live and die? Does 'the whole' need to eat and sleep?

You're being silly now.
I attribute will to the whole because it is responsible for the forces proceeding from it. This anthropomorphic nonsense is just a boring waste of space. Bad philosophy.

Indeed, there are no such things as an agent either. Or rather you have certainly not shown there are any :)

Existence is. Case closed. Proof presented of an existing agent. Or do you want to argue that there is no existence whatsoever?

It needn't be will. The explanation that 'that is just the way things are' is acceptable also.

Not to reason it isn't. In fact to reason, that's absolute nonsense.

And I noticed you totally dodged the idea of a 'blind will' as Schopenhauer suggests.

Since will = intent, I find the notion of blind-will to be absurd. Blind-will equates to unknowing intent. How can I, for example, intend to do something unknowingly?!

"If there is no reason for universal forces, then there would be no forces."

Why do you believe this? Can you please demonstrate the proof of this?

Forces are effects. Actions of an enforcing agent. If that agent does not will these forces to exist and there is an absence (as there is) of any other reason for them to exist, then they would not come to exist. A force (being an effect) is not its own cause.

Nor do I see that you have shown 'conscious will' must be that reason anyway :)

So far, you have merely stated it as such.

I have given sound reasons, not assertions. You counter that will (intent) can be blind - which I think is nonsense. Your other counter is that "that's the way things are". Hardly worth the effort of a response.

Have you read Schopenhauer?

Not much. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he propose that everything was a consequence of will, also?

[Fun2BFree]

...and again what "will" created the initiator? Every answer begs the question...It is not an answer...If you are satisfied that there can exist something primal that can be without a will then you need go no further than accepting a Universe with those properties--a Universe which at least has some evidence supporting it's existence--- and therefore as for the notion of "god" "I have no need for that hypothesis." (nor your silly version of the same silly arguments over and over unfounded and without logic or reason to support them as has been amply demonstrated by manyh on this thread.)

[jj]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Which human traits? I've already stated that only existence as a whole possesses absolute will.

Indeed, and I can state that the sun is made of Vermont Maple Syrup. And, just as my saying that won't make it so, your saying that existance as a whole possesses absolute will won't make that so.

You cay "state" anything, as can I or any other man, but they most certainly aren't coming when you call, Caliban...

The definition of will or intent does not spring from humanity, but from absolute causality. Will, as an existing concept, does not need humanity.

So you have "stated". Where's your evidence?

Existence is. Case closed. Proof presented of an existing agent. Or do you want to argue that there is no existence whatsoever?

Prove that we're not all the products of ultimate insane solipcism of your own mind. PROVE that.

Sorry, case not closed. You've an element of faith, conclusion, or belief, right there. Perhaps you should go over this with hammegk.

Since will = intent, I find the notion of blind-will to be absurd.

And I find that since the sun is made of maple syrup, I will pour it over my griddle cakes tomorrow morning, but that ain't a-gonna happen, either.

You can "find" and "state" anything you can imagine, but all the "finding" and "stating" in the world means nothing, without evidence.

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

Forces are effects. Actions of an enforcing agent. If that agent does not will these forces to exist and there is an absence (as there is) of any other reason for them to exist, then they would not come to exist. A force (being an effect) is not its own cause.


Sorry, that's circular, you presume that a force is not its own cause, therefore you conclude it's not.

Your arguments are absurd.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Which human traits? I've already stated that only existence as a whole possesses absolute will. The definition of will or intent does not spring from humanity, but from absolute causality. Will, as an existing concept, does not need humanity.

Will, as an existing concept comes from humanity. And the definition of will does not spring from causality, only YOUR definition of will does that.

You're being silly now.

There is no need for this, if you continue with this kind of posting I will no longer communicate with you.

I attribute will to the whole because it is responsible for the forces proceeding from it. This anthropomorphic nonsense is just a boring waste of space. Bad philosophy.

The anthropomorphic nonsense was started by you. You are giving a human attribute, consciousness, to the universe as a whole. Therefore, the bad philosophy is yours.

Existence is. Case closed. Proof presented of an existing agent. Or do you want to argue that there is no existence whatsoever?

No, I would argue against you saying that existence must indicate an agent, where 'agent' represents a conscious entity.

Not to reason it isn't. In fact to reason, that's absolute nonsense.

That is nonsese.

Since will = intent, I find the notion of blind-will to be absurd. Blind-will equates to unknowing intent. How can I, for example, intend to do something unknowingly?!

Read Schopenhauer for a good explanation of what he means by 'blind will'.

Forces are effects.

Forces are effect? No, what we call forces bring about what we call effects.

Actions of an enforcing agent.

Again, you merely state this, but this what you must prove.

If that agent does not will these forces to exist and there is an absence (as there is) of any other reason for them to exist, then they would not come to exist. A force (being an effect) is not its own cause.

Yet, you believe that the agent's will is it's own cause. Why not a force without a cause? What is the cause of the agent's will?

I have given sound reasons, not assertions. You counter that will (intent) can be blind - which I think is nonsense. Your other counter is that "that's the way things are". Hardly worth the effort of a response.

Well if that is your attitude, there really isn't much point of discussion. Such bald assertions are not worth discusssing with someone with such a closed mind. :)

Not much. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he propose that everything was a consequence of will, also?

Yes, as I've told you a number of times now, 'blind will'.

But, as I said, given your attitude it hardly seems worth tying to have a discussion with you.

Cheers,

Adam

[Yahweh]

... Looks like I missed an awful lot of discussion...

I'll make a few replies to some thing worth noting (I havent read all the posts in the thread, mind me if I say something that's already been said)...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The state of this universe of 'things' emanates from the forces which exist,

Unless I dont understand your concept of "force", that is not the definition of "force" nor a description of what they do.

which themselves emanate from existence as a whole.

"Forces" do not emanate.

From reading your posts, you seem to infer that the whole is a product of its parts. This is incorrect. The parts are products of a singular whole. They exist, somehow, inside that singular whole.
Gah... ???

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If you just close the door to the notion of God's existence then the discussion is indeed over.
That flight was grounded due to rowdy passengers. My patience has wore thin with experience.

Come now, are you sure you didn't run out of feul, some of us tried to not heckle the pilot.

[Dancing David]

Lifegazer:

You are engaing in Dull Dian errrors left and right the greatest of your errors is the

fallacy of relevence: there are many points that you don't address because you claim them to be irrelevant. How childish and rude.

I have not attacked your god argument on the basis that you have not a whit of scientific proof for the being. Yet you insist on ignoring all sorts of relevant points.

There is a stage in maturation where an individual realizes that other individual have very valid reasons for having seperate beliefs, I wonder if you have learned that level of respect.

You have not proved the universe as singularity for one.

there are at least three forces that act in the universe , and they are not singular, at least from the current observations.


But the main meat:

The fact/non-fact that the universe was created/not created does not imply causality at all!

Again the Great Geometer may have been at the Drawing Board of Wonders when they had to make a Mighty Piss. Being between creations they went to the Great Urinal in the Sky, and whilst relieving themselves of the excess nutrinos, it happened that the Cosmic Cat did decide to rub itself upon the Mystic Inkpot, which did spill and cause a Great Blot to appear upon the Ledger of Things. This Blot is the Universe in which we find ourselves.

So see we can have intent of the Great Geometer to create, but perhaps that intent is not the cause of the Universe.

I suppose that you can counter this philospohical demonstration?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
--------------------------------------------------
I find it interesting that you want to say the individual parts are not the whole, and in fact you have said they have no real 'will' themselves, yet you insist on putting human traits into the very essence of 'the whole'.
--------------------------------------------------
Which human traits?

You are trying to superimpose the quality of "conscious will" into the concept of existence, this is a common logical fallacy. You are trying to treat something conceptual as something which exists concretely, its the same as a person claiming that there is no such thing as "evil" because you cant see or measure it.

The concept of evil is attached to various acts, the concept of existence is attached to things which are real in objective reality.

I've already stated that only existence as a whole possesses absolute will.

"Will" is yet another abstract concept which is attached to concrete things. Its quite difficult to attach abstract concepts to abstract concepts (one example is "A good idea", "good" is an abstract qualitive/characteristic concept used to describe "idea" which only exists as a conceptual noun... I was trying to avoid word redundancies...). Unfortunately, "will" (as something used to describe an aspect of conscious congition) cannot be a characteristic of "existance" anymore than "red" can be characteristic of "morality".

The definition of will or intent does not spring from humanity, but from absolute causality. Will, as an existing concept, does not need humanity.

Concepts dont exist objectively.

You're being silly now.
I attribute will to the whole because it is responsible for the forces proceeding from it. This anthropomorphic nonsense is just a boring waste of space. Bad philosophy.

He was actually extending your own Philosophy to demonstrate a few of its inherent flaws.

Existence is. Case closed. Proof presented of an existing agent. Or do you want to argue that there is no existence whatsoever?

I dont doubt that things exist, however that wouldnt satisfy a Nihilist...

Since will = intent, I find the notion of blind-will to be absurd. Blind-will equates to unknowing intent. How can I, for example, intend to do something unknowingly?!

I cant think of an example of "blind will", but I do happen to know of occurrence of unintended consequences.

Forces are effects. Actions of an enforcing agent.

Aristotelean logic has been long forgotten.

If that agent does not will these forces to exist and there is an absence (as there is) of any other reason for them to exist, then they would not come to exist.

Circular logic. If things need to willed into existence, then things that do not exist cannot will themselves into existence. And in that case, your description of existence is inconsistant.

[Fun2BFree]

...and again what "will" created the initiator? Every answer you give begs the question...and in answering please recall your own words-

" force (being an effect) is not its own cause."

Answer please--or better yet-try accepting the fallacy inherent in your argument --a very old one actually (First Cause) that was discarded by philosophers a long time ago as inadequate...it is the old chestnut--every effect must have a cause so there must be a first cause--but it is a useless and illogical exercise because it can only proceed with an infinite stream of "what caused that cause?...and the one before that...etc..?"

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
but it is a useless and illogical exercise because it can only proceed with an infinite stream of "what caused that cause?...and the one before that...etc..?" Young man, it's elephants all the way down.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Young man, it's elephants all the way down.
Heretic! It's turtles!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dragon

Heretic! It's turtles! Thaaaat's right.

The world rests on the back of four (white?) elephants, which stand on the back of a giant turtle.

What does the turtle stand on?

Another turtle.

What does that turtle stand on?

Young man, it's turtles all the way down.



Still, turtles or elephants, the argument is still the same.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
...and again what "will" created the initiator? Every answer begs the question...

Keep up with the conversation. Read the posts if you want to contribute: "If existence is eternal, it becomes nonsensical to ask "how?" or "from what?". Think about it.".
Yes, think about it and don't repeat duff questions.

The rest of your post was unintelligable.

[sackett]

Mr. LifeSquinter is just presenting the old primum mobile argument once again: something started the universe going, and that had to be God. If you find objections to this proposition, recall the famous bit of dialogue from Ring Lardner's "The Young Immigrunts":

"Are you lost, Daddy?" I asked tenderly.
"Shut up," he explained.

Sorry stuff. If God is no more than a prime mover, then he's of no earthly use. MY God has a personality! He lives on a mountaintop in the Near East! You know He's home when it thunders! He likes dead sheep, goats, pigeons, and sometimes humans! And He's standing right behind you!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by slimshady2357
Will, as an existing concept comes from humanity. And the definition of will does not spring from causality, only YOUR definition of will does that.

You cannot even prove that humanity possesses a will of its own. Your argument is null & void. Do you understand?
Will is a concept, the definition of which reflects the causal authority of a specific agent in regards to proceeding events. It has nothing to do with humanity.
I'm sorry, but this is the last time I'm going to explain this to you.

If you or anybody else in here stubbornly persists to claim that 'will' is a concept invented because mankind possesses it and that it doesn't apply to other causal agents, then I give up. I'm looking for a higher quality of conversation and will waste no more of my time on this matter unless you have something sensible to say about it.

There is no need for this, if you continue with this kind of posting I will no longer communicate with you.

No. There is a need for that, for I will no longer communicate with you unless you can raise your game. This anthropodoodah stuff stops here. For me anyway. It's unfounded nonsense. When you cannot even prove that man possesses a will of his own you certainly cannot derail my argument via such methods. Period.

Read Schopenhauer for a good explanation of what he means by 'blind will'.

You cited the argument. You explain it. Explain to this forum how an agent can possess an unknown (blind) intent (will).

Forces are effect? No, what we call forces bring about what we call effects.

"We"? Your gang, or science?
Well I'm sorry Adam, but this does not suffice as a rational response. A force requires an enforcer. Therefore, forces are effects of an enforcing agent. Simple logic. I won't repeat what I've already explained. I expect reason to counter what I've said. Not propoganda.

Yet, you believe that the agent's will is it's own cause. Why not a force without a cause? What is the cause of the agent's will?

A primal-cause is eternal and has the eternal attribute of will. Causal questions about a primal-cause or any of its attributes are philosophically naive.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You cannot even prove that humanity possesses a will of its own. Your argument is null & void. Do you understand?
Will is a concept, the definition of which reflects the causal authority of a specific agent in regards to proceeding events. It has nothing to do with humanity.For that matter, can you prove that anything possesses a will of its own?

You claimA force requires an enforcer. Therefore, forces are effects of an enforcing agent.And thus the enforces (the singular whole) has will, but can you prove it?

It's unfounded nonsense.As are your own arguments as I have outlined above.
A primal-cause is eternal and has the eternal attribute of will. Causal questions about a primal-cause or any of its attributes are philosophically naive. Again, more unfounded conjecture when you cannot prove the claim or back it with reason.

Be careful about pointing fingers, lifegazer. Even grade school children know that, even if they are philosophically naive.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You cannot even prove that humanity possesses a will of its own. Your argument is null & void. Do you understand?
Will is a concept, the definition of which reflects the causal authority of a specific agent in regards to proceeding events. It has nothing to do with humanity.
I'm sorry, but this is the last time I'm going to explain this to you.

If you or anybody else in here stubbornly persists to claim that 'will' is a concept invented because mankind possesses it and that it doesn't apply to other causal agents, then I give up. I'm looking for a higher quality of conversation and will waste no more of my time on this matter unless you have something sensible to say about it.

No. There is a need for that, for I will no longer communicate with you unless you can raise your game. This anthropodoodah stuff stops here. For me anyway. It's unfounded nonsense. When you cannot even prove that man possesses a will of his own you certainly cannot derail my argument via such methods. Period.

You cited the argument. You explain it. Explain to this forum how an agent can possess an unknown (blind) intent (will).

"We"? Your gang, or science?
Well I'm sorry Adam, but this does not suffice as a rational response. A force requires an enforcer. Therefore, forces are effects of an enforcing agent. Simple logic. I won't repeat what I've already explained. I expect reason to counter what I've said. Not propoganda.

A primal-cause is eternal and has the eternal attribute of will. Causal questions about a primal-cause or any of its attributes are philosophically naive.

Apologies to everyone else, I didn't realize this person was such a troll, you won't see me discussing with this person beyond this post.

lifegazer,

Since you are obviously not interested in discussion, but rather perfer to dodge questions and baldly assert anything you choose, I see no reason to further discuss anything with you. You are one of the poorest people at actually doing philosophy I have ever seen.

At least most people give it an honest try.

Please do leave for better conversation elsewhere, because what you're offering here is pathetic.

Respond as you wish, I'm done with you.

Cheers,

Adam

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Keep up with the conversation. Read the posts if you want to contribute: "If existence is eternal, it becomes nonsensical to ask "how?" or "from what?". Think about it.".
Yes, think about it and don't repeat duff questions.

The rest of your post was unintelligable.

Unintelligible--that is such a nice way of you saying that YOU did not understand it. I was pointing out that your argument is old (that means it has been around a long time) and that philosophers have discarded it as any kind of "proof" -- how surprising..what a charming way you have of discussing things....you have convinced not one person on this thread of anything beyond the fact that you are rude and respond to criticism petulantly without thoughfulness or deliberation---if you just want to snip at people it does nothing but reflect both your weakness as well as the weakness of your arguments.

the question that seems to be beyond your ability to understand is how does your reasoning lead you to believe in God as the Eternal Original Source? Substitute the word universe for the God which you claim is the first singularity--"if the universe is eternal it becomes nonsensical to ask 'how?' or 'from what?'"

Exactly ---it is NONSENSICAL--the notion of God is NONSENSE. Your entire argument is NONSENSE.

Most skeptics are much more comfortable with the idea of an eternal Universe which we can see exists than they are with making the unnecessary and unenlightening and ultimately useless leap to unproven notions such as God...

[jj]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You cannot even prove that humanity possesses a will of its own. Your argument is null & void.

Whoa, here, you are the one who's making assertions. You're the one assuming the burden of proof.

Either produce evidence for your god, evidence that anyone with the necessary equipment can examine, or admit that you have NO EVIDENCE!

Do you understand?

Show us some evidence.

A primal-cause is eternal and has the eternal attribute of will.

Prove it, instead of showering us with a bunch of "philosopy". Philosopy proves nothing, evidence is proof. Produce some evidence OR STOP IT!

Causal questions about a primal-cause or any of its attributes are philosophically naive.
In other words, you insist on circularity.

[lifegazer]

Adam, I made a complete mug of you with: "You cannot even prove that humanity possesses a will of its own. Your argument is null & void. Do you understand?"

Stick to kindergarten philosophy Adam. Cheerio.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Adam, I made a complete mug of you with: {snip}

Stick to kindergarten philosophy Adam. Cheerio. You are a hypocrite and a troll.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Adam, I made a complete mug of you with: "You cannot even prove that humanity possesses a will of its own. Your argument is null & void. Do you understand?"

Stick to kindergarten philosophy Adam. Cheerio. I liked you a lot better as the goofy captain on Dumbass Airlines.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
You are a hypocrite and a troll.
Whatever. I have taken a constant barrage of abuse since I arrived here, including a warning from you that if I couldn't take a few digs that I wouldn't last long. How ironic that you should attack me for having the temerity to resist such ********. And how pathetic too.
The standards are very low here and I am becoming weary once again.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Whatever. I have taken a constant barrage of abuse since I arrived here, including a warning from you that if I couldn't take a few digs that I wouldn't last long. How ironic that you should attack me for having the temerity to resist such ********. And how pathetic too.
There is a difference between a little razing and the intellectual dishonesty you've displayed here. I tried to engage your argument directly and you opted instead to resort to strawmen and personal attacks. Actually, you started the personal attacks pretty much from the start of the thread, but I digress.
The standards are very low here and I am becoming weary once again. If the standards are low, it is from your inability to address the actual argument and your fixation on puffing yourself up.

Please, by all means, get "weary" of us and run away rather than engage in actual discussion.

edited to add

Might I recomend this site (http://www.raptureready.com/) as an alternative? I've been led to believe that they engage in discussion, logic, and reason in much the same fashion as you do.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

...
The standards are very low here and I am becoming weary once again. You are too much to resist. Please don't leave! You are so damn respectable that I simply must collect more of those golden nuggets you crap out into our brains. Yummy! We'll try to raise ourselves to your level of discourse. I promise not to call you goofy, too much.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
If the standards are low, it is from your inability to address the actual argument and your fixation on puffing yourself up.

Please, by all means, get "weary" of us and run away rather than engage in actual discussion.
My argument is clear and simple. Reasons have been presented for my conclusions. The only reasons you have lost sight of this is because of the recently-highlighted nonsense about anthropomorphism... and providing [photographic] evidence of God. Then there was the questions asking what caused a primal-cause. Sigh. Oh, and Adam suggested the notion of unknown intent.
I have to wade through this nonsense, suffering abuse at every corner. And then you have the nerve to complain when I resist this mass abuse. But the biggest laugh is that the aforementioned counters are cited as the reasons why my argument is unfounded.
Hence the weariness.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

My argument is clear and simple.And unfounded, as per my analysis on the previous page. So what? Anyone can present unfounded, hypothetical theories.
Reasons have been presented for my conclusions.True. Very poor reasons, but reasons nonetheless.
The only reasons you have lost sight of this is because of the recently-highlighted nonsense about anthropomorphism... and providing [photographic] evidence of God.My goodness, you are having a hard time keeping up, aren't you? I abandoned the athropomorphic argument after you corrected me about your claim and I have never asked you for evidence of God. I have worked within the bounds of your argument and still showed it to be unfounded. Please try re-reading the thread if you are still confused.
Then there was the questions asking what caused a primal-cause.Which you merely dismiss with personal attacks rather than adressing the argument as you complain we do. Again, I call you a hypocrite.
I have to wade through this nonsense, suffering abuse at every corner.As I have waded through your nonsense and abuse. So what? Suck it up and defend your argument. Quit being such a baby.
And then you have the nerve to complain when I resist this mass abuse.Actually, I'm mostly complaining about your dishonesty. Your whining about all this "mass abuse" (which is mostly reactionary to your abismal behavior) is more annoying than anything else.
But the biggest laugh is that the aforementioned counters are cited as the reasons why my argument is unfounded.
Hence the weariness. And yet you fail to address them in favor of being the martyr.

Poor little, lifegazer. Shall we weep for your pain and suffering?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Dancing David
[/B]Lifegazer:

But the main meat:

The fact/non-fact that the universe was created/not created does not imply causality at all!

Again the Great Geometer may have been at the Drawing Board of Wonders when they had to make a Mighty Piss. Being between creations they went to the Great Urinal in the Sky, and whilst relieving themselves of the excess nutrinos, it happened that the Cosmic Cat did decide to rub itself upon the Mystic Inkpot, which did spill and cause a Great Blot to appear upon the Ledger of Things. This Blot is the Universe in which we find ourselves.

So see we can have intent of the Great Geometer to create, but perhaps that intent is not the cause of the Universe.

I suppose that you can counter this philospohical demonstration? [/B]

Well can you?

[jj]

Originally posted by lifegazer

My argument is clear and simple.

Your statements are confusing, obfuscated, and ambiguous.

Please don't tell falsehoods.

Reasons have been presented for my conclusions.

You can "state" anything you want, but those aren't reasons, those are unjustified hypotheses that you base suborned logical arguments upon.

Ergo, you have demonstrated neither 'reasons' or, properly speaking, 'reason'.

Hence the weariness.
Before you leave it would be good of you to acknowledge that you have been utterly debunked, shellacked in both philosophical and factual matters, and in general exhibited as a thin-skinned lightweight.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Adam, I made a complete mug of you with: "You cannot even prove that humanity possesses a will of its own. Your argument is null & void. Do you understand?"

First, Your objection is of an Arguement from Ignorance.

Second, humanity does possess a will of its own... in fact its demonstratably true. What did you do today? That question alone can lead you to consciously remember events throughout the day, and I'm willing to bet everything you did today was at your own accord (unless you claim to be a p_zombie). There you go, humanity has free will in a nutshell.

[jj]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Whatever. I have taken a constant barrage of abuse since I arrived here,

Unless you included having your inconsistent, non-evidentary philosophy ridiculed for a total lack of evidence, you haven't been handed much abuse. Yet.

including a warning from you that if I couldn't take a few digs that I wouldn't last long.

People have been stunningly patient with you, so far. If you think that somebody has dug into you, as opposed to your ridiculous, unsupported, unjustified, sometimes circular arguments, you really have a thin grasp of the difference between ad-argumentum and ad-hominem.

How ironic that you should attack me for having the temerity to resist such ********.

You haven't resisted anything. Your attempts to defend your first bit of counter-evidentary sophistry haven't even looked like a weak attempt to justify even one of your unsupported premises, let alone support your suborned logic.

If you think you're resisting, perhaps you should consider that resistance, in most people's mind, does not mean repeatedly losing every debate.

And how pathetic too.
The standards are very low here and I am becoming weary once again.
Really? Standards are low here? Well, I suppose, we allow you to come here and try to preach at us with ridiculous sophistry.

Remember, philosopy doesn't mean anything until you provide EVIDENCE.

Got some?

[Upchurch]

There have been a couple of times when I have taken a poster's argument, at their request, and addressed it directly and thuroughly (e.g. Jedi Knight's Mars pyramid). To the best of my memory, in each case, my efforts have generally been a waste as the poster then either abandons the thread (and sometimes the board) or ignores my reply.

My question, in all humility, is this: Am I just really good a rebutting arguments or do I just pick the indefensible arguments to rebutt?

I'm guessing the latter. Perhaps it is because the indefensible arguments are easier to pick apart, as this one was. Still, it makes one wonder why someone with such a weak argument would choose posture so much as to provoke someone to challenge them when they don't have a leg to stand on.

A better question is why do I continue to waste effort on trolls, I suppose.

[Wudang]

lifegazer, can you clarify why others have to take the idea of god on board because it has been taken seriously by philosophers yet you can dismiss "blind will", which has also been taken seriously by philosophers? I hope you see this as the polite question it is intended to be.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
There have been a couple of times when I have taken a poster's argument, at their request, and addressed it directly and thuroughly (e.g. Jedi Knight's Mars pyramid). To the best of my memory, in each case, my efforts have generally been a waste as the poster then either abandons the thread (and sometimes the board) or ignores my reply.

My question, in all humility, is this: Am I just really good a rebutting arguments or do I just pick the indefensible arguments to rebutt?

I'm guessing the latter. Perhaps it is because the indefensible arguments are easier to pick apart, as this one was. Still, it makes one wonder why someone with such a weak argument would choose posture so much as to provoke someone to challenge them when they don't have a leg to stand on.

A better question is why do I continue to waste effort on trolls, I suppose. And you spend a good deal of time doing it, too. I have recently decided not to directly debate the solipsists and other mentally disturbed posters on this board, because it's a ridiculous waste of time, and intellectual masturbation to boot. I have reduced my participation (in R&P and S&P) to drive-by wisecracks and insults. It's less time-consuming than serious debate, and I hope it really pisses them off.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
But the main meat:

The fact/non-fact that the universe was created/not created does not imply causality at all!

Again the Great Geometer may have been at the Drawing Board of Wonders when they had to make a Mighty Piss. Being between creations they went to the Great Urinal in the Sky, and whilst relieving themselves of the excess nutrinos, it happened that the Cosmic Cat did decide to rub itself upon the Mystic Inkpot, which did spill and cause a Great Blot to appear upon the Ledger of Things. This Blot is the Universe in which we find ourselves.

So see we can have intent of the Great Geometer to create, but perhaps that intent is not the cause of the Universe.

I suppose that you can counter this philospohical demonstration?

Well can you?
I have no idea what this toilet talk amounts to. Please speak English so that I can understand it. Then I'll counter.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Then I'll counter. Promises, promises.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
"You cannot even prove that humanity possesses a will of its own. Your argument is null & void. Do you understand?"

First, Your objection is of an Arguement from Ignorance.

"Will is a concept, the definition of which reflects the causal authority of a specific agent in regards to proceeding events. It has nothing to do with humanity."

... That is not ignorance. It is reasoned definition of 'will' without consideration of humanity's attributes.

Second, humanity does possess a will of its own... in fact its demonstratably true. What did you do today?

I know what I'd like to do. Unfortunately, I do not possess the will and power to effect those things. So I got up at 6.30 and went to work for 10 hours instead, in order that I might continue to survive in relatively comfortable surrounds. That hardly constitutes free-will to me. More like making the most of my limitations.
You cannot prove that humanity has free-will until you can demonstrate that man can fulfil his highest dreams. Ironically, you have to have man mirror God for that to happen.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by jj
Remember, philosopy doesn't mean anything until you provide EVIDENCE.

jj, you're wasting my time. I, in the spirit of philosophy, yield conclusions via reason. The reason is the evidence of those conclusions. Now I've already told you once that it's philosophical stupidity to ask for [photographic] evidence of an absolute God.
So how dumb is it to repeat that request?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
lifegazer, can you clarify why others have to take the idea of god on board because it has been taken seriously by philosophers yet you can dismiss "blind will", which has also been taken seriously by philosophers? I hope you see this as the polite question it is intended to be.
Just one philosopher has been cited who has spoken of the notion of "blind will". No explanation of his reasoning was forthcoming except for me to read his life's works.
I gave a reasoned assessment of such a notion, but that assessment was ignored. So what do you want me to do?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hgc
I have recently decided not to directly debate the solipsists and other mentally disturbed posters on this board, because it's a ridiculous waste of time, and intellectual masturbation to boot. I have reduced my participation (in R&P and S&P) to drive-by wisecracks and insults. It's less time-consuming than serious debate, and I hope it really pisses them off. [/B]
Yes it does. What a friggin moron.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Yes it does. What a friggin moron. Thanks for the confirmation.

Of course "moron" is in the eye of the beholder. I'd usually call someone a moron who insists that thousands of years of philosophers bandying about the idea of gods actually proves something. But decorum precludes...

[scribble]

I haven't been around much lately, and just read this whole thread from start to finish. I'm really disappointed that no response to Upchurch's detailed analysis was to be found - I did hope to see it.

-Chris

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hgc
Thanks for the confirmation.
I'd usually call someone a moron who insists that thousands of years of philosophers bandying about the idea of gods actually proves something. You're not trying to tell this board that the world isn't flat, now are you?

[hgc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
You're not trying to tell this board that the world isn't flat, now are you? You and your ilk are not yet worthy of such enlightened insights. But keep up the good work! Oh, and don't bother looking around at the world to figger sumpn out. Just reason it out.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hgc
Just reason it out. I did! It's all right there, plain and simple for everyone to see. Quit attacking me, moron!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Let's address the points of your argument. I will start by parsing the original basis of your argument.

Claim 1: Existence is reducible to the singluar.
Claim 2: Science agress with Claim 1 because of attempts to find a GUT
Conclusion 1: From Claim 1 & Claim 2, Existence is indivisibly singluar.

Existence is reducible to the singular by mathematical default - there can only be a single whole of existence.
Furthermore, given that all existence is related via a singular-set of physical-laws, we see that science yields actual evidence of a singular-unity. Science seeks a GUT because there is one laws-of- physics and everything we see is related to everything else via those single laws. Reason does undeniably suggest that something links everything together.

The state of this universe of 'things' is yielded from the forces which exist, which themselves are yielded from existence as a whole. Remember, forces are actions of an enforcer, as explained earlier. Actions emanate from a being. They are not primal-causes.
Given that all the forces are linked as a whole (set of laws), it is reasonable to assume that each force emanates from the same (a singular) source.

Now, Claim 1 is the essense of your claim and ultimately that which you are trying to prove. In the end, for this not to be a circular argument, your arument must conclude Claim 1 without assuming that it is true.

I have not assumed it, neither in this post nor in previous posts.

Claim 2 is only conditionally true.

The claim is not dependent upon science finding a GUT. In fact, it is my argument that God is the ~thing~ which links everything together in unity. Therefore, by default, science will not be finding a GUT.
Yet scientists still pursue a GUT because reason does indicate - universal law - that everything is linked in unity.

Remember, science also deals with multi-particle problems as well. We shouldn't focus only on those details that agree with your desired conclusion. We must also consider those that disagree as well.

"Do you think that because quanta exhibit freedom/independence from law/force, that this means quanta are acausal? Then you are mistaken. For at the very least, we can state that quanta are their own cause, ultimately, and are thus related to existence as a whole... [and] Existence as a whole is its own cause of all proceeding effects.
Nothing which exists - except existence as a whole - can be said to be acausal.
I do not profess to know the manner in which existence imposes behavioural order upon our awareness. What I do know, is that every-thing is its cause... and to suggest that some things are acausal is nonsensical. Only ~it~ is acausal."

There is nothing you can claim about quanta which will exempt them from a unifying source.

Conclusion 1, then is based on Claim 1, which is what you are trying to prove, and Claim 2, which is not as sweepingly true as you presented it to be. For the purposes of avoiding a cirular arument, we must ignore Claim 1 as an acceptable assumption to build the rest of the argument on. Conclusion 1 then rests on Claim 2, which in turn, is dependent on the future success or failure of scientists to discover a GUT.

Incorrect. And a good time to pause.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
"Will is a concept, the definition of which reflects the causal authority of a specific agent in regards to proceeding events. It has nothing to do with humanity."

... That is not ignorance. It is reasoned definition of 'will' without consideration of humanity's attributes.

Your original statement was:
"You cannot even prove that humanity possesses a will of its own."

That is called an Arguement From Ignornance.

I think you misunderstood me. The words "Arguement from Ignorance" is actually a techincal term.

From a list of logical fallacies (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#ignorantiam):
Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.)

Here are a couple of examples:

"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."

"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn't occur. It does not prove it with certainty, however.

I know what I'd like to do. Unfortunately, I do not possess the will and power to effect those things. So I got up at 6.30 and went to work for 10 hours instead, in order that I might continue to survive in relatively comfortable surrounds. That hardly constitutes free-will to me. More like making the most of my limitations.
You cannot prove that humanity has free-will until you can demonstrate that man can fulfil his highest dreams. Ironically, you have to have man mirror God for that to happen.

This is a very common misconception of what "free-will" is.

First, I'll describe what free will is not...
Free will does not translate into "omnipotence".

Now, I'll describe what free will is...
Free will is the ability or discretion to choose at one's own accord, it refers to conscious cognition.


Now, what did you do today? Were your actions made at your own accord?


When you can desire anything in the world, its called "free desire" (its related very closely to "free will"). Unfortunately, you do not have "omnipotence" (it is not synonomous with "free will").

That is why you have free will, and that is why physical limitations do not translate into "absense of free will".

Did I clear things up?

[Upchurch]

Well, blow me down. An actual effort.Originally posted by lifegazer

Existence is reducible to the singular by mathematical default - there can only be a single whole of existence.
I have quite a bit of training in mathematics and I am unfamiliar with the term "mathematical default". A google of the term brings back 4 results. Three of the results referred to computer defaults (i.e. the initial setting before user modification) and the remaining result was in arabic.

Perhaps, and I'm only guessing here, you mean that existance is reducible to the singular by default (i.e. that is the default assumption we make). If so, then once again, you are assuming what you are trying to prove and falling back on circular reasoning.

I think you should expand on this sentince a bit (which is to say, a lot) more.
Furthermore, given that all existence is related via a singular-set of physical-laws, we see that science yields actual evidence of a singular-unity.Again, as stated above, although it is sought, the grand unified theory has yet to be found. It is hardly "given". As such, any argument based on its undetermined reality is also undetermined. If you need me explain this fundamental logical principle, I will.

Further, by no stretch of the imagination can one infer from a single GUT physical law, or even a single set of phyiscal laws, that universe is a single indivisible entity. If there are more elements to this part of the argument, you will need to present them before this portion of your argument can be agreed upon

Or, alternatively, you mention that science yields actual evidence of a singular unity. What evidence is that and can you provide links to such?
Science seeks a GUT because there is one laws-of- physics and everything we see is related to everything else via those single laws.I'm also quite familiar with physics. I have a degree in it. At this point it is hypothesized that there is a GUT. It is uncertain that there actually is one, at least to the best of my knowledge. However, if there is one, then I conceed that everything we see is "related" to everything else via the GUT.
Reason does undeniably suggest that something links everything together.What do you mean by "links" and "related"? I would agree, to an extent, that everything in the universe follows a common set of rules, that they generally occupy the same spacetime (with variences in topography and metric depending on location) and are composed of differnt variations of matter/energy.

However, the way you word it, I get the impression that you are saying that a different kind of connection can be infered from this. I am unclear as to what that connection is or how it is infered by the assumptions given.
left unbolded to maintain original formating

The state of this universe of 'things' is yielded from the forces which exist, which themselves are yielded from existence as a whole.I don't know whether you intended it this way or not, but you are essentially correct.

Spacetime is defined by the matter/energy in it. Spacetime, in turn, provides the medium for matter/energy to interact. For example, matter/energy warps and deforms spacetime which causes other bits of matter/energy to "fall" towards the first bit (a.k.a. the process of gravity).

In the sense that I have stated above, I agree with this point. If you meant something else, I'll need more explination.
Remember, forces are actions of an enforcer, as explained earlier. Actions emanate from a being. They are not primal-causes. Just to be clear, you are using the term "enforcer" to mean "that which causes the force", correct?

In the example I gave above, warping spacetime is the enforcer of gravity? Or would matter/energy be the enforcer, since it is what warped the spacetime?
Given that all the forces are linked as a whole (set of laws), it is reasonable to assume that each force emanates from the same (a singular) source.Again, the GUT is not a given, but merely a possibility, which has yet to be defined or described. Further, the description of the GUT would not be the enforcer, as I understand it. Either spacetime is the enforcer, as it acts on the bits of matter/energy or matter/energy is the enforcer as it acts on spacetime. In either case, I do not see the singularity of it, as in each case, there are distinct parts and changes depending on location.
I have not assumed it [Existance is a singular whole], neither in this post nor in previous posts.I hope not, otherwise this would be yet more of a waste of my time. As it is, you still haven't shown that it is the case.
The claim is not dependent upon science finding a GUT.That isn't you present it. So far, both in the posts on the first page and this last post, you have referred to it repeatedly and have, in fact, based your argument on the physicists are searching for GUT. You have provided no other support for the notion beyond this.
In fact, it is my argument that God is the ~thing~ which links everything together in unity.Okay, new term. What do you mean by "God"? There are a whole range of definitions for that term from "magical sky father" to "the laws of phyics". In order to argue the point, you must define what you mean.
Therefore, by default, science will not be finding a GUT. To quote the bard, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Allow me to provide you a starting point and maybe you can expand from there: default (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=default)
Do you think that because quanta exhibit freedom/independence from law/force, that this means quanta are acausal?This is incorrect and maybe a strawman. Being acausal does not mean they don't act within certain rules. QM is not my strongest suit, so you'll forgive me if I don't provide any specific examples off the top of my head.

Frankly, I'm not sure I understand the pertinence of this line of reasoning.
Existence as a whole is its own cause of all proceeding effects. Agreed.
Nothing which exists - except existence as a whole - can be said to be acausal.Disagreed: Quantum Fluctuation (under Quantum Vacuum) (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html), is an example of something that is acausal that is not the universe itself.

There isn't a book I could recommend to you on the subject of Quantum Mechanics and acausality because I personally hate the subject with a firey passion. However, if you would like to actually learn something about acuasality rather than just guessing, that is the place to start.
There is nothing you can claim about quanta which will exempt them from a unifying source.That's fine, but you have yet to establish that there is a unifying source. Let's take it one step at a time, shall we?
Conclusion 1, then is based on Claim 1, which is what you are trying to prove, and Claim 2, which is not as sweepingly true as you presented it to be. For the purposes of avoiding a cirular arument, we must ignore Claim 1 as an acceptable assumption to build the rest of the argument on. Conclusion 1 then rests on Claim 2, which in turn, is dependent on the future success or failure of scientists to discover a GUT.Incorrect.
Masterfully spoken. :con2:

How is it incorrect? Is there a flaw in the reasoning or do you just choose not agree with the conclusion?

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by lifegazer

In fact, it is my argument that God is the ~thing~ which links everything together in unity.


We know this is your argument..that has been clear---what you have failed to address is why you insist on inserting this new undefined and unnecessary variable into the equation...what use is this hypothesis? You can say there is a unifying singularity that is existence that has always existed...where does God need to be entered into it except that YOU feel a need for it...God links everything? So, which came first, everything or the God who created everything? As we keep asking you to explain--how is this anything other than the useless concept that we all say it is? You can take everything you have argued and remove the God part of it and it still makes some sense--so it neither proves nor disproves the notion of God as you seem to believe it does...and unless some other evidence is presented there is no reason to start inventing new undefined, undefinable, unproveable entities...As for philosophy-- this was covered by Hume a long time ago...if you want to believe in God it can only be through a leap of faith--without reason---we on this board don't make such leaps...if you want to please don't insist other sleap along with you and pretend it is reason--it is not..admit it...

[lifegazer]

I don't think you guys are as stupid as you portray yourselves. ;)The last 3 responses were a spectacular improvement on almost everything else, especially by Mr. Upchurch. Credit where it is due. Thankyou.
It's almost my bedtime. I might have time to answer one of you before I go to bed but I wanted whomever I leave out to know that I did appreciate your thoughtful responses... and I will reply tomorrow.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I would highly recommend growing a thicker skin. If you can't take a few quips, you really won't survive.

At least, not on this board. ;)

Nonsense. I haven't got a thick skin, I can't take a few quips, yet I've survived.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I think you misunderstood me. The words "Arguement from Ignorance" is actually a techincal term.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.)

I was accused of presenting an anthropomorphic argument when:
(a) Humanity cannot be shown to possess the attribute of 'will'.
(b) I gave a succinct definition of 'will' without the need to mention humanity. #["Will is a concept, the definition of which reflects the causal authority of a specific agent in regards to proceeding events."]#

Clearly, my definition does not depend on whether humanity possesses will or not!! Agreed? Therefore, you're treading irrelevant ground.
I'd hoped this anthropomorphism stuff had been buried with Adam's naivity. But your more sophisticated approach was worthy of an extended rebuttal.

First, I'll describe what free will is not...
Free will does not translate into "omnipotence".

... the reason being?
Seriously, free-will at its absolute definition, must embrace omnipotence within the specific events considered. Else, free-will is an illusion.
Ponder this example: I willed this post to be made and I made it so.
According to you, we have free will and events such as this post of mine are a proof of this.
Yet I counter that you are wrong. I counter that external agents have enforced me to react like this. I also counter that even though I have desired to counter like this (with these words), that I do not know how I have come to counter like this... and nor
have I created the means (I haven't created computers or the internet, for example) to be able to counter like this.
My actions are dependent on external circumstances, creations, and agents. I have no idea where my thoughts and ideas come from. I was born the way I am. I can no more claim the full responsibility for my actions and thoughts than a monkey can claim for having the born-ability to swing through trees.
The monkey, like myself, owes its abilities and its responses to an agent or agents that will not be found within itself. That existed before the monkey did... and which gave rise to that monkey.

Now, I'll describe what free will is...
Free will is the ability or discretion to choose at one's own accord, it refers to conscious cognition.

The decisions we make are dependent upon our social and cultural brainwashing, along with the 'facts' we are taught. And these decisions/judgements are made in relation to emotional desires and fears, etc., which we are born with - given by "mother nature".
To claim sole responsibility - absolute will - for our actions, is naive. Sorry, but that's the truth.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have no idea what this toilet talk amounts to. Please speak English so that I can understand it. Then I'll counter.

Uyaya eakspay igpay atinlay?

In short, a created universe need not be a determined universe. If I had put that the Great Geometer had found he had a deep and Profound Hunger and went into the Mighty Kitchen to make a Sumputous Sandwich, then would you have read the rest of the argument?

I am saddened that you don't like a storytelling format.

In any who, the sense is that a created universe may not be a determined universe.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

jj, you're wasting my time. I, in the spirit of philosophy, yield conclusions via reason. The reason is the evidence of those conclusions. Now I've already told you once that it's philosophical stupidity to ask for [photographic] evidence of an absolute God.
So how dumb is it to repeat that request?

As bright as stating that reason is sufficient cause for anything,
the same reason that said blacks were inferior and shouls be slaves, the same reason that said the earth was at the center of the solar system and the same reason that said king's had a divine right to rule.

Just as respectful aside on the nature of reason, it fluctuates with the culture and suddenly the reason says that divine kings are wrong and that egaltarian values are a product of reason.

[jj]

Originally posted by lifegazer

jj, you're wasting my time. I, in the spirit of philosophy, yield conclusions via reason.


And I, quite reasonably (pun intentional) point out that "the spirit of philosophy" does not yield meaningful conclusions unless the input to the philosophy is shown to be valid, the reasoning method is sound, and the CONCLUSIONS CAN BE FALSIFIED.

So, I'm saying that you can philosophize all you want. Just like you philosophize about your ideas, I philosophize about the sun being made of Vermont Maple Syrup. Tomorrow morning, I am still quite confident I won't pour the sun over my griddle cakes, though, and the sun will still be a big lump of mostly hydrogen, undergoing fusion.

Philosophy, without testing, MEANS NOTHING.

I'm not wasting your time, you're evading the issue.

The reason is the evidence of those conclusions. Now I've already told you once that it's philosophical stupidity to ask for [photographic] evidence of an absolute God.
So how dumb is it to repeat that request?

Your conclusions ARE NOT EVIDENCE. They are gelded, unsupportable, unsustainable, philosphy for which no evidence to the positive exists.

SO SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE. Until you do, it's all just "making things up".

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Existence is reducible to the singular by mathematical default - there can only be a single whole of existence.
I am curious is this not argument by definition, I have also read on this board that mathematics says that math implies a duality to the universe. So can you present this mathematical argument.
Furthermore, given that all existence is related via a singular-set of physical-laws, we see that science yields actual evidence of a singular-unity.
Science assumes isotropy, it has not proved it, as you would know from reading in this forum. And in fact it looks as though isotropy may break down at the dge of space time.
Science seeks a GUT because there is one laws-of- physics and everything we see is related to everything else via those single laws.

Some scientists are seeking the GUT because it appeals to there monistic desire.The single law has not been demostrated, it is not currently true, even quantum mechanics can not be reduced to a single law. Perhaps this is overgeneralization.

Reason does undeniably suggest that something links everything together.
Reason might also suggest that something links somethings together, and so far there is only one force which impacts all particles, but only those which have mass.

The state of this universe of 'things' is yielded from the forces which exist, which themselves are yielded from existence as a whole.
Could you elaborate, is this an inflationary theory, it sounds like it is not a string theory. I agree that there may be three universal fields, but that is certainly just conjecture.
Remember, forces are actions of an enforcer, as explained earlier. Actions emanate from a being.

Could you demonstrate this proof from those of us who are slow, are you saying that fields emenate from objects or from being? They are not primal-causes.
Given that all the forces are linked as a whole (set of laws), it is reasonable to assume that each force emanates from the same (a singular) source.
GUT may never be found and so this is speculation, it may be there is a unifying theory , it may also be that there is not.

I have not assumed it, neither in this post nor in previous posts.

The claim is not dependent upon science finding a GUT. In fact, it is my argument that God is the ~thing~ which links everything together in unity. Therefore, by default, science will not be finding a GUT.
Yet scientists still pursue a GUT because reason does indicate - universal law - that everything is linked in unity.


If God is unifying would that not perhaps be a observable fact, or are you taking the singularity out of the observable realm?




The claim is not dependent upon science finding a GUT. In fact, it is my argument that God is the ~thing~ which links everything together in unity. Therefore, by default, science will not be finding a GUT.
Yet scientists still pursue a GUT because reason does indicate - universal law - that everything is linked in unity.

Wow, way cool, but why wouldn't god want to demonstrate the unity, it is just as likely as not. (If you chose to eneter god into the realm)

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
--------------------------------------------------
First, I'll describe what free will is not...
Free will does not translate into "omnipotence".
--------------------------------------------------
... the reason being?

I dont know how I can put it more bluntly than "its not what the definition of free will is".

Seriously, free-will at its absolute definition, must embrace omnipotence within the specific events considered.

Well, let me bring up the definition real quick...

From dictionary.com...
free-will (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free-will) (with a hypen):

Done of one's own accord; voluntary.


free will (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free%20will) (with a space):

1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will


Note, "making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances" is not the same as "performing acts that are unconstrained by external circumstances".

Omnipotence (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=omnipotence):

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful.


While a being which is omnipotent does have free will, that does not suggest a being with free will is omnipotent.

Else, free-will is an illusion.
Ponder this example: I willed this post to be made and I made it so.

To "will" and to "act" are fundamentally different concepts.

According to you, we have free will and events such as this post of mine are a proof of this.

The proof is the fact that you made your post at your own accord.

However, if a physical limitation prevents you from performing an act (such as the obvious limitation of a human flapping his arms fast enough to fly), that does not translate into "no free will". It translates into "physical limatations impede you to perform acts which you desire". As I wrote above, acts and desires are fundamentally different.

Yet I counter that you are wrong. I counter that external agents have enforced me to react like this. I also counter that even though I have desired to counter like this (with these words), that I do not know how I have come to counter like this... and nor
have I created the means (I haven't created computers or the internet, for example) to be able to counter like this.
My actions are dependent on external circumstances, creations, and agents. I have no idea where my thoughts and ideas come from. I was born the way I am. I can no more claim the full responsibility for my actions and thoughts than a monkey can claim for having the born-ability to swing through trees.

Although I've done a good enough job "rebuttling" above, I'll make a few more comments.

You state "I can claim no responsibility for my actions". However, I'm willing to be you are a completely sentient human being. If you had no free will but remain conscious, that would imply that you are a conscious being who is trapped behind the eyes of an external body, unable to effect its actions, only able to watch helplessly. However, you are in fact perfectly capabable of effecting the world around you at your own accord, you've got your free will.

The monkey, like myself, owes its abilities and its responses to an agent or agents that will not be found within itself. That existed before the monkey did... and which gave rise to that monkey.

I'm not sure what to make of the above block of text... but before the monkey were its parents, before them were there parents. Go back a few million generations, and you'll see the process of evolution reverse. Go back about 15.5 billion years, and (as one theory predicts) you'll be at the very beginning of time.

The decisions we make are dependent upon our social and cultural brainwashing, along with the 'facts' we are taught. And these decisions/judgements are made in relation to emotional desires and fears, etc., which we are born with - given by "mother nature".
To claim sole responsibility - absolute will - for our actions, is naive. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Its in no way naive for me to claim absolute responsibility for my voluntary actions. And no, my genes/emotions/fears whatever may influence what I choose my voluntary actions to be, but those influences are internal, and those actions are still at my own voluntary accord.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The last 3 responses were a spectacular improvement on almost everything else, especially by Mr. Upchurch. Credit where it is due. Thankyou. Your very welcome. You'll notice it came in response to actually arguing your side rather than whining about how put upon you are. Keep it up.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Nonsense. I haven't got a thick skin, I can't take a few quips, yet I've survived. Ian, you're a very special* case.










*special in the short bus sense

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Perhaps, and I'm only guessing here, you mean that existance is reducible to the singular by default (i.e. that is the default assumption we make). If so, then once again, you are assuming what you are trying to prove and falling back on circular reasoning.

However you put it, there can only be one whole of all existence. That's what I call simple deductive mathematical logic. But if you want to label it something else, then sobeit. Technical semantics bore me. What is relevant is that existence as a whole is a singular concept. W
What is also relevant is that the forces (actions) occuring in existence, are accredited to that existence, ultimately.
Take a simple force: push or pull. Without doubt, there must be a pusher or a puller. The same reasoning applies to all forces. So, given that the forces of existence are responsible for the ~things~ within existence, we can know that those forces emanate from the whole (not the ~things~).

Again, as stated above, although it is sought, the grand unified theory has yet to be found. It is hardly "given". As such, any argument based on its undetermined reality is also undetermined. If you need me explain this fundamental logical principle, I will.

I already stated that science won't be finding a GUT. Not unless it starts linking existence to the whole. You and I know that aint gonna be happening when that whole mirrors God.
My point about a GUT was that science has also reasoned that every-thing is related to a unifying source/law. Its efforts to find one - though doomed - are founded upon reasoning similar to my own.

Further, by no stretch of the imagination can one infer from a single GUT physical law, or even a single set of phyiscal laws, that universe is a single indivisible entity. If there are more elements to this part of the argument, you will need to present them before this portion of your argument can be agreed upon

It's simple logic really. When everything is related and works upon the same principles, then everything is reducible to the singular. I even hear that humanity as a whole is reducible to one woman. I'm not sure what your counter is to this reducing logic.

Or, alternatively, you mention that science yields actual evidence of a singular unity. What evidence is that and can you provide links to such?

The evidence is the physical laws of known existence themselves and the extent to which those laws apply - all of observable existence. Billions of light years, apparently, with predictions taking us right back to the bb itself.

I'm also quite familiar with physics. I have a degree in it.

Excellent. Would you be interested in a detailed discussion about
Relativity sometime? I actually think that I can prove God's existence as a consequence of understanding this law. I need a knowledgable participant though.

However, the way you word it, I get the impression that you are saying that a different kind of connection can be infered from this. I am unclear as to what that connection is or how it is infered by the assumptions given.
I don't know whether you intended it this way or not, but you are essentially correct.

I think existence is at singularity of Mind. A realm without beginning or end, but a realm of existence nevertheless. More thoughts about this were expressed in my topic "existence" which is currently at page 5 of the general-skepticism forum.
Basically, I argue that real/tangible existence cannot be bounded by absolute-nothing - that 'nothing' cannot embrace something real. Therefore, I argue that existence is boundless. And a boundless existence is truly a singularity. Concepts such as 'length' and 'time' can only exist within the mind's eye - as illusions of the singularity-reality. But perhaps this discussion over-extends the scope of this thread, which merely aimed to show that if existence is singular - which it no doubt is - that will has been exhibited by it, ultimately, in its actions/forces.
Maybe we should concentrate upon this. I would like you to address this issue. How do you avoid the ultimate necessity of will in the origin of existential force?

Spacetime is defined by the matter/energy in it. Spacetime, in turn, provides the medium for matter/energy to interact. For example, matter/energy warps and deforms spacetime which causes other bits of matter/energy to "fall" towards the first bit (a.k.a. the process of gravity).

There must be an anti-gravitational force existing within spacetime. Else gravity would be unopposed and matter would collapse to singularity. Again, this view over-extends the scope of this thread.

Okay, new term. What do you mean by "God"?

Basically... Omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, willful and self-aware being of mind/spirit.

Have run out of time on this post.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Just one philosopher has been cited who has spoken of the notion of "blind will". No explanation of his reasoning was forthcoming except for me to read his life's works.
I gave a reasoned assessment of such a notion, but that assessment was ignored. So what do you want me to do?
You said: "Since will = intent, I find the notion of blind-will to be absurd. Blind-will equates to unknowing intent. How can I, for example, intend to do something unknowingly?!"

Now I'm sorry but I don't see how you can shrug it off as absurd yet castigate others for far more reasoned rejections of any deist proposition. It's not that hard to find quick precis' of such ideas. And if you would like a grounding in QM, you might want to look at some of Gribbin's books like "In search of Schrodingers kittens".
Until then, I'm afraid I find your style intellectually lazy and dishonest.
I admire Upchurch's patience.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Wudang
You said: "Since will = intent, I find the notion of blind-will to be absurd. Blind-will equates to unknowing intent. How can I, for example, intend to do something unknowingly?!"

Now I'm sorry but I don't see how you can shrug it off as absurd

I haven't shrugged it off. My last sentence yields my feelings on the matter quite clearly. You're free to address this sentence if you wish. Other than that, there's nothing else on the table to discuss.

yet castigate others for far more reasoned rejections of any deist proposition.

As I said, there's 3000 years of deist philosophy from all corners of the globe. As far as I know, there's one example of a philosopher who believes in "blind will". This distinction is more than notable.

It's not that hard to find quick precis' of such ideas.

Then why don't you present a brief summary and explanation of the notion of 'blind will' so that we can discuss it? If it's that important to you, you present a case for a notion that I think is absurd.

And if you would like a grounding in QM, you might want to look at some of Gribbin's books like "In search of Schrodingers kittens".

I have read a few 'ground books' in physics and QM.

Until then, I'm afraid I find your style intellectually lazy and dishonest.
I admire Upchurch's patience.
Sorry squire, but I read what I want to read and when I want to read it. If you don't like it then tough. And if you want to know something about patience, I would suggest having a chat with a theist who frequents skeptical establishments such as these. Namely, myself.

[Upchurch]

Okay, in order to avoid being bogged down by several lines of discussion in one post, I'm just going to address portions of the post that I find to be incomplete or flat-out disagree with. As opposed to my usual line-by-line analysis. If I ignore or skip a point that you think is pertenent, feel free to point it out and I'll go back.

There 1 point on which I agree and/or conceed to you. It is:

1. There is one existence. You call it God. I consider it to be the sum total of spacetime and matter/energy. But we agree that something exists and it can be referred to in a collective way.

To my mind, there are five aspects to your argument that are incomplete or incorrect, in no particular order:

1. Existence is an indivisible singular.
2. It is theoretically impossible for science to find a GUT (minor point).
3. A single physical law for the universe implies a single indivisible singular.
4. Will is required for enactment of force.
5. An omnipotent God is logically possible (minor point, but often addressed on this board).

Items 1, 2, and 3, are all basically tied together. The simplist and most direct challenge I can pose for point number 1 is this: Existence is divisable because it can be divided into component parts.

Examples: Universe = Spacetime + matter/energy
matter/energy = matter + energy
humans = female humans + male humans
humans = old humans + young humans
energy = potential energy + kinetic energy
physical objects = sum of its comprising molecules
etc.Existence is divisible because it has component parts that can be distinguished from each other.

Item 4 is predicated on your argument that every force has an "enforcer" or a cause and that every cause has a will. However, this is still just a claim since you have not shown that this is true by necessity. Gravity, as I've pointed out, is an example of a force that does not require will to occur. Matter/energy deforms spacetime through the nature of matter/energy and spacetime. An aspect of what makes will will is the ability not to use it. Will that is compelled or forced is not will. Neither spacetime nor matter/energy has the choice not to interact with one another. Or, rather, it has never been observed to not do so.

Item 5 is trivial but an often discussed point on this board. The term "omnipotent" is logically inconsistent (e.g. the "Can God create a rock so heavy even God couldn't lift it" paradox), therefore any definition of the term "God" (or any term, for that matter) that depends on the term "omnipotent" is also logically inconsistent. Feel free to redefine term God as you see fit to remove this inconsistency

(Maybe someone who is better at keeping track of old threads than I am could point out one that this issue was more thuroughly addressed in?)

<hr>Okay, I lied. There are some line-by-line things I want to touch on.

Originally posted by lifegazer

It's simple logic really. When everything is related and works upon the same principles, then everything is reducible to the singular. I even hear that humanity as a whole is reducible to one woman. I'm not sure what your counter is to this reducing logic. That is because I don't understand your logic behind this "reducing logic". How is all of humanity reducible to one woman? How does 6 billion men, women, and children = 1 woman?
Excellent. Would you be interested in a detailed discussion about Relativity sometime? I actually think that I can prove God's existence as a consequence of understanding this law. I need a knowledgable participant though.Although I only have a bachelor's degree in the subject, I focused a lot of my time on Relativity, even so far as to present a few research papers on using the Twin Paradox as a method of time travel. My experience with General Relativity is not quite as extensive as Special Relativity, but I took a few graduate level classes on the subject. If you want to pursue this line of thinking, we could start a new thread.
There must be an anti-gravitational force existing within spacetime. Else gravity would be unopposed and matter would collapse to singularity. Again, this view over-extends the scope of this thread.Agreed, but to answer the question, there are three "anti-gravitational" forces. They are called the electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear forces.

Plus there is always good ol' kinetic energy.

edited for really stinkin' lousy spelling and a few content tweaks

[Dancing David]

BTW did you read my change where the Grand Geometer goes for a sandwich, I did not mena to be irrelevamt or flippant, but the chance that there can be creation without causality is a possibility.

Quote from Lifegazer

Take a simple force: push or pull. Without doubt, there must be a pusher or a puller. The same reasoning applies to all forces. So, given that the forces of existence are responsible for the ~things~ within existence, we can know that those forces emanate from the whole (not the ~things~).


This is a very interesting point and one that physics has yet to come to a conclusion on.

However the model does allow from some various possibilities:
(the following discussion is a major gloss and over simplification of the current models and contains many inaccuracies)

a. that forces are created by very large particles that clang out at a certain 'horizon length' of the inflationary period. These forces can cover vast distances the size of the universe but still not be a universal 'field/force' that fills the universe.

b. there are very small particles that seem/appear to be the carriers of forces photon and electrons for example. Some more philospohical scientists say that they carry the force of a single field, that they represent a manifestation of a single field. Others say that particle generate thier own field by the nature of what they are(from things like Pauli's exclusion principle)

c. gravitation is certainly the wierdest of the forces , it manifests as a universal forces broken into sperate pieces. Einstiens conception of the bending of space/time would make gravitation very similar to the unity that you discuss, but it still allows for the fractioning of the force.

d. The strong nuclear force is the one that acts the most like a universal force in the way that you describe it, except for the fact that it again seems to derive from the balance of three seperate fields.

At this point I am not sure if physics has found a way to determine if particles generate thier own fields or manifest an underlying universal field. I know that Feyman hinted that particles generate thier own space and fields, but I know that others have suggested strange thoughts like alle elctrons being a single electron.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
...what use is this hypothesis? You can say there is a unifying singularity that is existence that has always existed...where does God need to be entered into it except that YOU feel a need for it...God links everything?

The "need" for it is that it's the truth as I reason it. I.e., I state it because it is a fact as I see it.
Now, technologically speaking, it aint going to do us much good. The conclusion I present here is, of course, one with spiritual and moral implications for mankind. And if you've looked at the news recently, you'll see that we are in dire need of changes.

As for philosophy-- this was covered by Hume a long time ago...if you want to believe in God it can only be through a leap of faith--without reason---we on this board don't make such leaps...if you want to please don't insist other sleap along with you and pretend it is reason--it is not..admit it...
I ask nobody to have faith that God exists, least of all myself. Tell me what Hulme said and I will refute it.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
This is a very common misconception of what "free-will" is.

First, I'll describe what free will is not...
Free will does not translate into "omnipotence".

Now, I'll describe what free will is...
Free will is the ability or discretion to choose at one's own accord, it refers to conscious cognition.


Now, what did you do today? Were your actions made at your own accord?

If you think that mankind is the sum of his material processes, then everything about mankind has been determined.
If you think that mankind has a will which is sovereign, ultimately, over matter, then you are defining God as man.

I don't want to get bogged-down discussing this. It's irrelevant anyway since 'will' can be and has been defined without the need to mention humanity.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
In short, a created universe need not be a determined universe. If I had put that the Great Geometer had found he had a deep and Profound Hunger and went into the Mighty Kitchen to make a Sumputous Sandwich, then would you have read the rest of the argument?

I am saddened that you don't like a storytelling format.

In any who, the sense is that a created universe may not be a determined universe. [/B]
I don't understand how you came to that asserted conclusion. How can there be a universe of effected 'things' without a cause or source?
Even if you mention QM, I will still argue that there is a source of quanta and that quanta are dependent upon the created existence of space and time for their proceeding histories.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The "need" for it is that it's the truth as I reason it. I.e., I state it because it is a fact as I see it.
Now, technologically speaking, it aint going to do us much good. The conclusion I present here is, of course, one with spiritual and moral implications for mankind. And if you've looked at the news recently, you'll see that we are in dire need of changes.



What we need is for people like you to give up on the notion that YOU can reason the TRUTH for everyone else with your own delusional ideas that do not stand the test of objective evaluation....what we need is to move away from the idea of GOd and towards behavior that is entirely rooted in the cause/effect of rational (that means measurable) notions...not unmeasurable, inconceivable undefined, and in your case entirely imaginary notions like God...that you think you can "prove" GOd's existence is onloy proof of your own grandiose thinking (which by definition is delusional)--so this silly unsettled debate about whether God exists or not that has been going on for centuries really was just waiting for YOU? Yeah, sure...sure...get over yourself--what you believe and what really is are most definitely NOT necessarily the same thing...as has been shown by your utter failure to convince even one person on this thread the evidence is pretty clear that you can't prove anything.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
What we need is for people like you to give up on the notion that YOU can reason the TRUTH for everyone else with your own delusional ideas that do not stand the test of objective evaluation....

My philosophy mirrors scientific knowledge. My philosophy makes sense of relativity, QM, Zeno's paradox, and a fair few other things too. Go and read the thread about monistic-idealism.
Your so-called objective-reality is the evidence for my
philosophy. LOL

so this silly unsettled debate about whether God exists or not that has been going on for centuries really was just waiting for YOU?

Philosophers today have a massive advantage over their forebears. Firstly, we have scientific-knowledge... and also the benefit of their contemplations.
I am not the only one who is exposing reality as an illusion occuring in God's conciousness. And I want no reward for telling you that everything is God.

Yeah, sure...sure...get over yourself--what you believe and what really is are most definitely NOT necessarily the same thing...as has been shown by your utter failure to convince even one person on this thread the evidence is pretty clear that you can't prove anything.
Only those with an open mind, the sincerity to seek the truth no matter what it might be, and who do not care where that truth comes from, shall ever come close to finding it.
You squire do not have a clue what the truth is. Yet you dare to close your mind to God and condemn the messenger each time, regardless of the merits of the message. You squire are doomed to live within the confines of your own closed mind. Sobeit. You will not be able to complain that nobody tried.
You've stated your position. Your participation in this thread is now pointless.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree


What we need is for people like you to give up on the notion that YOU can reason the TRUTH {snipping for civility's sake} This is exactly right. Reason can only go so far in the search for truth. There can exist reasoning that is true within a given set of assumptions and yet not be true for a different set of assumptions.

Take, for example, the two following sets of reasoning:

1) 1 + 1 = 2

2) 1 + 1 = 10

Which set of reasoning is true? If we assume a mathematical system that is base-2, the second reasoning is truth and the first is nonsensical. If we assume a mathermatical system with anything above base-2, the first reasoning is truth and the second is false.

Reason and logic alone cannot lead to lead to truth because they are always based on assumptions. Truth is found when those assumptions are validated or invalidated against existence.

(I know there are those on this board who will argue that existence is just another assumption, but within the context of this discussion, we've agreed that something exists so within the context of this discussion the statement is valid. In a more general sense, however, if existence is treated as just another assumption, Truth can never be found. The only thing that could be found is consistency or inconsistency of a particular set of logic or reasoning.)

[lifegazer]

Either prove that ~all of this~ is some kind of illusion occuring in and by nothingness, or accept that something is is an absolute fact.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
b. there are very small particles that seem/appear to be the carriers of forces photon and electrons for example. Some more philospohical scientists say that they carry the force of a single field, that they represent a manifestation of a single field. Others say that particle generate thier own field by the nature of what they are(from things like Pauli's exclusion principle)

Particles are only seen in the mind's eye. I can cite an experiment which shows that an electron will always act as a wave until observed. This applies to all particles.
Discussions along these lines will necessarily shift towards what physicists refer to as wavicles.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Either prove that ~all of this~ is some kind of illusion occuring in and by nothingness, or accept that something is is an absolute fact. I essentially agree. Above and beyond this, however, my point is that whatever reasoning or logic is used to try to arive at Truth (big T) must first have its assumptions validated against that something. Reasoning or logic, while necessary, is insufficent by itself.

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by lifegazer


You squire do not have a clue what the truth is.

but you do...I see one only has to be open minded enough to accept that you are the bearer of truth--accept what you say which is not based on any objective observations whatsoever---you sir are a deranged and deluded grandiose fool who believes he has it all figured out...funny how not one person on this thread has been convinced...most objectiovely backed things don't have much trouble convincing people --yet your ideas won't fly...

must be everyone is closed minded and only you are right...that happens all the time.
;)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I don't understand how you came to that asserted conclusion. How can there be a universe of effected 'things' without a cause or source?
Even if you mention QM, I will still argue that there is a source of quanta and that quanta are dependent upon the created existence of space and time for their proceeding histories.

It is not an assertion or a conclusion, it is a possible metaphor for creation and therefore could be examined.

I agree that the universe may have been created, or that there is some sort of underlying structure to the universe. We don't really know why the forces work the way they do.

Yet when it comes to creation or mystery behind the scenes, is it essentialy true that there must be a determined or singular force/enitity?

I say this because it is possible to have a created or devine universe and that does not mean that there must be a singularity.

So in the myth I contructed there were the following actords or forces
the force which is force of intent(ie the grand geometer)
the forces that are used by he creator to create(ie the ink and the ledger)
the force which uses the existing forces but in a random or unintended way(the cat or chaos)

Now this is totaly dependant of the metaphor I am using to express the creative potential. And it coould take many forms, representing the many ways that the force could be come mainfest.

I could have used the Great Crumbsnatcher, sitting in the High Chair of Space Time, where there is the mighty Cosmic Muffin and the Level of Existance( or The Floor), as the crumbs fall from the mighty Cosmic Muffin, most are consumed in a process totaly unknown to the two deimensioanl plane of the Floor. But when crumbs fall they do create(for unknown reason) a multitude of universes.(Probably because it is a MAGIC muffin). And in this case the creative force is totaly random and actualy uncaring, ending when the Great Broom comes and sweeps the crumbs off the Floor.

It was merely meant to be a metaphor to say that given the mechanism of creation(as yet totaly undefined) that there could be creation with out determination.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Reason and logic alone cannot lead to lead to truth because they are always based on assumptions. [/B]

Don't be so absurd.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Don't be so absurd. Please read the entire post, Ian. I included the context of the statement

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Either prove that ~all of this~ is some kind of illusion occuring in and by nothingness, or accept that something is is an absolute fact.

I think that was just a consession to the possiblity for solopism to be manifest, and the immaterial world of Berkley.

I would state that even materialists would not say the something came from nothing, materialism as it stands merely says that we can not say what is outside the universe. But no where is it a teneant that something came from nothing. Even virtual particles require the 'vacum energy' to manifest themselves.

I think that materialists do concede that something exists.

Something that most likely came from a speculative something.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Particles are only seen in the mind's eye. I can cite an experiment which shows that an electron will always act as a wave until observed. This applies to all particles.
Discussions along these lines will necessarily shift towards what physicists refer to as wavicles.

I quite agree, however the model of the electron does approximate an 'actual' event that happens in the 'material realm'. The word particle could be ambigous despite the common use of a mote of substance.

And actualy particle always act as waves, there are times where the waves are compressed, but I feel that the properties of the approximation do not state that an electron ever really behaves as a 'particle' by the common sense. An electron is actualy a wave of electrical potential in the space/time thingy. It doesn't really have a defined point, although you can create one experimentaly.

The electron acts like a wave, before after and during observation. All particles' acts as waves all the time, bosons have a very different wave form from leptons, but they are waves all the time as well. They have macro properties in aggregate that make us think they are solid little balls, but they are still waves.

[lifegazer]

How do you avoid the ultimate necessity of will in the origin of existential force?

I would like some of you to address this head-on.
That existence itself - whatever it may be - is the agent of its own forces is undeniable. Therefore, given that it is primal-cause of those forces (this is ultra significant to your responses), then how do we exclude ~will~ from the enforcement of those forces?

Any rational answers welcome.

[jj]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Please read the entire post, Ian. I included the context of the statement


Ian is being very dishonest lately. He seems to routinely be removing comments from context like he's dishonestly done to the comment of mine he's included in his signature.

I think he realizes that we all know he's got nothing to offer, that he's spouting nonsense, and that he's decided he's going to do his best to harm others on his way down.

[jj]

Originally posted by lifegazer
How do you avoid the ultimate necessity of will in the origin of existential force?


You can "state" this as many times as you want. All it is is an empty, unsupported statement. Its only meaning is that you said it. So what?

Got any evidence to verify your statement with? Evidence means real-world results, not empty "philosophy". By itself, philosophy means nothing.

Evidence?

Nope, didn't think so.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
How do you avoid the ultimate necessity of will in the origin of existential force?First it must be established that will is an ultimate necessity. Second, we must define what is meant by "existential force".

As to the second one, I assume that you are referring to your singular source of existence? If so, don't forget that we've yet to clearly establish that there even is such a thing.
That existence itself - whatever it may be - is the agent of its own forces is undeniable. Therefore, given that it is primal-cause of those forces (this is ultra significant to your responses), then how do we exclude ~will~ from the enforcement of those forces?Gotta be careful when throwing around words like "undeniable". It can trap you into thing you didn't mean.

Regardless, I am assuming by "existence" you are refering to the sum total of spacetime and matter/energy, that is to say, everything that exists. If that is the case, then I agree with you that existence is the agent and means of its own forces. In other words, there is no outside agent to existence that has an impact on existence. At least, as far as I am aware.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by "primal-cause" in this case, however, I will hazard a guess that it is merely a reiteration of the above previous statement that the universe is the agent and means of its own forces. If that is incorrect, please let me know.

From our studies of spacetime, matter/energy, and the four basic forces (I realize the term isn't entirely accurate, but it's the commonly used term), we see that these forces arise from natural action/reaction interplay between spacetime and matter/energy and between matter/energy and other matter/energy. This far, these interactions have consistently occured in the same way without fail.

As I mentioned earlier, without the ability to choose not to act, there is no will. Ultimately, I can't show that these forces cannot choose not to act (pardon the double negative), but we can see that they have not choosen to not act due to their consistency and continuity.

In other words, while we cannot show that existence doesn't have a will, we can show that existence behaves as if it does not have a will, nor that it ever did. As such, we see that will is not a necessity in the existence of the four primal forces, but merely a possiblity.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by jj

Ian is being very dishonest lately. To give him the benefit of the doubt, actually, I probably should have said,

"Reason and logic alone cannot lead to Truth because..."

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
First it must be established that will is an ultimate necessity.

If a being is the absolute source of a force, then how can 'will' not be a necessity? How can there be an absolute self-act (a force which emanates from the self) that has not been willed??
This is a question I have posed and which you have not addressed.

As to the second one, I assume that you are referring to your singular source of existence? If so, don't forget that we've yet to clearly establish that there even is such a thing.

It doesn't matter. Existence as a whole is the cause of the forces that exist within 'it'.

Gotta be careful when throwing around words like "undeniable". It can trap you into thing you didn't mean.

I am sure that it is undeniable that existence is the cause of its own forces. Would you suggest that non-existence is the cause of those forces? Nay. And if we speak for existence as a whole, then there is no external agent to consider.

Regardless, I am assuming by "existence" you are refering to the sum total of spacetime and matter/energy, that is to say, everything that exists. If that is the case, then I agree with you that existence is the agent and means of its own forces. In other words, there is no outside agent to existence that has an impact on existence. At least, as far as I am aware.

Okay then. So address the questions I posed.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by "primal-cause" in this case, however, I will hazard a guess that it is merely a reiteration of the above previous statement that the universe is the agent and means of its own forces. If that is incorrect, please let me know.

A primal-cause is the absolute cause of those forces, excluding external agents from the equation.
Hence, given that existence as a whole is the absolute enforcer (the primal-cause) of the existing forces, explain to this forum how will-power is not a necessity of their existence.

From our studies of spacetime, matter/energy, and the four basic forces (I realize the term isn't entirely accurate, but it's the commonly used term), we see that these forces arise from natural action/reaction interplay between spacetime and matter/energy and between matter/energy and other matter/energy. This far, these interactions have consistently occured in the same way without fail.

Let's be clear about something: time is change... and change requires force... and force requires enforcement.
I think you're trying to be slippery and avoid answering my question here.

[roger]

Originally posted by jj
Ian is being very dishonest lately. He seems to routinely be removing comments from context like he's dishonestly done to the comment of mine he's included in his signature.

I think he realizes that we all know he's got nothing to offer, that he's spouting nonsense, and that he's decided he's going to do his best to harm others on his way down. I think it is important to remember that Ian has admitted to having several puppets, including a sceptical/materialistic one. You are not arguing with a person, but a persona. A role player, who treats this board like an RPG.

I don't personally enjoy that, so I do not engage him. If you do engage him, I'd advise not investing any emotions in the effort except play, because that is all that is on the other end, a role player.

(Of course, I don't know what the poster _really_ thinks, perhaps it coincides with II's posts, perhaps not. But w/ a role player, it doesn't matter).

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

If a being is the absolute source of a force, then how can 'will' not be a necessity?What do you mean by "being"? If you mean a conscious, self-aware something, I disagree with your premise that a being is the absolute source of force. That has yet to be shown.
How can there be an absolute self-act (a force which emanates from the self) that has not been willed??
I breathe, which is a self-act but I do not necessarily will myself to breathe. My heart beats, which is a self-act but I do not will it to beat. Self-acts are not always willed by necessity.
It doesn't matter. Existence as a whole is the cause of the forces that exist within 'it'. But it does matter. It is the very title of the thread, and it has yet to be established.
A primal-cause is the absolute cause of those forces, excluding external agents from the equation.
Hence, given that existence as a whole is the absolute enforcer (the primal-cause) of the existing forces, explain to this forum how will-power is not a necessity of their existence.That is what I thought and I stand by my explination in my previous post, which does address the question. And very nicely too, I thought.
Let's be clear about something: time is change... and change requires force... and force requires enforcement.Actually, time is just an aspect of spacetime. One fourth of it, to be exact. Change is a sometimes consequence of time, but it is poetic hyperbole to say that they are one in the same. Take, for instance, your statement above. It implies that time requires enforcement, that is, something to keep it moving. Time is not something that is forced any more than space is something that forced. Force rather is a consequence of spacetime (et al).
I think you're trying to be slippery and avoid answering my question here. Not at all. I'm answering your questions as honestly as I can and to the best of my ability, based on what I know or what I can look up. I think I wrote a rather good response to your question in my last post. Is there nothing of it you can address?

[Fun2BFree]

lifegazer-

many have given you models of the universe that do not require a Willful God--those models are as logical and as valid as your silly idea...
your question has been answered over and over--it is YOUR CLOSED MIND that refuses to even consider the possibility of models of the universe that are different from what you conceive....you cannot conceive of an existence that could come about by accident-- you refuse to accept a possible model that does not include God (since you say God is proven for you you have rejected other models) yet those models have been provided over and over and you have done nothing to refute or disprove them...they are as valid as yours--yet you have closed your mind and only accept the model that fits your pre-conceived desire for a God...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by roger
[B]I think it is important to remember that Ian has admitted to having several puppets, including a sceptical/materialistic one. You are not arguing with a person, but a persona. A role player, who treats this board like an RPG.



The views I express are my own. Upchurch is wrong, that's my opinion.

I only have 2 "sock puppets", one of which "the one called Neo", everyone knows about. The other sock puppet expresses materialistic/skeptic views.

[Upchurch]

Let's try something. I'll break my argument out in simple lines

1. The universe acts very consistently.
2. An aspect of will is to have the ability not to act.
3. From 1, the universe never doesn't act.
4. From 3, the universe doesn't display the ability not to act
5. From 2 & 4, the universe does not display an aspect of will.

Conclusion: Will is not a necessity of the universe.
Caviat: I have not shown that it isn't possible for the universe to have will, only that it does not display the ability to act willfully.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Upchurch is wrong, that's my opinion. Even within the context of the conversation, Ian? Care to explain?

[c4ts]

All Ian really has is his opinion. He sticks to it like a frog on a window covered in krazy glue.

[Dancing David]

Quote from Lifegazer

A primal-cause is the absolute cause of those forces, excluding external agents from the equation.
Hence, given that existence as a whole is the absolute enforcer (the primal-cause) of the existing forces, explain to this forum how will-power is not a necessity of their existence.

end quote

I think that this statement has an underlying assumption that the primal cause is singular, which I haven't seen demonstrated. And so I would think that there is a possiblity of primal causes, plural.


Hence, given that existence as a whole is the absolute enforcer (the primal-cause) of the existing forces,

This is further assertion, you are stating that it is the universe as a whole which creates the forces, which again has not been demostrated. It could be that some forces (electro/magnetic) are local in effect while others are more universal.

So far I have only seen what I would phrase as a semantic definition of the 'enforcer' as singular. Three fields might mean that there are three enforcers and since the strong nuclear requires three fielsd, then you have at least six, plus gravity, so there may be a singular primal cause but the enforcers might be seven.

And your deifinition of a singular primal cause is just that a definition, there is no reason to assume apriori that the primal cause is singular. Even the ancient hebrews knew that, they placed AL at the top, but the creative force manifested itself as plural, which is why the [I]elohiim chaiim[/II] are mentioned as being present at the creation. And in the kabbalah and gnosticism it is speculated that the creative force is not the primal cause( AL), but a demi-urgos which is motivated by the primal cause.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David
So far I have only seen what I would phrase as a semantic definition of the 'enforcer' as singular. I think that the use of "singular" is one of the two main points of contention in this thread. Although "enforcer" is problematic, it really only problematic when it is used in the singular.

I don't have any problem with the term "enforcer" in general. An moving electron causes a magnetic field so the electron is the enforcer of that magnetic field. Simple enough.

The thing I'm starting to grasp about "enforcers" is that it is a relative term. Electric waves enforce magnetic waves, but magnetic waves enforce electric waves. Matter/energy enforces a warp on spacetime, but spacetime warps enforces gravity on matter/energy.

Now lifegazer has said that the universe (or more specifically, existence) is the absolute enforcer/primal-cause, but the absolute enforcer of what force on what object? He's mentioned "self-act", which is true to an extent. However, if all the force generated by the universe is acted upon the universe, the net force generated is zero.

Ultimately, I find it difficult term the universe (or "existence", if you prefer) the "absolute enforcer" when there is no net force generated and nothing for it enforce that net force on.

edited to add
Sorry, David. I started this post intending to respond to your comment and ended up making a different point all together. And now, frankly, I've forgotten what my original point was. Sorry, again.

[Dancing David]

Not at all, this is heady stuff!

I also need to correct an earlier statement, I was saying that the strong nuclear force may require three foelds, when it occurs to me you can also have the color/anticolor to get a match as well. But then if there are three fields then the strong nuclear force would be weaker in the single color/anticolor example. So there may be a unifying field that needs to balance exclusive of the number of fields.

[Wudang]

Regarding the "unity of everything", Leonard Susskind had an interesting piece on string theory and the anthropic principle and other lofty stuff in New Scientist the other week. The article point to another article (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0302219) by him. Of course it can be seen as just increasing the scope of what "everything" might mean.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Upchurch
To my mind, there are five aspects to your argument that are incomplete or incorrect, in no particular order:

1. Existence is an indivisible singular.
{snip}

The simplist and most direct challenge I can pose for point number 1 is this: Existence is divisable because it can be divided into component parts.

Examples: Universe = Spacetime + matter/energy
matter/energy = matter + energy
humans = female humans + male humans
humans = old humans + young humans
energy = potential energy + kinetic energy
physical objects = sum of its comprising molecules
etc.Existence is divisible because it has component parts that can be distinguished from each other. That is because I don't understand your logic behind this "reducing logic". How is all of humanity reducible to one woman? How does 6 billion men, women, and children = 1 woman?I just wanted to bump these two points again as it goes back to the original point of the thread, which has sort of fallen to the wayside in favor of the "singular enforcer" discussion which, while interesting, is predicated on the above points and still unsettled.

[scribble]

I've been following this thread since my previous post and I was going to askf or a followup to this part if I didn't see anyhting by the time I got to the end. Oddly, Upchurch seems to have had the same thought, but I'm posting it anyhow.


That is because I don't understand your logic behind this "reducing logic". How is all of humanity reducible to one woman? How does 6 billion men, women, and children = 1 woman?


Moreover, the title of this thread is "Existence is reducible to the singular." I'm quite curious as to how that is done.

Can I also say that "Existence" is a confusing term in this case? If you mean "everything" - then to say "everything" would be less ambiguous. "Existence" in my dictionary is a property something has, not a noun in itself.

-Chris

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by scribble
Oddly, Upchurch seems to have had the same thought, but I'm posting it anyhow.Sorry. I guess we both realized the thead was moving off track without having answered the original topic.
Can I also say that "Existence" is a confusing term in this case? If you mean "everything" - then to say "everything" would be less ambiguous. "Existence" in my dictionary is a property something has, not a noun in itself. Agreed. That's why I've been using "universe". Although, "everything" would work just as well.

[Dancing David]

wish...wish...wish

wind in the moonlight

wish...cerkle...wish

leaves fall in silence

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I breathe, which is a self-act but I do not necessarily will myself to breathe. My heart beats, which is a self-act but I do not will it to beat.

I'm specifically dealing with absolute self-acts from an existence which is known to be the primal-cause of universal-forces.
I'm not being drawn into long discussions about free-will, but I know that 'you' (upchurch) are not the entity responsible for the beating of your heart.

Self-acts are not always willed by necessity.

Elevate the conversation to mirror an absolute self-act and you'll realise that your line of reasoning is wrong.

But it does matter. It is the very title of the thread, and it has yet to be established.

The universe (existence) as a whole is responsible for its own forces.
Therefore, the universe is the primal-cause of those forces.
This is important. We can know that the forces have been en-forced by existence itself. We can know that there is a primal-cause.
Some here complain that there might be more than a single
primal-cause contributing to several universal-forces. Here's what I say about that:-
1. Big deal. It wouldn't avoid the necessity of 'will' for those entities. I.e., it doesn't avoid the necessity of 'will' for an act by a primal-cause.
2. By reason, there can only be one primal-cause in the whole of existence. Think about it: a primal-cause is an entity which is the absolute cause of a proceeding event. It is impossible to be the absolute-cause of a proceeding event if that event is dependent upon the participation of other entities and a medium/stage of shared existence for those entities.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
That is because I don't understand your logic behind this "reducing logic". How is all of humanity reducible to one woman? How does 6 billion men, women, and children = 1 woman?

I was discussing source. Every human has the same great great great great alot-more-greats... grandmother

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The term "omnipotent" is logically inconsistent (e.g. the "Can God create a rock so heavy even God couldn't lift it" paradox),
There is no paradox. There is only confusion and ignorance pertaining to the term 'omnipotence'. I shall explain:-
If God is omnipotent, God should be able to create rocks that he can and cannot lift. I.e., he should be able to do anything with anything. Which includes not being able to do anything about things.

So, we see that ~nature~ has the power to move any rock... and through the creatures God lives through [God is all things], God also lacks the power to move those same rocks.
Thus, God truly is omnipotent because God can and cannot do all things. Not a paradox in sight - just the fulfilment of true omnipotence within perceived existence.

[Fun2BFree]

so ou have basically invented a definition for God--God is everything--great you just gave a synonym for everything---what possible use is this other than an exercise in creating a new name for everything....this is all just silly and useless and meaningless...everything by any other name still behaves as it behaves--

here is a model that points out how silly and useless this basically Deist notion you are proposing is-

God is everything --he decides in an act of self-will and total selflessness at the same time -cause its God doing it so God can be expected to do stuff like this---he decides to blow himself up and disperse himself in a big explosion thus scattering himself across himself--so what? the notion of such a God the Ultimate Source of everything is of what use? we still are left trying to figure how the mess left behind works.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
so ou have basically invented a definition for God--God is everything--great you just gave a synonym for everything---what possible use is this other than an exercise in creating a new name for everything....this is all just silly and useless and meaningless...everything by any other name still behaves as it behaves--

There is still purpose. As we sit here, contemplating who we are, choosing what we want from life, and what we want to exhibit of ourselves, we see a purpose to ~this~.
Your rant is premature.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I was discussing source. Every human has the same great great great great alot-more-greats... grandmother

So this is unity of history and coincidence, what about the grandmothers that don't survive.

This is not the 'unity of existance' it is the unity of excluding certain parts of the history. At time N there is going to be a past N where the same condition called Unity (PN) exists. However the unity which occurs at the present time N is Unity(N) which is going to be lesser in terms of diversity compared to Unity(PN). So the unity of the existance of humans is an everchanging set.

How does that imply 'unity of existance'?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is still purpose. As we sit here, contemplating who we are, choosing what we want from life, and what we want to exhibit of ourselves, we see a purpose to ~this~.
Your rant is premature.

That seems to assume purpose, which by definition may change due to context and individual preference. So is unity contextual? Shouldn't unity also include the purposeless?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is no paradox. There is only confusion and ignorance pertaining to the term 'omnipotence'. I shall explain:-
If God is omnipotent, God should be able to create rocks that he can and cannot lift. I.e., he should be able to do anything with anything. Which includes not being able to do anything about things.

So, we see that ~nature~ has the power to move any rock... and through the creatures God lives through [God is all things], God also lacks the power to move those same rocks.
Thus, God truly is omnipotent because God can and cannot do all things. Not a paradox in sight - just the fulfilment of true omnipotence within perceived existence.

Well, this just seems to be a slight shift in the definition of omnipotent, ceratinly you could say that the set of (potent) would include the Negative of (potent), and that just requires redifing omni-potent to be something like (all states of potent), as opposed to the meaning (all powerful).

To bring in the Frankenwriath frame, this means that god is constrained by TWTA/TLOP and that god choses to not act outside of TWTA/TLOP.


And that brings up the really important question:

Is god constrained by TWTA/TLOP or is god just following an honor system of chosing to not act in violation of TWTA/TLOP?

And this is important because nature does not cose to move all rocks, some of them are constrained in thier movement.

So the question becomes
Can god move rocks in violation of TWTA/TLOP?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David

How does that imply 'unity of existance'? I have to agree. If anything this "reduction logic", which only works as you go [/u]backwards[/i] in time, is really about propagation. It's like watching a video tape of a breaking glass as it rewinds and saying that the many pieces are still a single glass. If anything, it is the exact opposite of reduction.

Further, how is this example applicable to the universe? It may expand, but there isn't more or less of it, as there are with humans. I'm curious about how you think the reasoning translates from one to the other.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is no paradox. There is only confusion and ignorance pertaining to the term 'omnipotence'. I shall explain:-
If God is omnipotent, God should be able to create rocks that he can and cannot lift. I.e., he should be able to do anything with anything. Which includes not being able to do anything about things.That just furthers the paradox.

See, omnipotent is "all potent", meaning that the ability to anything without restriction. If there is something a being cannot do, that being is not omnipotent, because there is a potency (that is, the possiblity to perform an act) that the being does not possess. By its very nature, omnipotentcy is a logical paradox, due to its unrestricted nature.

Think of it this way, an omnipotent God as the ability to anything, right? So, does an omnipotent God have the ability to have never been an omnipotent God? Does an omnipotent God have the abilty to exist and not exist at the same time?

If the answer is "no" (which is the only honest and logically reasonable answer), then there is a restriction on an omnipotent God's ability and God isn't omnipotent.
So, we see that ~nature~ has the power to move any rock... and through the creatures God lives through [God is all things], God also lacks the power to move those same rocks.
Thus, God truly is omnipotent because God can and cannot do all things. Not a paradox in sight - just the fulfilment of true omnipotence within perceived existence. No. You're not saying that God cannot move the rock. You're saying that a portion of God cannot move the rock. God, which you've been trying to argue is a singular whole, can still move the rock.

I find it odd that you've switched to a "God is made of many parts" approach for this argument, when that is absolutely counter to your position in the rest of the thread. This might be easier if we stuck to the singularity of existense argument first. That way we establish the foundation of your argument a little more firmly.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Well, this just seems to be a slight shift in the definition of omnipotent, ceratinly you could say that the set of (potent) would include the Negative of (potent), and that just requires redifing omni-potent to be something like (all states of potent), as opposed to the meaning (all powerful).

To bring in the Frankenwriath frame, this means that god is constrained by TWTA/TLOP and that god choses to not act outside of TWTA/TLOP.

Actually, I would say that God is bound by Fate. Just like the rest of us.

How would God think? Via matter?

Oh, if the meaning of "omnipotent" was to change from "all powerful" to "most powerful" would that mean that God would be any less of a "God"?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
That just furthers the paradox.

See, omnipotent is "all potent", meaning that the ability to anything without restriction. If there is something a being cannot do, that being is not omnipotent, because there is a potency (that is, the possiblity to perform an act) that the being does not possess. By its very nature, omnipotentcy is a logical paradox, due to its unrestricted nature.

Consider these two versions of God:
1. I can kill all things, as I choose.

2. I can kill all things... or I can be killed by all things, as I choose.

Clearly, the second version of God is more powerful than the first. Hence, in truth, an omnipotent God is a God that can do or cannot do things as God chooses.

[lifegazer]

There is a primal-cause in existence. If you want to be argumentative, and to save time, I'll even concede that there may be more than one primal-cause.
However, my initial question still remains unanswered by any of you. I shall refine it slightly:-

How do you avoid the ultimate necessity of will in the origin of existential force, given that there is a primal-cause(s) in existence of those forces?

Does anyone ever intend to address the question head-on? If not, I don't see this thread going much further.

[Fun2BFree]

You seem incapable of breaking free from your assumptions to just look objectively at the evidence--you have ignored multiple answers that have been given of models wherein the universe is begun by mistake, not by will and they are as plausible as your silly idea that this somehow indicates some purpose for OUR lives which are but a tiny tiny itsy bitsy nothing of a fraction of the whole of existence...as Mark Twain is reported to have noted this is like looking at the Eiffel Tower and saying that the purpose of the whole structure is to hold up the layer of paint on the top....sorry but finding purpose in life is dependent on understanding reality here and now--there is no evidence whatsover that there is anything after life nor any evidence that what happened 15 billion years ago will meaningfully alter the purpose of your short stay on the planet...it is an interesting avenue for study- the origins of the Universe, but as for purpose in life the sooner more people realize that the answers lie in this time and place the better off all of us will be.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
You seem incapable of breaking free from your assumptions to just look objectively at the evidence--you have ignored multiple answers that have been given of models wherein the universe is begun by mistake, not by will
and they are as plausible as your silly idea that this somehow indicates some purpose for OUR lives which are but a tiny tiny itsy bitsy nothing of a fraction of the whole of existence...as Mark Twain is reported to have noted this is like looking at the Eiffel Tower and saying that the purpose of the whole structure is to hold up the layer of paint on the top....sorry but finding purpose in life is dependent on understanding reality here and now--there is no evidence whatsover that there is anything after life nor any evidence that what happened 15 billion years ago will meaningfully alter the purpose of your short stay on the planet...it is an interesting avenue for study- the origins of the Universe, but as for purpose in life the sooner more people realize that the answers lie in this time and place the better off all of us will be. [/B]
You say alot without having anything to say. The only thing worth discussing has been highlighted. How can a "mistake" cause the forces of existence? And how is this mistake started?
You say that multiple theories have been proposed. Yet I haven't seen one. Least of all from yourself.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by wraith


Actually, I would say that God is bound by Fate. Just like the rest of us.

How would God think? Via matter?

Oh, if the meaning of "omnipotent" was to change from "all powerful" to "most powerful" would that mean that God would be any less of a "God"?

I don't know, I am a nihilist so all gods are real and all gods are a crock. I don't think that god thinks because it is only an aspect of human experience.

Maxi-primo-potent would be a change from omni-potent.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
There is a primal-cause in existence. If you want to be argumentative, and to save time, I'll even concede that there may be more than one primal-cause.
However, my initial question still remains unanswered by any of you. I shall refine it slightly:-

How do you avoid the ultimate necessity of will in the origin of existential force, given that there is a primal-cause(s) in existence of those forces?

Does anyone ever intend to address the question head-on? If not, I don't see this thread going much further.

The neccesity of will depends upon the viewer of existance:

A committee might think that existance arose as the product of a commitee and therefore the will would be the struggle between sperate wills to form a coherent will.

A naturalist might think of some process like bubbles arising in fermentation and so could see creation as a non-willed process.

A mechanist might see it both ways , as a product of construct and will, but what if the original will made a machine that makes universes?

So the need for will probably depends on the POV of the person looking at creation.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
The neccesity of will depends upon the viewer of existance:

A committee might think that existance arose as the product of a commitee and therefore the will would be the struggle between sperate wills to form a coherent will.

Existence is. Existence didn't arise from anything or nothing.

A naturalist might think of some process like bubbles arising in fermentation and so could see creation as a non-willed process.

Change results from force. It is the emergence of universal force which we are discussing. To state that universal-force emanates from some other unknown force just evades the issue: existence is the enforcer of all force - how do we avoid the necessity of 'will' where any force is concerned?

A mechanist might see it both ways , as a product of construct and will, but what if the original will made a machine that makes universes?

Existence is the cause of all force. Answers such as this just evade the question I have posed.

So the need for will probably depends on the POV of the person looking at creation.
You don't gettit: Existence caused force. How do we avoid the necessity of will in this event? None of your responses deals with this question. Are you uncomfortable with confronting what I am saying?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Existence is. Existence didn't arise from anything or nothing.

Existence is a conceptual property that is attached to concrete things. Existence in itself does not "exist". However planes, tranes, and automobiles all happen to exist. Those 3 objects are concrete and real within reality, "existence" is a concept used to describe that those objects are concrete and real within reality.

Here is an example of the confusion being caused:
Beauty is.

(Now, I'll say what I previously said, I'll tweek the words a bit...)
Likewise, beauty is an abstract concept that is attached to concrete things. Beauty in itself does not exist. Women, fine art, and (some) music all happen to be beautiful. Those 3 things are concrete and real within reality, "beauty" is a concept used to describe that those objects are in fact beautiful.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Existence is a conceptual property that is attached to concrete things. Existence in itself does not "exist".

What is this nonsense? Existence does not exist?

Sigh... Why do I put myself through this torture...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What is this nonsense? Existence does not exist?

Its not nonsense, its the just the Philosophy of abstractionalism. Try to see the difference:

Abstracta - The color red, beauty, good, prepositions, concepts, hierarchial classes, verbs.

Concreta - Stars, protons, Frosted Flakes, books, play-doh, polaroid, mice, the electromagnetic field.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Its not nonsense, its the just the Philosophy of abstractionalism. Try to see the difference:

Abstracta - The color red, beauty, good, prepositions, concepts, hierarchial classes, verbs.

Concreta - Stars, protons, Frosted Flakes, books, play-doh, polaroid, mice, the electromagnetic field.
Your philosophy is laughable. Really - I just laughed.
... Colours, beauty, good, concepts, verbs, etc.: these are the essence of known existence. The concrete foundations of reasoned knowledge. Sensation is the mother of existence. The stage upon which we stand and speak of what we see.

Ironically, the "concreta" you speak of are the consequent labels of 'knowledge' attributed to the ~things~ we see within "abstracta".

Your philosophy is arse-upwards sire. Get your act together or be up-staged.

[jj]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Your philosophy is laughable. Really - I just laughed.
... Colours, beauty, good, concepts, verbs, etc.: these are the essence of known existence. The concrete foundations of reasoned knowledge. Sensation is the mother of existence. The stage upon which we stand and speak of what we see.

Ironically, the "concreta" you speak of are the consequent labels of 'knowledge' attributed to the ~things~ we see within "abstracta".

Your philosophy is arse-upwards sire. Get your act together or be up-staged.

Please provide some evidence for your claim that a physically based philosophy is somehow "arse-upwards".

The fact that you can't even argue, you just offer insult such as "laughable" or "arse-upwards" suggests to me that you have nothing whatsoever to offer, and that you know it.

Now you're just trolling. I think until you come up with some evidence for your giant fairy who made the universe you ought to retire in embarrasment.

Maybe go to RaptureReady... They'll suck your "proof" up like candy.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Your philosophy is laughable. Really - I just laughed.
... Colours, beauty, good, concepts, verbs, etc.: these are the essence of known existence. The concrete foundations of reasoned knowledge. Sensation is the mother of existence. The stage upon which we stand and speak of what we see.

Ironically, the "concreta" you speak of are the consequent labels of 'knowledge' attributed to the ~things~ we see within "abstracta".

Your philosophy is arse-upwards sire. Get your act together or be up-staged.

:( ... that's what I get for expecting this to go somewhere...

Well, I dont see anything laughable about "real things are real, unreal things are unreal". There is nothing laughable about the notion that objects do not need to be percieved, experienced, or even known about to exist (see Pragmatic Materialism). Very few individuals (with the exception of Franko/wraith) that I know of would say reality is limited to what you percieve/experience (i.e., I've never seen my brain, but I can say with 100% certainty that I have a brain). I dont need to see Andromeda for it to exist, perception and existence are independent (meaning "not reliant") of each other.

I dont understand what you think is so ironic about concreta. I get the impression that you think there is something ironic because the words in the Concreta list are in fact abstract labels, however that was not what I was implying (I was implying the concrete objects - like a chair - to which the labels identity... and no, the abstract label "red" does not identify anything which exists concretely, instead it identifies an abstract trait... and no, there is no such thing as an abstract trait known as "chair").

Ass far as my arse-backwards Philosophy,

(I'd be in America, I spell lots of words funny...)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Existence is. Existence didn't arise from anything or nothing.
See, now , you are getting better at stating your beliefs in the face of other beliefs and that is to be comended. I agree existance is, I repeat existance is

The issue Lifegazer is the YOU are the one who looks for the primal causes and asks where it comes from and if will is involved. There can be many answers and many questions.


Change results from force. It is the emergence of universal force which we are discussing. To state that universal-force emanates from some other unknown force just evades the issue: existence is the enforcer of all force - how do we avoid the necessity of 'will' where any force is concerned?


This in and of itself is interesting, there are changes that result from force and then there are changes that continue after the application of force.
Say you accelerate an object in free fall to a ceratin speed, the force causes it to obtain a vector of motion, that is change. Then the object tends to continue in motion in space/time relative to other objects. So that is a change which was precipitated by a force but does not continue to change becaise of a force. Unless you wish to consider momentum a force. It is an energy.

I will comment on the main queston below.


Existence is the cause of all force. Answers such as this just evade the question I have posed.

You don't gettit: Existence caused force. How do we avoid the necessity of will in this event? None of your responses deals with this question. Are you uncomfortable with confronting what I am saying?

I return your words to you Lifegazer and I will wiegh your response and condider it at length.

Are you uncomfortable with confronting what I am saying?
Does the fact that I don'y understand your resoning frustrate you, I regret that. I am trying to understand, but perhaps you need to respect and try to understand my POV as well. If you wish a dialouge to ensue. Do my words make you uncomfortable?


existence is the enforcer of all force
Existence is the cause of all force.
Existence caused force.


This is very important to you , since you said it three times. And I am unsure of why I should agree with these statements. I mean no disrespect but they seem to be of the nature of a definition. I would really like to understand how you reached the point of holding this belief.

Seriously , I hope you don't storm off, because I would like to understand.

existence is the enforcer of all force

could also be restated as
the enforcer of all forces exists, although I would state it
the enforcers of all forces exist , or the mechanism by by which forces interact exists.

Existence is the cause of all force.

This seems to be an assertion, for all we know the reason that the forces exist may be outisde but contigous to our universe. Current thery is looking to find a self contained universe, but I am not sure that that has been proved yet.

Again is can be restated
The cause of all force exists.


Existence caused force. (Use of bolding because of existing italics)

This could be restated: Forces exist.

I understand that you are searching for a means to say that there is a will in the universe and that is why it exists. Or something along those lines.

I have used metaphor as a kind of thought experiment to say that there are alternatives to your beliefs.

Again the fact that the universe exists does not mean that it was determined, it could be causal without being determined.

Thought experiment question: What would a universe without the will look like or act like?

Existance is, how or why would a will be needed?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by jj
Please provide some evidence for your claim that a physically based philosophy is somehow "arse-upwards".

The fact that you can't even argue, you just offer insult such as "laughable" or "arse-upwards" suggests to me that you have nothing whatsoever to offer, and that you know it.

How do you know that anything exists? Your whole understanding of existence is gleaned from five senses: sight; touch; taste; smell; hearing. To that, I would add that we have a sense of balance/motion... which I think are related. I tend to think that we have 6 senses of physical existence.
Anyway, the important point is that everything you know about (in the whole of existence) is coming via these senses only, to your reasoning/emotional mind.
These sensory-experiences are definitely created by the mind itself. For example, there is no way that the universe knows what 'pain' is. Therefore, the very sense of this pain is evidence that at some-level, and somehow, the mind itself has ~painted this portrait~ of reality upon its awareness.
And that's all we can know. We certainly cannot know that what we sense within ourselves is actually existant beyond the Mind which ~painted this picture~. Everyone has a sense of existence - his own existence, via his own senses. And the only thing that reason can confirm here, is that the awareness of each individual is centred within his own senses, which have been created by an aspect of the Mind itself (subconcious).
We can further-conlude that our minds make judgements about their mind-created perceptions, using reason.
Thus, our whole understanding of the universe/existence comes directly by reason, from a ~portrait~ painted by the Mind itself.
We just cannot escape our own inner-existence - Mindful existence, whereby things are only known via attributes of the mind: senses and reason.

Our existence amounts to the emotionalised reasoning of inner-sensation. You sire have never had an experience external to your own mind. Ever. And you never shall.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
There is nothing laughable about the notion that objects do not need to be percieved, experienced, or even known about to exist

*Laughs again*.
There are no particles of definite existence except within awareness.
Also, any object you try to define will be defined with words such as 'red', 'square', 'cold', 'musky', 'smooth', etc.. I can promise you that such defining words mirror what you sense inside your awareness. Such words define objects that exist inside your mind. They say nothing of anything else beyond your awareness.

(see Pragmatic Materialism).

Materialism is a religion. I follow no religions.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Existence is. Existence didn't arise from anything or nothing.
See, now , you are getting better at stating your beliefs in the face of other beliefs and that is to be comended. I agree existance is, I repeat existance is

This is not a belief. It's an absolute-fact borne of the reason which discovers that existence cannot be born of non-existence. Therefore, existence has always been.

The issue Lifegazer is the YOU are the one who looks for the primal causes and asks where it comes from and if will is involved. There can be many answers and many questions.

Give me just one rational answer to the question posed. How is a force instigated by a primal-cause, except through will?
The question cannot be answered in terms of other entities or forces - given that we are discussing a primal-cause. And so, the instigation of a force by a primal-cause is one which is instigated by intent... and then action.


existence is the enforcer of all force
Existence is the cause of all force.
Existence caused force.


This is very important to you , since you said it three times. And I am unsure of why I should agree with these statements. I mean no disrespect but they seem to be of the nature of a definition. I would really like to understand how you reached the point of holding this belief.

It's not a belief. It's obvious reason.
The ~thing(s)~ which has existence is/are obviously the source of the forces which exist in existence.
A force is an action... a movement... a changing of form. Force emanates from being. It is the energy of change.
Though universal-forces shape what we see in the observable universe, I can state as fact that these forces emanate from existential being, fundamentally.

Seriously , I hope you don't storm off, because I would like to understand.

Really?

Existence is the cause of all force.

This seems to be an assertion, for all we know the reason that the forces exist may be outisde but contigous to our universe. Current thery is looking to find a self contained universe, but I am not sure that that has been proved yet.

There is no such thing as "external to existence", when discussing existence as a whole.

Again the fact that the universe exists does not mean that it was determined, it could be causal without being determined.

This universe of time is a changing existence. Change is effected by force. Force is effected by an enforcer.
By default of this logic, the enforcer is the essence of change = the essence of time.
Consequently, The Enforcer creates time... and must exist beyond time. I.e., the existence of the enforcer must precede the changes/time which It proceeds to instigate. Therefore, the enforcer itself does not exist in time.

Thought experiment question: What would a universe without the will look like or act like?

Without 'will', there can be no initial force from the
primal-cause(s) which exist.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I don't know, I am a nihilist so all gods are real and all gods are a crock. I don't think that god thinks because it is only an aspect of human experience.

Human experience is one big illusion? ie Consciousness is an illusion?

Maxi-primo-potent would be a change from omni-potent.

So God is Maxi-primo-potent.

[wraith]

Originally posted by Upchurch
How and external from what? Are you aware that he's refering to quantum fluctuations, which are an aspect of the laws of physics?


In regards to quantum fluctuations, you base the origins of the universe due to this process? So sooner or later, a universe would have to be created without too much care with the variables involved?

Would you say that quantum fluctuations can be traced back to the infinite past?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Give me just one rational answer to the question posed. How is a force instigated by a primal-cause, except through will?Oh. I get it now. The question is moot. There is no primal-cause in the sense that you mean. A primal-cause would have a net effect (force, if you will) on something, but the net force of the universe is zero, as I mentioned above.

Now, within the universe, forces are caused by the interplay of spacetime and matter/energy. No will required, just as no will is required to make my heart beat.

If you don't like that answer, there is always this one that you've dismissed but not addressed:1. The universe acts very consistently.
2. An aspect of will is to have the ability not to act.
3. From 1, the universe never doesn't act.
4. From 3, the universe doesn't display the ability not to act
5. From 2 & 4, the universe does not display an aspect of will.

Conclusion: Will is not a necessity of the universe.
Caviat: I have not shown that it isn't possible for the universe to have will, only that it does not display the ability to act willfully.If you would, humor me and show me where you think I'm wrong. And please stick to facts rather than your personal beliefs and opinions.

Even though all matter/energy and spacetime behaves similarily, you've still not shown that all of existence is reducible to a singular whole. Do you plan to come back to this?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

This is not a belief. It's an absolute-fact borne of the reason which discovers that existence cannot be born of non-existence. Therefore, existence has always been.

I agree something can not come from nothing. But as to what is outside of the universe and what caused the universe to be, we can not test scientificaly, so I don't know. It is great area for philosphy!

Give me just one rational answer to the question posed. How is a force instigated by a primal-cause, except through will?
The question cannot be answered in terms of other entities or forces - given that we are discussing a primal-cause. And so, the instigation of a force by a primal-cause is one which is instigated by intent... and then action.

I understand your frustration, and I am sincerely trying to communicate with you.

For one: being of a materialist min bend, I can not state how that would be tested for.

For two: as I mentioned before we could have a primal cause that is not determined. It could be accidental, it could be a side effect of the determined cause(like a piece of craetion breaking off, our piece was created but not intended), there could be a mistake and the creation was not supposed to happen

For three: when we look at the primal cause there is again the scientific barrier, we can not test if the universe was created or accidental.

I would like to believe that it was created, but have no proof.



It's not a belief. It's obvious reason.
The ~thing(s)~ which has existence is/are obviously the source of the forces which exist in existence.
A force is an action... a movement... a changing of form. Force emanates from being. It is the energy of change.
Though universal-forces shape what we see in the observable universe, I can state as fact that these forces emanate from existential being, fundamentally.



I agree that the things in existance appear to create the forces observed, I am a metrialist afetr all. But as to the ultimate cause, I don't know. I have alos been told that we can not prove the ontological nature of materialism, we can merely observe.

And I agree that the forces are manifest in existance. the cause of the forcesd is unknown and can only be approximated.


Really?

Yes really, by my sacred heart and tounge.

There is no such thing as "external to existence", when discussing existence as a whole.


Now there is a truely material POV for you, and one that iagree with. But when we look at 'what was there before the big band started to play?' Then there are some cool side effects of the theory you chose to look at.

The universe came from something. Something is external.

The universe was created, something created it. The creator is external.
The universe is part of an infinite recursion of inflating space time bubbles. There is an external universe in which our space time bubble budded from.

But under current theory we can not go outside the universe. So extrernal can be speculated but not tested.

This universe of time is a changing existence. Change is effected by force. Force is effected by an enforcer.
By default of this logic, the enforcer is the essence of change = the essence of time.
Consequently, The Enforcer creates time... and must exist beyond time. I.e., the existence of the enforcer must precede the changes/time which It proceeds to instigate. Therefore, the enforcer itself does not exist in time.

[/B ]This would also fit in with some forms of inflationary theory and maybe string theory[B]

Without 'will', there can be no initial force from the
primal-cause(s) which exist.

As I have stated i don't know, but i can continue to believe that creation might have been accidental or unplanned. No offense meant to you Life gazer. Just personal belief that the whole shebang is chaotic. Or that if tghere was a creation, we are very far from it.

My belief is that primal causes just are, no will needed, they just exist. maybe someday we will know.

[lifegazer]

I think I'll wrap this up and move on to another discussion.
I'd like to summarise my position:-

1. Existence is.
2. Existence always has been.
3. Force is action/energy which effects [perceived] changes in the state of existence. Therefore, forces are enforced by existential being. I.e., beingness precedes force of change.
4. Universal-forces emanate from something within existence itself. Therefore:
(a) There is a primal-cause within existence. Without doubt.
(b) Ultimately, all forces emanate from this primal-cause.
5. If a being is the primal-cause of a force, 'will' has been exhibited in that force's creation.

Unless there's something specific you want to discuss, I think I'll leave this discussion now. I want to start a thread on Relativity soon. Thankyou for your time.

[Upchurch]

Well, that was disappointing. I feel like I put forth a lot of earnest effort and got almost nothing in return except reiteration of previous claims.

What a waste.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer
...
Unless there's something specific you want to discuss, I think I'll leave this discussion now. I want to start a thread on Relativity soon. Thankyou for your time. Yes, one CRAPFEST at a time. Good policy.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Well, that was disappointing. I feel like I put forth a lot of earnest effort and got almost nothing in return except reiteration of previous claims.

What a waste.

Yep. That's why he was banned from philosophyforums. In the words of the administrator, "he only had one post, but he posted it 400 times."

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Well, that was disappointing. I feel like I put forth a lot of earnest effort and got almost nothing in return except reiteration of previous claims.

What a waste.
My sentiments exactly.
What do you propose? Clearly we have different points of view and we've thrashed out many issues here. Do you want to discuss the same issues again?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Yep. That's why he was banned from philosophyforums. In the words of the administrator, "he only had one post, but he posted it 400 times."
Hello Geoff.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Hello Geoff.

Hello Lifegazer. Actually read any philosophy yet? Or are you still claiming to have overturned 2000 years of thought without actually bothering to read what you think you have overturned?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What do you propose? Clearly we have different points of view and we've thrashed out many issues here. Do you want to discuss the same issues again? It would be lovely if you could defend the original premise of the thread. That is, that all of existence is reducible to a singular indivisible whole. All of your subsequent arguments are based on this assumption, but you have yet to successfully show that this is the case. Nor have you addressed any of my counter arguments/examples to this assumption, primarily that existence is divisible and non-singular within itself.

You've also ignored my counter-argument to your prime-cause (i.e. there is no net cause or force) and others, but that can wait until you've shown the above assumption to be true.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Or are you still claiming to have overturned 2000 years of thought without actually bothering to read what you think you have overturned? That's interesting. Earlier in this very thread, he (inexplicably) used the weight of philosophical history as evidence for his position.

Do you have a link?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


Hello Lifegazer. Actually read any philosophy yet? Or are you still claiming to have overturned 2000 years of thought without actually bothering to read what you think you have overturned?
My philosophy is founded upon reason Geoff. Not memory. If you want my honest opinion, I'd say that studying physics and history is as important as studying philosophy of the past. That's why my next thread is going to be about relativity. Feel free to add your rational comments.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
The bulk of philosophy, arguably, has been centred around the concept of God. There's a mountain of reason for accepting that concept as a credible existing entity.

{snip}

Brush 3000 years of divine philosophy under the rug and claim that no evidence exists. Interesting.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Upchurch
[B]That's interesting. Earlier in this very thread, he (inexplicably) used the weight of philosophical history as evidence for his position.


Indeed that is interesting. Mr Lifegazer has told me on numerous occasions that he didn't believe it was neccesary to read up on philosophy or mysticism because he was quite capable of working it out for himself.



Do you have a link?


I'm not sure I can be bothered to trawl through all of his posts trying to find the ones where he said this.

Maybe the words "I've never studied philosophy and have read very little on the subject" may ring a bell with Mr Lifegazer. I don't expect him to deny them. If he does, I may go looking for where he wrote them.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
It would be lovely if you could defend the original premise of the thread. That is, that all of existence is reducible to a singular indivisible whole. All of your subsequent arguments are based on this assumption, but you have yet to successfully show that this is the case.

"Success" is relative and subjective. I certainly tried. I'm not going to repeat things you've disagreed with already.

The main aim of this thread was to show that 'will' was exhibited in the instigation of force from existence. I.e., that 'will' is a necessity in the creation of force(s). With hindsight, I don't even think I needed to show that existence is singular. Although as a whole, existence is singular by default. All wholes mirror individuality. I should have just argued that existence was the primal-cause of its own forces and left it at that.

You've also ignored my counter-argument to your prime-cause (i.e. there is no net cause or force) and others, but that can wait until you've shown the above assumption to be true.
That the net-effect of force is zero does not infer that existence is inactive. If I take one step forward and one step back I have certainly acted moreso than if I had taken no steps at all.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Indeed that is interesting. Mr Lifegazer has told me on numerous occasions that he didn't believe it was neccesary to read up on philosophy or mysticism because he was quite capable of working it out for himself.Given his rather sweeping generalizations of scientific conscepts, such as GUTs, I wonder if he feels the same about physics....

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

My philosophy is founded upon reason Geoff. Not memory.


Yes, Lifegazer. But philosophers have been using reason to argue about these subjects since the dawn of civilisation, and unless you bother to find out which arguments they have already had then you are likely to repeat mistakes that have been consigned to the history books you aren't interested in reading. In effect, you are claiming to have figured out something that all those people did not figure out, without the benefit of any training in the subject you claim to be reasoning about. The arrogance combined with ignorance is jaw-dropping.

[UndercoverElephant]

Upchurch:

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=3358

[lifegazer]

Refute my philosophy head-on Geoff. My academic standing is irrelevant to the credibility of anything I might say unless you can show I am talking nonsense. So do that and stop attacking my credentials and my persona.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
That's interesting. Earlier in this very thread, he (inexplicably) used the weight of philosophical history as evidence for his position.

I cited philosophical history as evidence of rationale's un-ending interest in the concept of God as opposed to one philosophers interest in the absurd notion of "blind will". If you are going to conduct a witch hunt, at least speak the truth.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[B]Refute my philosophy head-on Geoff.


I did. So did lots of other people. You continued to repeat the same fallacies over and over and over again. That is why you have already been banned twice by people (people who actually studied philosophy) who eventually got sick of your endless repetitions and total inability to understand that your position had been refuted.


My academic standing is irrelevant to the credibility of anything I might say unless you can show I am talking nonsense. So do that and stop attacking my credentials and my persona.


No point. I, like many others, have tried to provoke you into a better understanding of the subject you claim to have figured out all on your own. But it became a complete waste of time and energy. One might think, having been banned twice already for making precisely this mistake, that you would have gone away and filled in some of the bits that were missing from your understanding. But no. Here you are doing exactly the same thing again.

Your problem is that your opinion of your own ability to reason without dogmatic bias is way in excess of what is justified. When pushed, your position crumbled into simple anthropomorphised theism e.g. "Why would God have created the Universe if he didn't have an ego and emotions like us?"

Sorry, LG, but I have no intention of banging my head against this particular brick wall again. I figured it might be worth letting the people here know a bit of your history to save them having to go through the whole process yet again.

Geoff.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I did. So did lots of other people. You continued to repeat the same fallacies over and over and over again. That is why you have already been banned twice by people (people who actually studied philosophy) who eventually got sick of your endless repetitions and total inability to understand that your position had been refuted.

It's impossible to refute the philosophy of monistic-idealism. You're conducting a witch-hunt simply because you do not like my attitude and my philosophy worrys you. I.e., you're worried I might influence people.
But anybody who reads your posts here will see that you're just spitting venom.

To come into this discussion with the sole intention of destroying my credibility without addressing my philosophy in the slightest is a friggin disgrace. I think you're scum.

[whitefork]

Bolding, quoting, hyphenation, and cute neologisms do not a valid argument make.The arrogance combined with ignorance is jaw-droppingbut an effective strategy in management.

[UndercoverElephant]

For the record, here is (one of the places) where your philosophy was "met head on" and ended up roadkill.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/showthread.php?t=3011&page=1&pp=25


Geoff : "you have NO IDEA what mysticism is"

LifeGazer : "If I have no idea what a mystic is, it's because I do not care and disagree with some of their philosophy. I make no apologies for that."

Geoff : "How can you disagree with a philosophy you have no idea about?"

Lifegazer : "I don't need to read of other philosophies. I can make my own."


I'm still left speechless by the combination of

a) indescribable arrogance (ego the size of a house) ("I don't need to read philosophy")

and

b) the claim that all one need to do is "want unity with God" and our egos will disappear and everything in the garden will be lovely.

Your own house-sized ego refutes your claim that the mere knowledge of "the truth" will transform you into an ego-less servant of God. You aren't serving God. You are serving your ego. In other words, you are a walking, talking refutation of your own philosophy.

:)

Geoff.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

It's impossible to refute the philosophy of monistic-idealism.


This is a good example of what I mean. I never tried to refute monistic idealism, Lifegazer. I told you over and over again that I did not want to challenge this claim but I did want to explore the rest of your philosophy. You just kept on defending idealism because you were two damned deaf/stupid to figure out that I wasn't even attacking it. That is why people accuse you of not listening. It is because you don't listen.


You're conducting a witch-hunt simply because you do not like my attitude and my philosophy worrys you. I.e., you're worried I might influence people.


Oh boy. I wish you had some idea how that is going to read to the people on this site who knew me before I left. You think I am worried by monistic idealism?! Most of the people here are going to find that one a little hard to swallow.


But anybody who reads your posts here will see that you're just spitting venom.


No venom. I'm here to haunt you. Wooooooooooooo! ;)


I think you're scum.


Thanks. :)

Geoff.

[hgc]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
...
One might think, having been banned twice already for making precisely this mistake, that you would have gone away and filled in some of the bits that were missing from your understanding. But no. Here you are doing exactly the same thing again.
... Don't worry lifegazer, you can't get banned around here for that. You can be foolish ad infinitum.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
No venom. I'm here to haunt you. Wooooooooooooo! ;)

Haunt me with what? Unless you can counter my philosophy directly you cannot hurt me in the slightest.
If all you want to talk about is the size of my ego, then you'll have to do it with other members. Because I'm not interested in the size of my ego.

[Suezoled]

[derail]
"Stacy's Mom has got it going on/ she's all I want and I've waited for so long/ Stacy can't you see you're just not the girl for me/ I know it might be wrong but I'm in love with Stacey's mom." [/end derail]:D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

"Success" is relative and subjective. I certainly tried. I'm not going to repeat things you've disagreed with already.Nor, apparently, do you plan to try to refute the flaws I've pointed out?

The problem you've had throughout this entire thread is that you've been unable to differentiate between fact and opinion. Where you call "existence is singular by default" and "All wholes mirror individuality" facts, they are really unsupported supposition. Neither of these things are given, nor are many of the other things that you claim as givens. I really have to question your analytical and critical thought capabilities.

I have to agree with Geoff in his opinion, if not in his presentation of that opinion. Your ability to argue is impressive, especially compared to some posters on this board, but your lack of familiarity with the subjects that you are argueing and, indeed, your inability to construct formal arguments really hampers what could have been an interesting conversation.

Really a shame.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Haunt me with what? Unless you can counter my philosophy directly you cannot hurt me in the slightest.


You haven't got a philosophy. What you've got is a couple of wheels which you think is a car. And if I cannot hurt you in the slightest, then why have I already managed to provoke you into calling me scum? :D

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Suezoled
[derail]
"Stacy's Mom has got it going on/ she's all I want and I've waited for so long/ Stacy can't you see you're just not the girl for me/ I know it might be wrong but I'm in love with Stacey's mom." [/end derail]:D

Do you think this is clever? :rolleyes:

What is the point in this post?

If you having nothing to say then shut up.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


Do you think this is clever? :rolleyes:

What is the point in this post?

If you having nothing to say then shut up.

[Derail] I, I'm thinking it's a sign/ that the freckles in our eyes are mirror images/ and when we kiss they're perfectly aligned/ and I, have to speculate that/ that god himself did make us into corresponding shapes like puzzle pieces from the clay" _postal Service [derail] :p

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Suezoled


[Derail] I, I'm thinking it's a sign/ that the freckles in our eyes are mirror images/ and when we kiss they're perfectly aligned/ and I, have to speculate that/ that god himself did make us into corresponding shapes like puzzle pieces from the clay" _postal Service [derail] :p

So you do think spamming is clever. You think it makes sense to intervene in a discussion about philosophy by posting nonsense to waste space. You haven't actually got anything to contribute, you just think it is clever to waste space in other peoples debates, presumably because you have decided that the other people aren't saying anything worth listening to anyway. Although of course if that was the case you could always just not read it, but that wouldn't allow you to feel so clever, would it?

Your Interests : Asian Culture, horses, Biology, learning more...and spamming debates about philosophy.

Very sad. :(

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


So you do think spamming is clever. You think it makes sense to intervene in a discussion about philosophy by posting nonsense to waste space. You haven't actually got anything to contribute, you just think it is clever to waste space in other peoples debates, presumably because you have decided that the other people aren't saying anything worth listening to anyway. Although of course if that was the case you could always just not read it, but that wouldn't allow you to feel so clever, would it?

Your Interests : Asian Culture, horses, Biology, learning more...and spamming debates about philosophy.

Very sad. :(

Oh. You're another person who takes himself ever so VERY seriously. Poor kid. ;)

Edited to add: Look, while you're rummaging about in my head telling me what I think, please find the combination to that lock on the wooden box I have in my closet. I seem to have forgotten it, but it's probably in there somewhere.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The problem you've had throughout this entire thread is that you've been unable to differentiate between fact and opinion. Where you call "existence is singular by default" and "All wholes mirror individuality" facts, they are really unsupported supposition. Neither of these things are given, nor are many of the other things that you claim as givens. I really have to question your analytical and critical thought capabilities.

A whole is the totality of something. And the totality of something individualises that thing: a human; a cake; a universe; a post; a country. Etc., etc.,. What is the point of discussing things with someone who wants to argue about universally-understood definitions?
If you do not know that a whole mirrors a singular entity then that is your problem.

[whitefork]

What is the mirror?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


You haven't got a philosophy. What you've got is a couple of wheels which you think is a car. And if I cannot hurt you in the slightest, then why have I already managed to provoke you into calling me scum? :D
Calling you scum was deliverance of a fact in evidence of your behaviour.

Show these people how bad my philosophy is by refuting it directly. Can you do that? If not, then you have no right to vilify me. None whatsoever. Coming in here and complaining about my ego and lack of academic credentials is just pathetic.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Kullervo
What is the mirror?
The Mind is the mirror of every thing.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by lifegazer

A whole is the totality of something. And the totality of something individualises that thing: a human; a cake; a universe; a post; a country. Etc., etc.,. What is the point of discussing things with someone who wants to argue about universally-understood definitions?
If you do not know that a whole mirrors a singular entity then that is your problem.

You perception of totality is an ego driven philosophy dependent on subjective perceptions. Mainly, yours. Because it is subjective, the material you present, and its relevence, is in doubt simply because one person's perspective cannot be relied upon as accurate and representative of reality.

But you are alot more fun to talk to now that you've loosened up, Lifegazer.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Suezoled
You perception of totality is an ego driven philosophy dependent on subjective perceptions. Mainly, yours. Because it is subjective, the material you present, and its relevence, is in doubt simply because one person's perspective cannot be relied upon as accurate and representative of reality.

Majority-philosophies fall harder than those of the individual and the 21st century heralds the demise of materialism.

But you are alot more fun to talk to now that you've loosened up, Lifegazer.
You aint see nothin yet.

[scribble]

It makes a lot of sense to me. I go to a mechanic who treats my car as a 'unified whole.' He says that of course it is the car that is the cause of the forces within the engine. When there is a spark in the engine, it is the will of the car to generate that spark. The spark plugs are incidental, we don't have to consider them individually because it's the car as a whole that's responsible for the forces within it...



Okay, more seriously, you cannot consider all of existence (and I've going to use the word 'everything' here for clarity) - and then exclude part of that everything, can you?

If you take EVERYTHING, you've got to take it all. You can't consider the forces within this group (everything) without considering them as a constituent part of that (everything) - thus you've already broken down your argument by removing the property of singularity you have assigned to (everything) and using it's component parts in your argument.


Okay, that aside... let's take some examples that might help me understand what you're saying. "If you do not know that a whole mirrors a singular entity then that is your problem.." Very well - can you explain to me what inidivdual is mirrored in the whole of the solar system? What individual is mirrored in the whole of an atom? What individual is mirrored in the whole of existence?

-Chris

[hal bidlack]

This post has been reported for revealing the interests of another poster. Given that that field is voluntary, and that it is not hidden from others, I do not find this to be a specific violation of the rules. I do find it rather "in your face" but not illegal.

hal

Originally posted by JustGeoff


So you do think spamming is clever. You think it makes sense to intervene in a discussion about philosophy by posting nonsense to waste space. You haven't actually got anything to contribute, you just think it is clever to waste space in other peoples debates, presumably because you have decided that the other people aren't saying anything worth listening to anyway. Although of course if that was the case you could always just not read it, but that wouldn't allow you to feel so clever, would it?

Your Interests : Asian Culture, horses, Biology, learning more...and spamming debates about philosophy.

Very sad. :(

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by scribble
It makes a lot of sense to me. I go to a mechanic who treats my car as a 'unified whole.' He says that of course it is the car that is the cause of the forces within the engine. When there is a spark in the engine, it is the will of the car to generate that spark. The spark plugs are incidental, we don't have to consider them individually because it's the car as a whole that's responsible for the forces within it...

The reason why this is irrelevant to my own argument is, of course, because a car doesn't constitute the whole of existence. Forces external to the car contribute to the car's internal behaviour. Whereas in regards the whole of existence, we cannot attribute existential behaviour to external factors - since "the whole of existence" excludes any external existence to that whole.

Okay, more seriously, you cannot consider all of existence (and I've going to use the word 'everything' here for clarity) - and then exclude part of that everything, can you?

If you take EVERYTHING, you've got to take it all. You can't consider the forces within this group (everything) without considering them as a constituent part of that (everything) - thus you've already broken down your argument by removing the property of singularity you have assigned to (everything) and using it's component parts in your argument.

~Something~ has existential being. Most of us accept this.
But there is also existential doing - what the being is doing - the activity of the being. How existence is ordered and how it behaves.
My argument states that doing proceeds being and that ultimately, therefore, doing is a consequence of the will of being.

Okay, that aside... let's take some examples that might help me understand what you're saying. "If you do not know that a whole mirrors a singular entity then that is your problem.." Very well - can you explain to me what inidivdual is mirrored in the whole of the solar system?

The solar system.

What individual is mirrored in the whole of an atom?

The atom.

What individual is mirrored in the whole of existence?

The totality of being - made singular - and the essence of doing.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The Mind is the mirror of every thing. That is a metaphor. We need something specific, and a clear description of the nature of mind and its activity.

The mirror is not the reflection or the object reflected. The mirror does not reflect itself. So if the mind it a mirror, it is not self-reflective.

More content required.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The Mind is the mirror of every thing.

So if your mind is mirror of everything, aren't you just arguing with yourself?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Kullervo
That is a metaphor. We need something specific, and a clear description of the nature of mind and its activity.

The mirror is not the reflection or the object reflected. The mirror does not reflect itself. So if the mind it a mirror, it is not self-reflective.

More content required.
We see everything, including ourselves, within awareness. Awareness is a facet of [subconcious] Mind. It's practically impossible to be aware of awareness in itself. Some holy men claim to have achieved it, but...

Anyway, the Mind is the mirror of everything. Everything is mirrored in its awareness.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Suezoled
So if your mind is mirror of everything, aren't you just arguing with yourself? [/B]
Awareness mirrors me. It does not belong to 'me'.

... It's not my mind which mirrors everything. But A Mind, the mirror of all finite entities, mirrors all.

[jj]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Anyway, the Mind is the mirror of everything. Everything is mirrored in its awareness.

Ok, my father was obviously quite a different individual than I was. (unless we do not reject insane solipcism)

When he died, I didn't disappear. That's some evidence of existance beyond the mind.

Now, for any given individual, the physical processes (and physical processes would seem to be definitively the only thing required since there is not a single bit of evidence for anything else in this world) that create "mind" are what creates the percepts (some people insist on qualia, which has a slightly different meaning) that recognize, in mind, the existance of some physical object.

But that doesn't deny the existance or primacy of the physical object, it only establishes that the mind creates an internal percept of the external physical object.

If you want to argue for anything else, provide evidence immediately, or stop blathering at us.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by lifegazer
... It's not my mind which mirrors everything. But A Mind, the mirror of all finite entities, mirrors all. It would appear that you are claiming awareness of this mind. How is that possible if you are only mirrored by it?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Kullervo
It would appear that you are claiming awareness of this mind. How is that possible if you are only mirrored by it?
'we' is what we see when awareness looks within itself.
Awareness of Mind is our true identity. What is seen within that awareness is the origins of 'we'.

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer

'we' is what we see when awareness looks within itself.
Awareness of Mind is our true identity. What is seen within that awareness is the origins of 'we'. To be taken with a healthy dose of peyote (and facetiousness!). :roll:

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
This post has been reported for revealing the interests of another poster. Given that that field is voluntary, and that it is not hidden from others, I do not find this to be a specific violation of the rules. I do find it rather "in your face" but not illegal.

hal



You think it was "in your face"? I presume you think mindless spamming isn't. :rolleyes:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by hgc
To be taken with a healthy dose of peyote (and facetiousness!). :roll:
Who are you hgc? Consider who you are in your awareness. Now do it again in 10 years time. Notice how the awareness in which you consider your identity remains as it was before, whilst the decisions you make shall change.

[Suezoled]

You're the mirror. The mirror is you. Your awareness is you. You are your awareness. How circular.

As Koboyashi said on Iron Chef: You must become ONE with the MUSHROOM! (He lost the competition anyway)

[hgc]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Who are you hgc? Consider who you are in your awareness. Now do it again in 10 years time. Notice how the awareness in which you consider your identity remains as it was before, whilst the decisions you make shall change. Since we're not likely to still be conducting this farce in 10 years, could you please jump forward and make this relevant today?

"Who are you hgc?" - I'll presume this is a rhetorical question. I mean, what possible answer could I give that would contribute to the discussion?

"Consider who you are in your awareness." - I don't know what you mean by this. Is this put as opposed to who I am outside my awareness?

"Now do it again in 10 years time..." - Can I just readjust the start/end points for the sake of the discussion, and remember my idendity via awareness from 10 years ago and compare to today? If so, and if and when I catch a clue as to what you're talking about, I'll do you little experiment and report the results.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


You think it was "in your face"? I presume you think mindless spamming isn't. :rolleyes:



So, found that combination to that lock yet?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What is the point of discussing things with someone who wants to argue about universally-understood definitions? **whistles** man-o-man-o-man.

There is no such thing as universally understood definitions. Five minutes lurking on this board will prove that. We've even argued about the word "I" on this board.

That you think they do exists is just another assumption that you've mistaken for a fact.