Let's Get Metaphysical Baby

[randerizer]

#2 is something that we cannot observe as we cannot place ourselves or anything around us in a state of absolute rest (unless you believe in the ability to stop time).

Hmm., I think we can deduce better than that. We can hold objects in a fixed relative position and make the observations. Check your science on that one... It's well supported.

#4 is speculative that doesn't seem to be proven by anything that I've read from you.

It's proven by the primacy of existence argument. It's not speculative. It's also proven by the fact that the senses are axiomatically valid.

#5 is also speculative as no one has ever created from nothingness. Your assertion is arbitrary at worst and possible at best.

Nothingness does not exist. It is a flawed concept when applied to anything physical. Which part of this claim are you suggesting is arbitrary at worst/possible at best?

Lastly, although some call aquinas's five ways a proof, I believe it is actually more accurately described as his reasoning.

OK, but if his "reasoning" rests on assumptions that are proven invalid or unnecessary, then the reasoning is suspect.

[randerizer]

You could always say God's perception of time is different.

The age of the earth and the known universe would be hard to explain to a primitive human; the "six days" in Genesis would be easy for a simple human to understand. If you were trying to teach 5 year olds something important you wouldn't explain it in scientific words. Primitive man didn't know what bacteria or outer space was.

Sure, perceptions of time can be relative. I'm not sure you're making a valid point, though.

I agree to your 2nd statement, but let me say something that is more to the point. It is EASIER to explain to a primitive human that there is some greater meaning in their life. They wouldn't understand that there is none. So, we invent a construct of God/creation.

With respect to the issue of God and time, Guisslap has addressed that extensively. Simply, I'll state that there is no valid argument for the necessity of the existence of God. Our existence IS, independent of the constructs you choose to create. I'll say this - Consciousness is secondary to existence. A conscious being, by definition and axiom, cannot exist without existence existing first. So, to suppose that a God created existence is absolutely invalid.

There are other things that have been discussed, but I'll start there first for you.

[johnnylightnin]

How could one be conscious of themselves without first recognizing that they are conscious of something else?

This is the point that I cannot conceded as of right now.

As far as nothingness being a flawed concept...

Does this mean that your definitions of existence apply only to material?

[randerizer]

This is the point that I cannot conceded as of right now.

It is a tough issue to swallow if you've been exposed to a considerabe body going the other way. But the statement is true. And it is even easier to see if you dip into the "knowledge" thread and come back to it.

You see, the fact that existence exists, and then that consciousness exists are axioms that you can't get around. Our concept of consciousness is not innate, however. It takes some sensory perception and concept formation to develop a good idea of what we are talking about.

As far as nothingness being a flawed concept...

Does this mean that your definitions of existence apply only to material?

Let me rephrase - nothingness is a flawed concept when applied as an entity. There can be degrees of many things. For example, tall, taller, tallest. Or, to be more specific, 6ft, 6ft4in, 7ft, etc. There are scales that are certainly suitable.

However, the term "existence" is not suitable to a scale. One cannot say "this is more existant than that." You can look at something and say "this exists." As an aside, you can also say, for example, that "this is composed of more matter than that." But ultimately, both exist, and there is no suitable scale to describe that degree of existence. So if you can't look at an object and say "this is less existant than that," it makes sense that you can't look at something (that necessarily exists) and say "this doesn't exist", or "this is nothingness."

I'm not sure I follow your question, and I want to make sure I answer it correctly. For now, I'll say that nothing exists independent of existence itself. Existence is anything that is. I know I'm speaking in my own terms, but let me try to bridge the gap at least slightly by pointing out that consciousness (to what extent that is material I do not know) exists, but not independent of existence itself. Does that clarify at all?

[saltydawg]

I think the only facts in this matter are that 1) the universe exists and 2) life exists.

Sorry, not meaning to suggest you mean a God. But suggesting a purpose seems to call for a consciousness.

Sorry, but there are other facts as well. In cases like this we have to use our powers of deductive reasoning to form conclusions, otherwise what is the use of objectivism?

Don't know why you think that the Universe does not have a purpose unless it is because you think that it denotes consciousness.

But getting back to the 2 facts that you mentioned, that (1) the Universe exists and (2) life exists, what conclusions can you deduce?

One conclusion that comes to mind is that the Universe is capable of creating life. Not only life, but life forms that are conscious and that can be self-aware.

If you look at the bigger picture, the Universe appears to move in a way that fosters the formation of life. I guess that you could say that it is just coincidence but is that logical? With so many countless possibilities, why does every one of them support the formation of life? It's like playing a slot machine with an infinite number of reels marked 1 through 20 and on the one and only pull all of the reels line up on the sevens. Either we are damn lucky or the Universe is operating with some internal game plan.

[FishingBack]

Sure, perceptions of time can be relative. I'm not sure you're making a valid point, though.

I agree to your 2nd statement, but let me say something that is more to the point. It is EASIER to explain to a primitive human that there is some greater meaning in their life. They wouldn't understand that there is none. So, we invent a construct of God/creation.

With respect to the issue of God and time, Guisslap has addressed that extensively. Simply, I'll state that there is no valid argument for the necessity of the existence of God. Our existence IS, independent of the constructs you choose to create. I'll say this - Consciousness is secondary to existence. A conscious being, by definition and axiom, cannot exist without existence existing first. So, to suppose that a God created existence is absolutely invalid.

There are other things that have been discussed, but I'll start there first for you.

The whole point about time and God was to say that you can't say that he waited around a long time to do anything. The facts about when life appeared are irrelevant to any argument for or against the existence of a creator.

It's impossible to prove or disprove that there is a supreme being because we can't hold such a thing to our rules. You can't presume to know the motives, logic, and thought process of any such being unless you believe that it was created in the mind of man and would act like man.

[randerizer]

Sorry, but there are other facts as well. In cases like this we have to use our powers of deductive reasoning to form conclusions, otherwise what is the use of objectivism?

Don't know why you think that the Universe does not have a purpose unless it is because you think that it denotes consciousness.

But getting back to the 2 facts that you mentioned, that (1) the Universe exists and (2) life exists, what conclusions can you deduce?

One conclusion that comes to mind is that the Universe is capable of creating life. Not only life, but life forms that are conscious and that can be self-aware.

If you look at the bigger picture, the Universe appears to move in a way that fosters the formation of life. I guess that you could say that it is just coincidence but is that logical? With so many countless possibilities, why does every one of them support the formation of life? It's like playing a slot machine with an infinite number of reels marked 1 through 20 and on the one and only pull all of the reels line up on the sevens. Either we are damn lucky or the Universe is operating with some internal game plan.

The only primaries we can come up with, though, are what I stated. The power of deduction is important; I just don't think your deduction here is appropriate. At best, I'd call it arbitrary, at worst, invalid. You are right - my reason for calling it invalid rests on the consciousness/existence distinction.

So we know that life exists on 1 planet in the universe, and if I take your numbers from earlier, life has existed on that planet for about 1/4 of the time since the "big bang," and it has been even less time that a self-aware lifeform has existed. And if your arguments on global warming are true, then the self-aware lifeforms will exist for a much smaller time :icon_wink:.

We look at the planets in our solar system, and we can make some observations that are interesting. I can also tell you from my scientific experience, it is interesting that sometimes things just work perfectly. There are also times when they just don't. It is certainly interesting to me that, within our solar system, the planets most like ours in composition are also located nearest to us. Energetically, I think there are some things that could ultimately be learned from that fact. But to give a purpose to those energetics is arbitrary.

Why does an apple fall if I throw it into the air? Gravity. Why does Gravity exist? It IS.

I'm not sure I'd call us lucky - I'd say we ARE.

[randerizer]

The whole point about time and God was to say that you can't say that he waited around a long time to do anything. The facts about when life appeared are irrelevant to any argument for or against the existence of a creator.

It's impossible to prove or disprove that there is a supreme being because we can't hold such a thing to our rules. You can't presume to know the motives, logic, and thought process of any such being unless you believe that it was created in the mind of man and would act like man.

And that's a completely arbitrary statement. But you're right - I can't disprove a supreme being, just like I can't disprove that there is an invisible gremlin sitting beside me. I can only disprove that a supreme being created existence, etc.

[saltydawg]

The only primaries we can come up with, though, are what I stated. The power of deduction is important; I just don't think your deduction here is appropriate. At best, I'd call it arbitrary, at worst, invalid. You are right - my reason for calling it invalid rests on the consciousness/existence distinction.

So we know that life exists on 1 planet in the universe, and if I take your numbers from earlier, life has existed on that planet for about 1/4 of the time since the "big bang," and it has been even less time that a self-aware lifeform has existed. And if your arguments on global warming are true, then the self-aware lifeforms will exist for a much smaller time :icon_wink:.

We look at the planets in our solar system, and we can make some observations that are interesting. I can also tell you from my scientific experience, it is interesting that sometimes things just work perfectly. There are also times when they just don't. It is certainly interesting to me that, within our solar system, the planets most like ours in composition are also located nearest to us. Energetically, I think there are some things that could ultimately be learned from that fact. But to give a purpose to those energetics is arbitrary.

Why does an apple fall if I throw it into the air? Gravity. Why does Gravity exist? It IS.

I'm not sure I'd call us lucky - I'd say we ARE.

What you are saying is that you don't want to think about "the bigger picture." I would agree that homo sapiens might not last very long but that is not relevent to our appearance.

[randerizer]

What you are saying is that you don't want to think about "the bigger picture." I would agree that homo sapiens might not last very long but that is not relevent to our appearrance.

I'm saying there is no way to think about a "bigger picture" that would not make the bigger picture arbitrary. Hence, I choose to not put much thought into it, because I will never get anywhere.

The fact that there are positive attributes about the earth with respect to the ability to support life does not lead me to believe that there is a higher meaning.

[saltydawg]

And that's a completely arbitrary statement. But you're right - I can't disprove a supreme being, just like I can't disprove that there is an invisible gremlin sitting beside me. I can only disprove that a supreme being created existence, etc.

You can't disprove that a Supreme Being caused the Big Bang.

[FishingBack]

And that's a completely arbitrary statement. But you're right - I can't disprove a supreme being, just like I can't disprove that there is an invisible gremlin sitting beside me. I can only disprove that a supreme being created existence, etc.

I'm saying you can't prove or disprove that existence was created by a supreme being. Existence as we know it doesn't have to follow your logic. Being that a supreme being is supernatural you can't say it would follow natural rules. Your argument that consiousness comes before existence is logical to humans but a supposed supreme being wouldn't have to adhere to that.

[saltydawg]

I'm saying there is no way to think about a "bigger picture" that would not make the bigger picture arbitrary. Hence, I choose to not put much thought into it, because I will never get anywhere.

The fact that there are positive attributes about the earth with respect to the ability to support life does not lead me to believe that there is a higher meaning.

Well, at least you are not saying that the the appearance of life in the Universe does not have any meaning, just that you don't see any meaning to it.

[randerizer]

You can't disprove that a Supreme Being caused the Big Bang.

I can prove that a supreme being did not create existence out of nonexistence. I can further prove that a supreme being cannot be all that is existence, because all consciousness would be introspective, which cannot exist. If you want to suggest that an existing being caused a big bang, and that that being is different than us (not human, or not animal, or etc.) within a definite existence, I cannot disprove that. But you can get no closer to proving it than I can to disproving it, so it is entirely arbitrary.

[randerizer]

I'm saying you can't prove or disprove that existence was created by a supreme being. Existence as we know it doesn't have to follow your logic. Being that a supreme being is supernatural you can't say it would follow natural rules. Your argument that consiousness comes before existence is logical to humans but a supposed supreme being wouldn't have to adhere to that.

Nope, existence IS.

Consciousness absolutely comes AFTER existence. Otherwise, what is the conscious conscious of? And what is the conscious?