Let's Get Metaphysical Baby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

There is no need to prove that existence has always existed - just that it presently exists. Believing in a Christian god requires you to believe that a consciousness existed before existence which is impossible.

---

How does a concsiousness not exist? If it doesn't exist then it is nothing. I'm saying that existence is eternal, but that material things that exist have no ground for there existence. This eternal Pure Act being has consciousness, but also exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drumlogic37

This isn't that exact argument, but I'm just pasting some of this from a paper I did a few months ago. I'm wanthing to show how the Aristotelian view of change calls for a unmoved mover (i.e. Pure Act).

---

1) This argument, as Guisslap correctly points out in the "knowledge" thread, mistakingly places the law of identity ahead of the axiom of existence.
2) why is existence not the "prime mover"? where has it ever been shown that a starting point is a state of rest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drumlogic37

How does a concsiousness not exist? If it doesn't exist then it is nothing. I'm saying that existence is eternal, but that material things that exist have no ground for there existence. This eternal Pure Act being has consciousness, but also exists.

---

What was the consciousness aware of prior to existence of anything external to its consciousness?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drumlogic37

How does a concsiousness not exist? If it doesn't exist then it is nothing. I'm saying that existence is eternal, but that material things that exist have no ground for there existence. This eternal Pure Act being has consciousness, but also exists.

---

what is consciousness? see the definition on the first page:

The base of Objectivism is explicit: "Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists." What are you suggesting that the Pure Act could be conscious of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Your point No. 2 in post 125 has been contradicted by quantum mechanics. Newtonian physics are not absolutes.

---

I don't think it does. The fact that we don't know why quantum mechanics works the way it works does not prove that there is no cause to what is happening. There is not enough evidence to claim that quantum particles are not being moved by something that we have not yet discovered. Further, if quantum mechanics is a valid counter example, then the the law of causality is not valid. If this is the case then were stuck it an extreme form of Skepicism. Even Hume says that he never accepted that things happen without a cause.

I'm done for the day. I'll get back on here saturday or sunday. Ya'll have a good one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drumlogic37

I don't think it does. The fact that we don't know why quantum mechanics works the way it works does not prove that there is no cause to what is happening. There is not enough evidence to claim that quantum particles are not being moved by something that we have not yet discovered. Further, if quantum mechanics is a valid counter example, then the the law of causality is not valid. If this is the case then were stuck it an extreme form of Skepicism. Even Hume says that he never accepted that things happen without a cause.

I'm done for the day. I'll get back on here saturday or sunday. Ya'll have a good one.

---

I don't see how it would negate the law of identity or the axiom of existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

what is consciousness? see the definition on the first page:

The base of Objectivism is explicit: "Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists." What are you suggesting that the Pure Act could be conscious of?

---

Are you saying that "to exist, is to be perceived" (esse est percipi)? If so, it sounds like Berkeley's Idealism. I don't think your saying this, but just thought I would bring that up.

I'm saying that God (Pure Act) is conscious of himself. The one that exists and the consciousness are one and the same being. Are you saying that in order to know something it must be compared to something else? Like, I know I exist, because see something else that exists. If that is the case then I see no reason to accepts your view. I see nothing contrary to knowing oneself exists apart from other existing things.

I've got go get to work. I'll be back in a few days

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

I don't see how it would negate the law of identity or the axiom of existence.

---

I'm not negating the law of identity. I'm merely saying that quantum mechanics is not a counter example to the law of causality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drumlogic37

I'm not negating the law of identity. I'm merely saying that quantum mechanics is not a counter example to the law of causality.

---

It may be proof that causes do not underly everything. It doesn't mean an object does not have identity, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drumlogic37

Are you saying that "to exist, is to be perceived" (esse est percipi)? If so, it sounds like Berkeley's Idealism. I don't think your saying this, but just thought I would bring that up.

I'm saying that God (Pure Act) is conscious of himself. The one that exists and the consciousness are one and the same being. Are you saying that in order to know something it must be compared to something else? Like, I know I exist, because see something else that exists. If that is the case then I see no reason to accepts your view. I see nothing contrary to knowing oneself exists apart from other existing things.

I've got go get to work. I'll be back in a few days

---

I am saying you must know other things exist (whether it is a physical form of yourself such as your hands, etc.) before you know your consciousness exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_mover

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

---

have you proven yet that things have not just always been moving? Aristotle's starting point for existence seems to be a fixed landscape. Why?