KAG:


Well, first, while you may not like the idea of first settling on definitions; in philosophical discussions defining the terms one is using and why it should be accepted is probably one of the most important aspects of said discussion. For instance, to bend your example a little to fit the scheme of the general discussion of the thread, if a triangle is defined as anything that has "three sides with angles that add up to 180 degrees", should anything that has "three sides with angles that add up to 180 degrees" be automatically called or accepted as a triangle? Thus settling on all of the parameters removes confusion and ensures we all work using the same signifiers for the same signified.

Secondly, and probably most importantly, the first postulate of the cosmological argument is wrong. Not everything that begins to exist has a cause, nor does every occurrence necessarily need a tangible precedent. Sure in Aristotle's via Aquinas' via the "times" of many modern theistic apologists all that had been observed indicated that the first premise must be an axiom; however, with the onset of the likes of quantum physics and even studies of radioactivity it's known that things are different from human intuited arguments.

Finally, yes even virtual particles and radioactive decay. The argument is that everything has to be caused. They contravene the causality premise because, particularly in the case of virtual particles, the fluctuation isn't caused by the "veritable ‘sea’ of energy".

Indeed definitions are useful but as is the nature of these sorts of discussions, sometimes there is a disagreement on precise definitions with each side dogmatically clinging to whatever definition best suits them. If I present an argument with a certain set of definitions, I expect any interlocutor to approach the issue on the basis of my carefully delineated definitions. Otherwise, there is no sense in having a discussion and one would effectively be arguing past the other.

To address your query, any shape that has three sides and angles that add up to 180 degrees is by definition a triangle. I suppose in a discussion, someone might ask why a triangle has to be defined that way. Unless you can come up with a better answer than that is the definition of what a triangle really is, I don’t see how far you can get in that discussion. So, anyone who wants to argue that triangles could have 4 or more sides, or that the angles in a triangle could add up to anything other than 180 degrees is begging to have a discussion with himself.

The first premiss is not to be understood as saying “everything has to be caused” instead it is saying that an entity needs a cause or explanation if and only if it has a beginning. To further expatiate on the first premiss, nothing comes out of nothing, from nothing, by nothing; or to simply state it “Being does not come from non-being.” So we are not talking of material causes here only but efficient causes as well. If things could really spontaneously pop into existence from nothing by nothing then there is no reason why any and everything doesn’t spontaneously pop into existence all the time. So, there is no fear that while you are busy typing away at your pc, jackals could be popping into existence in the room next door and defiling the carpet or furniture. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that horses, watches, Darwin, erasers could pop into existence anywhere, anytime out of nothing, from nothing and by nothing. To argue against this will be to strain credulity. The first premise is more plausible than its negation. This is empirically confirmed constantly in science.

Now, all too often atheists who realize that they cannot argue with the second premise find that they have to cling dogmatically to the first premise hoping that it could be subverted. They cite recent work in modern quantum physics. According to some interpretations of quantum physics, there are events that are spontaneous events and do not have deterministic causes.  This is not an authentic counterexample because this applies to just some interpretations; in some interpretations some subatomic realities are fully deterministic. You will be assuming without justification the truth of an indeterministic premiss.  At any rate, virtual particles do not come into being from nothing by nothing uncaused—rather they are fluctuations of the vacuum energy at that quantum level. Indeed as this fluctuation creates these virtual particles, we find that they appear and quickly disappear into the quantum vacuum (this quantum vacuum is NOT nothing rather a turbulent ‘sea’ of energy).

So the first premiss is intact.

Hey Huxley and co, you may check the URL again. Thanks.

buda atum:

Thanks for this, Prizm, I am one of the lazy ones. Just a question, its that "begins". I am certain this type of logic has a basis, but does it quite work here?

There is no evidence for the Universe beginning I would have you consider. Are you asking that one believe it did? Could space, time, matter and energy not have existed incontingently, with an infinite past?

Sir, for a long time, the popular idea amongst atheists was that the universe was infinite and eternal. Such a view is no longer being seriously held by atheists and theists alike. There is powerful scientific evidence and confirmation that the Universe started to exist/began to exist/commenced to be a finite time in the past (about 13.7 billion years ago). At the creation of the universe, space, time, matter, energy, dark matter, dark energy, gravitation, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force etc came into being. So to answer your question, space, time, matter and energy are contingent entities (they do not exist "incontingently" or by "necessity" and as such do not have an infinite past.

Prizm:
The first premiss is not to be understood as saying “everything has to be caused” instead it is saying that an entity needs a cause or explanation if and only if it has a beginning. To further expatiate on the first premiss, nothing comes out of nothing, from nothing, by nothing; or to simply state it “Being does not come from non-being.” So we are not talking of material causes here only but efficient causes as well. If things could really spontaneously pop into existence from nothing by nothing then there is no reason why any and everything doesn’t spontaneously pop into existence all the time.

You seem to be making assertions without providing any evidence for them. You further seem to want those assertions accepted, and leave not much room for disagreeing! "nothing comes out of nothing, from nothing, by nothing; or to simply state it “Being does not come from non-being.”" Can you see how that sounds as implausible to the atheist as "God created the heavens and the Earth"?

I am sorry to want to tie up in this, but why must an entity need a cause or explanation? If an entity does not have a beginning or explanation would that mean it does not exist? And how then can God that has no explanation or beginning, exist.

P.s. Its a flawed argument, and it does not work I know, but you did use it yourself!

Prizm:

Sir, for a long time, the popular idea amongst atheists was that the universe was infinite and eternal. Such a view is no longer being seriously held by atheists and theists alike. There is powerful scientific evidence and confirmation that the Universe started to exist/began to exist/commenced to be a finite time in the past (about 13.7 billion years ago). At the creation of the universe, space, time, matter, energy, dark matter, dark energy, gravitation, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force etc came into being. So to answer your question, space, time, matter and energy are contingent entities (they do not exist "incontingently" or by "necessity" and as such do not have an infinite past.

My understanding is that there are very many theories aiming to explain the beginning of the universe, there is however no proof that any is more conclusively right than others. When it is said that the Universe began, for instance, was there no existence prior to that point in time, would you suggest? And if so, did nothing come out of nothing?

By the ay, you would forgive me, I can't come over to your blog.

Too bad Buda,

And I really had answers to your last objections. Anyway, it has been nice exchanging ideas briefly with everyone and I am officially out of this thread. Anyone interested in exploring this discussion further can meet me here:

http://anaedo.blog-city.com/the_cosmological_argument.htm

Cheers!

Actually we don't need to "convince" our selves that there is a god because you guys do not even have a coherent and universally acceptable definition of what god is. . . . . .what really do you mean by god?

who is "you guys"? there is only one true God. Your Alpha and Omega.

Prizm:

Too bad Buda,

And I really had answers to your last objections. Anyway, it has been nice exchanging ideas briefly with everyone and I am officially out of this thread. Anyone interested in exploring this discussion further can meet me here:

http://anaedo.blog-city.com/the_cosmological_argument.htm

Cheers!

can you provide some sources for your claim that the universe started and never infinitely existed?

how is it possible for the universe to have been in infinite existence without ever starting. do you know of anything that exists infinitely without ever having a beginning (lone exception being the God of Abraham of course, who happens to exist independent of time).

C2H5OH:

how is it possible for the universe to have been in infinite existence without ever starting.  do you know of anything that exists infinitely without ever having a beginning[b] (lone exception being the God of  Abraham of course, who happens to exist independent of time). [/b]

I fail to understand how you can make this assertion yet claim the universe can never be infinite. . . .it's just strange!

Edit.

C2H5OH:

how is it possible for the universe to have been in infinite existence without ever starting. do you know of anything that exists infinitely without ever having a beginning (lone exception being the God of Abraham of course, who happens to exist independent of time).

You are contradicting yourself bloke,
1st of all, yu are yet to prove that your so called "God of Abraham exists" at all. Secondly if we accept that your God exists and is timeless, how can you prove him/her/it/whatever to be the only being/material/object/particle/whatever with a timeless existence?

Tudór:

I fail to understand how you can make this assertion yet claim the universe can never be infinite. . . .it's just strange!

You should have said that you failed to understand what was said.  I asked how the universe could have been in infinite existence without having ever started "somewhere" somehow.  Someone else must have made the claim you are referring to.

duduspace:

You are contradicting yourself bloke,
1st of all, yu are yet to prove that your so called "God of Abraham exists" at all. Secondly if we accept that your God exists and is timeless, how can you prove him/her/it/whatever to be the only being/material/object/particle/whatever with a timeless existence?

1st of all, yu can't prove to me that the "God of Abraham" does not exist - if I bother trying to prove to you that he does exist, you would discard scripture as an unacceptable source. Secondly, from your scientific angle it wouldn't make sense to you anyway that something somehow exists independent of time. That said, scientifically, how can the universe have existed infinitely without having began somewhere?

C2H5OH:

how is it possible for the universe to have been in infinite existence without ever starting. do you know of anything that exists infinitely without ever having a beginning (lone exception being the God of Abraham of course, who happens to exist independent of time).

why make an exception and then claim it's not possible?

C2H5OH:

1st of all, yu can't prove to me that the "God of Abraham" does not exist - if I bother trying to prove to you that he does exist, you would discard scripture as an unacceptable source. Secondly, from your scientific angle it wouldn't make sense to you anyway that something somehow exists independent of time. That said, scientifically, how can the universe have existed infinitely without having began somewhere?

You have this all wrong, _{don't want to say you are not thinking straight} but bawomolo just put it much simpler. Who am I to know what existed when or how? if yu are however able to accept the claim that god is timeless, why then exclude the possibility of something else being timeless? have you ever wondered maybe the Universe itself is what you are referring to as god? afterall, I'm sure yu've never seen this god.

duduspace:

You have this all wrong, _{don't want to say you are not thinking straight} but bawomolo just put it much simpler. Who am I to know what existed when or how? if yu are however able to accept the claim that god is timeless, why then exclude the possibility of something else being timeless? have you ever wondered maybe the Universe itself is what you are referring to as god? afterall, I'm sure yu've never seen this god.

I am not excluding anything.  THere are two arguments here, both of which are under scrutiny. 
How can the universe have existed infinitely without having a beginning, can you answer that question? 
You keep bringing up my mention of God to try to escape that question.

Lol @ referring to the universe as God, come on now put on your thinking cap.
I just skimmed over this page from the top, and I'm basically saying the same thing Prizm has said earlier. If you can understand this, you're set. If you have a difficult time understanding it we won't get anywhere.

bawomolo:

why make an exception and then claim it's not possible?

My exception is not invalid because I'm not looking for a scientific proof to buttress my point.
I answered your question by saying that the only way the universe could have spanned an infinite space irrespective of time is if it had been created by a deity that exists irrespective of time. The only primordial subject I can think of is God. Unless of course you know of any others and you have proof.

c2 ur going to have them mess with ur head if u remain in these threads. been there done that haha

It's really not that much of a debacle, really. I think the problem here is that atheists here ask a barrage of questions without wanting to answer any questions themselves.

Someone made a claim that the universe has always been in infinite existence without being created. How is this possible?


The atheist does not want to believe in the existence of God because it's beyond the realm of their understanding IMHO, yet they want us to accept that some esteemed alien computer with three boobs somehow brought about the universe.

C2H5OH:

My exception is not invalid because I'm not looking for a scientific proof to buttress my point.
I answered your question by saying that the only way the universe could have spanned an infinite space irrespective of time is if it had been created by a deity that exists irrespective of time. The only primordial subject I can think of is God. Unless of course you know of any others and you have proof.

it won't need a creation if it was infinite.

why is there only one God. who says a man and wife deity ala Hinduism couldn't have been doing the creation?

If there's possibility of a God then there's possibility the universe always existed after all.

Unless of course you know of any others and you have proof

why should i give you proof when you have none to support your proposal? we are both making educated guesses here. aint that right?

one more question why is the God of Abraham the lone exception. Other Gods can't exist?

oyinda.:

c2 ur going to have them mess with ur head if u remain in these threads. been there done that haha

you dey fear?

bawomolo:

you dey fear?

ah not anymore o. i got my head messed by u ppl yrs ago. but not anymore ha i was young n naive then
doesn't make sense to argue religion anyway. unless ur trying to learn something new about other ppl's.

think of it this way. religion has nothing really to do with science so therefore u can't use one to explain or discount the other.

C2H5OH:

My exception is not invalid because I'm not looking for a scientific proof to buttress my point.
I answered your question by saying that the only way the universe could have spanned an infinite space irrespective of time is if it had been created by a deity that exists irrespective of time.  The only primordial subject I can think of is God.  Unless of course you know of any others and you have proof.

C2H5OH:

I am not excluding anything.  THere are two arguments here, both of which are under scrutiny. 
How can the universe have existed infinitely without having a beginning, can you answer that question? 
You keep bringing up my mention of God to try to escape that question.

Lol @ referring to the universe as God, come on now put on your thinking cap.
I just skimmed over this page from the top, and I'm basically saying the same thing Prizm has said earlier.  If you can understand this, you're set.  If you have a difficult time understanding it we won't get anywhere.

1. No one at present can say for a certainty how the universe came to be, scientists are theorising and trying to find an answer except for you religious lot who are quick to claim it for your god(s) (something they have not done themselves). You then make astonishing claims such as the bollocks 6 day creation story in the bible which has been conclusively disproved after which some of the more intellectual of you start to twist your earlier claims by comin up with explanations like the stories not being literal in nature.

2. I will answer your question as to how the universe could have existed infinitely when you explain to me how your so called god could have existed timelessly to the exclusion of any other thing or being having the same property of timelessness.

3. No one has ever said they know anything for certain, the search for an understanding of the origins of the universe goes on. But if you go ahead to say the universe has been created by your god then it is left to you to prove that it has indeed been exactly the way you say it is to the exclusion of any other possibility.

oyinda.:


ah not anymore o. i got my head messed by u ppl yrs ago. but not anymore ha i was young n naive then
doesn't make sense to argue religion anyway. unless ur trying to learn something new about other ppl's.

think of it this way. religion has nothing really to do with science so therefore u can't use one to explain or discount the other.

who/what and how were you messed up? pls tell.

Why can't science be used to explain or discount religion? It seems you are giving religion a pass for any of it's absurdities.

Why can't science be used to explain or discount religion? It seems you are giving religion a pass for any of it's absurdities.

science can't be used to explain religion because it can't lol i'll leave it at that because no matter what answer is given, atheists always argue with it and find a fault in it.

When ever religious apologists make statements that can be tested scientifically then yes science would discredit religion, starting from Mohammed bringing down the moon which I am sure even christians do not agree with to the story of noah, jonah and the fish, walls of jericho falling down to the creation story, all myths.

Back to this old canard, are we? Does your mind exist? Has your mind got a mind of its own? Or in whose mind does your mind exist in?

I would say that Mind is beyond the categories of existence and non existence. What would you say?

Statements like having a mind of it's own is just an english colloquialism and doesn't mean to be in physical possession of mind. It just means being independent. But I'm sure you know that, what surprises me is that surely you ought to know that I would know that and wouldn't fall for it.

Pastor my guy my guy, lol
I really did not give much thought to what his intentions were, what I know for certain is that I have been able to make people listen to me which above all is most important. If my grandmom were alive and asked me why I did not believe in God,I am pretty sure that going into your allegory of the cave would not help at all. So I hope you get the drift of why I said so, its not about the most complex arguments its about sending my message across.
As for numbers existing lets not go there.

My brother, what exactly is your argument here? That being able to dumb down is superior? I'm not looking for simplicity, I'm looking for a way to engage and articulate Truth. I wouldn't use complex arguments just for the sake of using complex arguments.

Not everything in life lends itself to easy expression. I bet your grandmum wouldn't understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity but that doesn't mean that Einstein's theory is inferior to your simply articulated theories. I guess it all depends on the criteria that we are judging superiority by.

Plato's allegory of the cave is recognised as one of the most , if not the most, powerful images in the whole history of philosophy. If it has left you underwhelmed I'm sure that is not the fault of the actual allegory itself.

The Idea of existence is another funny one that I'm not sure we are all acquainted with the subtleties of it.

Pastor AIO:

I would say that Mind is beyond the categories of existence and non existence. What would you say?

Statements like having a mind of it's own is just an english colloquialism and doesn't mean to be in physical possession of mind. It just means being independent. But I'm sure you know that, what surprises me is that surely you ought to know that I would know that and wouldn't fall for it.

What does this really mean? You said earlier that everything exists only in the mind, a view which I described as absurd and that leads to contradictions and absurdities. To investigate your view, I asked:

Does you mind exist? If it does, where does it exist? In whose mind does it exist?


Of course, when I said "Has your mind got a mind of its own?", it was not meant in the figurative sense of someone being of independent thought. Far from it - it was meant in a vert literal sense.

Arguably, you mind is the entity that allows us to conceptualise the world. Controversially, you argue that all existence is in the mind. So you owe it to us to explain where your mind exists. To say"Mind is beyond the categories of existence and non existence" is an adhoc assertion that you have not bothered to justify.

Please, Can you justify that assertion. And can you explain where you mind exists?

Prizm:

Indeed definitions are useful but as is the nature of these sorts of discussions, sometimes there is a disagreement on precise definitions with each side dogmatically clinging to whatever definition best suits them. If I present an argument with a certain set of definitions, I expect any interlocutor to approach the issue on the basis of my carefully delineated definitions. Otherwise, there is no sense in having a discussion and one would effectively be arguing past the other.

To address your query, any shape that has three sides and angles that add up to 180 degrees is by definition a triangle. I suppose in a discussion, someone might ask why a triangle has to be defined that way. Unless you can come up with a better answer than that is the definition of what a triangle really is, I don’t see how far you can get in that discussion. So, anyone who wants to argue that triangles could have 4 or more sides, or that the angles in a triangle could add up to anything other than 180 degrees is begging to have a discussion with himself.

Oh, it's a fair point that sometimes people cling dogmatically to their preset definitions of terms, but I suspect that even in spite of that, with definitions already given, by both parties, for thorny words, those in the discussion would, at the very least, know what the other means to say when a vagueish term is used.

Also, you'll note that it is now, with this post that you have defined a triangle in such strict way as to avoid any misconception of what you mean. With your previous definition - "[anything that has] three sides with angles that add up to 180 degrees" - a square could have been mistaken for a triangle (after all, three of its sides do add up to 180), thereby ensuring that you and another talk past each other. That happens quite a bit.

The first premiss is not to be understood as saying “everything has to be caused” instead it is saying that an entity needs a cause or explanation if and only if it has a beginning. To further expatiate on the first premiss, nothing comes out of nothing, from nothing, by nothing; or to simply state it “Being does not come from non-being.” So we are not talking of material causes here only but efficient causes as well. If things could really spontaneously pop into existence from nothing by nothing then there is no reason why any and everything doesn’t spontaneously pop into existence all the time. So, there is no fear that while you are busy typing away at your pc, jackals could be popping into existence in the room next door and defiling the carpet or furniture. Indeed, there is no reason to believe that horses, watches, Darwin, erasers could pop into existence anywhere, anytime out of nothing, from nothing and by nothing. To argue against this will be to strain credulity. The first premise is more plausible than its negation. This is empirically confirmed constantly in science.

Yes, I know what the first premise states: "Anything with a beginning has cause." It's wrong. By the way, you're operating on a false premise. That is, that some things, given a quantum fluctuation, etc. may pop into existence spontaneously is not an indication that everything and anything will or should. No, that's a nonsense argument. That particles can be in a state of indeterminacy doesn't mean the moon disappears when I turn my back on it.

Also, the "law" "energy can neither be created nor destroyed" was "empirically confirmed by science" until it wasn't. The arguments for virtual particles and radioactive decay are actually scientific findings.

Now, all too often atheists who realize that they cannot argue with the second premise find that they have to cling dogmatically to the first premise hoping that it could be subverted. They cite recent work in modern quantum physics. According to some interpretations of quantum physics, there are events that are spontaneous events and do not have deterministic causes.  This is not an authentic counterexample because this applies to just some interpretations; in some interpretations some subatomic realities are fully deterministic. You will be assuming without justification the truth of an indeterministic premiss.  At any rate, virtual particles do not come into being from nothing by nothing uncaused—rather they are fluctuations of the vacuum energy at that quantum level. Indeed as this fluctuation creates these virtual particles, we find that they appear and quickly disappear into the quantum vacuum (this quantum vacuum is NOT nothing rather a turbulent ‘sea’ of energy).

So the first premiss is intact.

Hey Huxley and co, you may check the URL again. Thanks.

Um, not quite. They are perfect counter-examples because they show that the first premise of your argument - the cosmological argument, and other subsets and antecedents - has been falsified. Yes, quantum fluctuations precede virtual particles, but there is no apparent cause for them. And once again, that space isn't a vacuum doesn't impact on the case of virtual particles. It isn't cause by anything in the vacuum of space.

Here’s a concise formulation of the Cosmological Argument (for those who may not bother to do the necessary research):

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

What this means quite plainly is that the universe along with space, time, matter and energy came into being. The universe is not a necessary entity; it is a contingent entity. It does not have an infinite past. The only necessary being/entities one can think of are  a) numbers b) an unembodied personal mind. This is the conception of God that theists work with—a personal, unembodied, spaceless, infinite, eternal mind. It goes without saying that numbers though necessary, do not have any creative ability. It follows that the cause of the universe is a mind greater than the universe—by which we mean something that is immaterial, boundless, spaceless and eternally pre-existent.

How is it then that when you present the Cosmological argument, an atheist’s response is “What Caused God?” That question simply shows a misunderstanding of the argument. Anyone asking this question should familiarize him/herself with what “necessary” and “contingent” entities are. That question is as laughable as asking “What makes a triangle have three sides whose angles add up to 180 degrees?”, or “Why should a triangle have three sides with angles that add up to 180 degrees?” The answer is as simple as saying “That is what a triangle is DEFINED as”. I have nothing to discuss with anyone who wants to argue with definitions. If you do not like the definition given, go ahead, define yours and see if we may agree or disagree.

Another argument an atheist may make when confronted with the Cosmological Argument is to suggest that “the universe is uncaused” which is a patently false idea given its finitude in the past. An atheist is left with the worst option of declaring that the “universe just popped out of nothing, from nothing and by nothing” and that I suggest is even worse than magic. Nothing pops out of nothing, from nothing, by nothing. To suggest otherwise is to be painfully irrational. Not even radioactive decay; or virtual particles which merely arise and disappear from fluctuations in the quantum vacuum—a veritable ‘sea’ of energy.

To refute the argument, you have to shoot down or falsify the premises. Otherwise, you'll arrive at the painful conclusion whether you want to or not.

Now, let's examine your formulation of the Cosmological Argument;

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) The Universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

The key to this argument is the phrase "begins to exist".  But is this premise justified and is it true that whatever begins to exist has a cause?  How do we come to know this?  I submit that this premise is unjustified and cannot be accepted uncritically.

The only way premise 1 can be justified is by inductive inference, that is by observing that in this universe (of space and time) things that begin to exist tend to have a cause. But the conditions that obtains in this universe CANNOT be the same as the conditions that obtained in the pre-universe (note that I did not say before the universe as there existed no time before the time & space were created in the Big Bang event).

This premises falls foul of what is know as The Problem of Inductive Inference and as I have just shown above you seem to have drawn a pretty unsave conclusion by comparing two very dissimilar conditions.

There are other problems with the Cosmological Argument which I shall address later, but for now I would like to see how you deal with my objection.


Also see http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/03/15/a-critical-examination-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/

science can't be used to explain religion because it can't lol i'll leave it at that because no matter what answer is given, atheists always argue with it and find a fault in it.

please why can't science explain religion?

you seem to be using circular logic here. may i remind you science isn't exclusive to atheists.

Pastor AIO:

I would say that Mind is beyond the categories of existence and non existence. What would you say?

Statements like having a mind of it's own is just an english colloquialism and doesn't mean to be in physical possession of mind. It just means being independent. But I'm sure you know that, what surprises me is that surely you ought to know that I would know that and wouldn't fall for it.


My brother, what exactly is your argument here? That being able to dumb down is superior? I'm not looking for simplicity, I'm looking for a way to engage and articulate Truth. I wouldn't use complex arguments just for the sake of using complex arguments.

Not everything in life lends itself to easy expression. I bet your grandmum wouldn't understand Einstein's General Theory of Relativity but that doesn't mean that Einstein's theory is inferior to your simply articulated theories. I guess it all depends on the criteria that we are judging superiority by.

Plato's allegory of the cave is recognised as one of the most , if not the most, powerful images in the whole history of philosophy. If it has left you underwhelmed I'm sure that is not the fault of the actual allegory itself.

The Idea of existence is another funny one that I'm not sure we are all acquainted with the subtleties of it.

huxley:


What does this really mean? You said earlier that everything exists only in the mind, a view which I described as absurd and that leads to contradictions and absurdities. To investigate your view, I asked:

Does you mind exist? If it does, where does it exist? In whose mind does it exist?


Of course, when I said "Has your mind got a mind of its own?", it was not meant in the figurative sense of someone being of independent thought. Far from it - it was meant in a vert literal sense.

Arguably, you mind is the entity that allows us to conceptualise the world. Controversially, you argue that all existence is in the mind. So you owe it to us to explain where your mind exists. To say"Mind is beyond the categories of existence and non existence" is an adhoc assertion that you have not bothered to justify.

Please, Can you justify that assertion. And can you explain where you mind exists?

What would you say were the attributes of existence? Also what are the common attributes of sensorily perceptible things?

To answer the question of whether the mind exists would require being able to determine whether or not it fulfills the criteria for existence that we arrive at from contemplating the above questions.

Also to ask where mind exists is to miss the point that even awareness of Space is created by Mind. Therefore Mind is Prior to space and cannot be limited to a 'where'.

Mind is capable of self reference. So it can have an 'icon' for itself, or a conceptual representation of itself. This allows for paradox. I'm comfortable with paradox, are you?

The very essence of consciousness is the awareness of consciousness. Consciousness of Consciousness IS consciousness and there is no other Consciousness but the Consciousness of Consciousness. It is the ultimate self referential thing.

This is best explained mathematically, I think (I hope). I wonder if you remember Set Theory in mathematics. ' Set theory is the branch of mathematics that studies sets, which are collections of objects. Although any type of objects can be collected into a set, set theory is applied most often to objects that are relevant to mathematics.' Taken from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory

For example the set of all knives with contain all the knives that ever existed. A set is basically a collection. Any object can be put into a set. The set of all things Steel will contain all the steel in the world. There will be some overlap between the set of Steel and the set of knives because many knives are made of steel. Some sets are big and have many objects in them and others are small and contain one or two objects. and some sets might contain nothing. Like the set of Honest nigerian leaders.
Please excuse me if you find this obvious and banal, but I just want to make sure that it's covered in case it was many years since you were in secondary school.

Now what about the Set of All Sets? If a set is an object and you collect all the sets in the world and put them in a set, how many sets will be contained therein. Well, the Set of all sets must contain itself for it is itself a set. This is a self referential/ self containing event. To try to figure how many sets are contained will only end in Paradox. If you stick the set of all sets in a set along with every other set that exists it is still not complete because you have yet to include the set. and so the process goes ad infinitum. The human brain cannot go there.

So it is with consciousness. It is also a self referential event in essence. Perception percieving itself.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-137750.64.html#msg2364238

On the Cosmological Argument (CA), Part 2.

On my earlier posts about the CA on this thread, I attempted to cast doubt on the reasonableness of making an inductive inference about the conditions that obtains in the present universe with respect to conditions that obtained "before" this universe came into being. I call this the [b]Boundary Conditions [/b]refutation of the premiss that every thing that begins to exist has a cause. Another way to put this refutation is to ask whether the properties or attributes internal to the universe are the same as the properties of the universe. This remains to be demonstrated.

On this post, I intend to examine the concept of "Begin to Exist". What does it mean for something to begin to exist? I contend that the CA, especially this Kalam variety, has gotten a lot of mileage recent, thanks to William Lane Craig, mainly as a result of the general illiteracy of metaphysical and ontological matters by the general public. Granted, metaphysic and ontological analysis are very difficult subjects to contemplate and I claim no expert knowledge in these myself. But it should be obvious even to the most casual observer that the idea of "begin to exist" is not as trivial a matter, meriting no further explication, as seems on the surface. Advocates of Kalam CA, maybe knowingly exploit the public ignorance of metaphysics to sell to the public a defect argument.

Now, let's examine what exactly it means for something to "begin to exist". There are two ways one could examine this:

1) The general examination of "begin to exist" which relates to the ontology of things
2) The particular case of "begin to exist" as used in the CA, which relates to the theory of causation.

On this post, I shall only examine 1) and will look at 2) in a subsequent post. I shall start by asking the following questions:

i) Can anyone think of something that "begins to exist" and point out the exact time and space when the existence began?

ii) When does a painting begin to exist? Is it in the painter's head? Is it when the paint was manufactured? Is it when the canvass was stretched out on a wooden frame?

iii) When does a child begin to exist? Is it when her parents were themselves born, noting that her mother would have been born with near all her eggs in place? Is it when that particular sperm that fertilised her mothers eggs was made in her father's body? Is it when her parents had sex? Is it when the eggs and sperms fused? etc, etc?

iv) When did the sun begin to exist? Was it when the matter that accreted into the sun 5 billion years ago? Was it about 10 billion years ago when most of this matter was initially made?


I hope with the above question, it is possible to see that this is not a trivial questions with no trivial answers. As far as we know from science, things around us are simply forms of energy and things don't just "begin to exist", but matter/energy is transformed from one form of energy or state into another form of energy or state, invariably with no finite abrupt phase change time, but with slow imperceptible transitions.

I contend that premise 1 of the CA is not a cast-in-stone premise and should really not be accept as a logically unassailable premise.