Prizm:

There are many shades or categories of being/existence ie to say, that when we talk of things existing, there are different senses in which to understand that. There are things which exist because they possess matter; they are physical objects. They have concrete bodies or parts and as such can be seen, touched or felt. This is the most intuitive and common understanding of what it means when one says that a thing exists for they are all around us. So for example, one can say that cars, trees, rocks, water, air, planets, stars exist. This is an understanding that comes from a naturalistic examination of our world.

But why should we say that existence is limited to just the physical things that can be empirically manipulated? Not too many people live their actual daily lives on the presupposition that the only valid things existing are those things which are physical particulars or that have material form. Take some time and think about this point. Indeed the very thing that sets human beings apart as higher-functioning creatures on this earth is the human capacity to understand, process and utilize concepts which are not readily apparent from simple sense data.

In addition to physical objects which we can see, touch/feel, smell, taste or hear we have other reliable understandings of what it means for something to exist. Consider the notion of “Space and Time”. These entities (space and time) are what physical objects are extended into; physical object (matter) obtrudes into space-time; space and time exist even though one cannot literally see, touch/feel, hear, smell or taste them. In other words, you cannot isolate or investigate space and time in some test-tube or laboratory. They are not physically instantiated particulars/objects. Some lower life forms may never rationally comprehend the existence of space or time but their ignorance of that fact does not imply that space and time therefore do not exist.

Also think of the “Equator” or “the center of gravity of the solar system”. The equator has an attribute like a certain length; one can cross the equator but the equator is clearly NOT a physical object even though it exists in time and space. The same goes for the center of gravity of the solar system which is a point moving about in space. It is not a physical/material object either. It is an abstract spatiotemporal object for theoretically the center of gravity of the solar system is a moving point in space that you can momentarily enclose in a tiny container before it passes right through the container as it moves about.

Furthermore, consider this expression “Pete went to a judo match”. This statement makes sense to you, doesn’t it? I assume it does. In other words, if I make another equivalent statement like “Mary went to a dance rehearsal”, someone listening to me will not frown and declare that the statement is meaningless. But if we use a strict naturalistic sense in interpreting what exists, in both sentences the only substances we can empirically isolate are “Pete” in the first sentence and “Mary” in the second sentence. Those two objects have physical form. The rest of the sentence would then have to be described as a meaningless combination of words which do not exist because they can’t be empirically isolated. Would we be rationally justified in taking that stance? The answer is "No". What then do we call “went to a judo match” or “went to a dance rehearsal”? It would be very absurd, to suggest that “went to a judo match” or “went to a dance rehearsal” is a property of Pete or Mary in those sentences above. These are simply events.

Events are that which can occur, have occurred or are occurring in a present active sense. They have their own legitimate ontological existence. So for example, let us say that a certain John brushed his teeth this morning. This is an event that has already taken place—which is to say that the event has already occurred or existed. That is quite different from the active and present existing event right now as you read my post on your screen. What if someone comes out then and declares flatly that the event of John “brushing his teeth” cannot exist because the entire event is not a physical object? What if he denies the existence of that event because it lies in the past and is thus no longer capable of being presently witnessed? That is about as absurd as saying that the event “Pete went to a judo match” does not exist or is unreal because from the statement all we can materially grasp at is the physical form of Pete. Once again, an event is another example of existence that is non-material.

Events may involve finite particulars or matter which can be empirically investigated but taken as a whole, events are conceptually non-material. This means that an event as a subject is not composed of or structurally made out of matter. Think about this for a moment. Think about how impossible it will be for any person who purports to be a higher-functioning human being to live his or her life as though all events in the past did not really exist because such a person is committed to the view that only concrete material objects exist; Or how absurd it will be for such a person to doubt the existence of past events because he or she was not around to empirically validate these events. Do you see how such skepticism could lead one to simply assert that the earth is just 4 minutes old but with all appearances of age simply built in? Why? This is because such skepticism over the existence of the non-material (like events) will commit the skeptic to a fundamental disbelief in the rational existence of any past events outside one’s own immediate empirically verifiable personal experience.

Nevertheless we have other philosophical (metaphysical) and equally valid understanding of what it means for something to exist. These would include things like properties (size, color, weight etc), relations (being taller than, being sweeter than, being faster than, being greater or less than, being equal to etc), numbers or number sets (the set of all integers from negative infinity through zero to positive infinity), logic, propositions or mathematical proofs/theorems which are not concrete but abstract. These things have abstract existence unlike the way physical objects have concrete existence. This means that because these things exist in abstract form you could not possibly test them by empirical methods—which is to say that you cannot touch, taste, see, smell or hear them. They exist independent of any physical observer. In other words, these things exist whether or not there are human beings around to apprehend this abstract realm. But of course we do apprehend this abstract realm; and I’ll put it to you that no sane and higher-functioning human being lives his or her life as though the abstract does not exist.

On the issue of numbers, one is correct in a sense when one says that numbers can be used to express some understanding of the physical world. But that naïve view does not invalidate the idea that numbers themselves exist. Otherwise they cannot be employed in any meaningful way by humans who purport to make rational and logical sense of the world. By some of the arguments here, numbers will cease to exist if the only things existing in the world were simple-celled micro-organisms incapable of apprehending the existence of numbers. That idea is simply absurd. Aggregates, a collection of units or sum totals of quantities (or Numbers) exist whether there are sentient or intelligent life forms around to count. It merely redounds to our credit as intelligent humans that we can apprehend a realm of numbers and as such can count things or represent numbers pictorially or visually with numerals.

Just think about this: Did the number 4 simply begin to exist the first time some first intelligent human existing some distant time in the past looked around and counted out 4 objects? As you can see the answer is clearly “No”. There are many other examples to illustrate the point. No one thought up or invented numbers. Numbers are not the product of our creative imaginations or abilities. The correct view is that humans are relatively more advanced life-forms who can comprehend the realm of numbers and as such can invent or think up a visual representation for numbers as numerals and apply them in their day-to-day life.

bawomolo:

Krayola:

hahaha. Did the disgust the lady felt on contact exist before the contact? Was it in the "realm of disgust"? This one that everything now has it's own "realm" of existence.

bawomolo:

lol i know why now. what normal man would get on a bus without wearing a shirt.

does the idiot think he is a model for joe 6 pack collections 

duduspace:

I was actually shocked when I saw some guy do this during the summer but him no get belle reach this guy. This guy is a wrong poster boy for that kind of behaviour.

By the way, wetin happen to this thread? DeepSight don run? abi him don realise say him dey try prove the unprovable?

duduspace:


By the way, wetin happen to this thread? DeepSight don run? abi him don realise say him dey try prove the unprovable?

Deep Sight:

So please digest it if you can (i will be surprised if you do) and provide cogent point-by-point rebuttals to each argument (i will commit suicide if you are able to.)

Deep Sight:

That idea is universal to humanity: a supernatural entity that is responsible for creation.

You already know what follows, but let me add anyway for those who might be wondering: a supernatural entity that is responsible for creation works well for me because it does not include the Creator (ie., God) as part of that creation. Hence, the question 'who created God' does not arise. But the one who is convinced that it is both necessary and dialectical has the amiable task of pointing us to 'the creator of the Creator' - if he may. Given that, I might also stake out to bite off my wrist!

I accept your statement on "created all that exists. . . what about who created God. . ."

This has been pointed out severally. But without dealing too extensively with that question for now, let me simply state that by the term 'all that exists", i am referring to the finite world, matter, and observable things.

Krayola:

The holes in those arguments have been pointed out over and over again on several threads. The objections have been dismissed as just stubbornness, and pictures of butterflies and outer space were used as a retort.


There is no proof for the existence of a creator, or God. The best you can do is make a good argument. But every one has holes. Every single one.

Krayola:

The holes in those arguments have been pointed out over and over again on several threads. The objections have been dismissed as just stubbornness, and pictures of butterflies and outer space were used as a retort.

There is no proof for the existence of a creator, or God. The best you can do is make a good argument. But every one has holes. Every single one.

viaro:


Is there any single argument that is so watertight as to be declared free from holes to be exploited? Any single one? Even your own argument for whatever worldview you might hold? Even what is commonly called 'science' have holes in their very best postulations and continue to do so.

Yet, that an argument or theory has holes does not lead to the denial of the existence of what it seeks to explain. It is not the holes in any argument that is the focal point of this thread; and that is why it would be interesting to see a response to Deep Sight's post #72.

Krayola:

It is not the holes in the argument that is the issue, but the unwillingness to acknowledge them. Instead y'all say people are being stubborn or are unable to comprehend the "depth" of what is being said. If the argument convinces you, fine. But you can't force it down people's throats, and then ridicule them for refusing it. Especially when they have given valid reasons.

That the argument has holes does not mean God does not exist. . . it just means that the argument does little to nothing in terms of confirming God's existence, at least as far as we are concerned.

I doubt anyone will respond to that argument again. . .  like I said that horse has been flogged back to life and into oblivion over and over again.

Deep Sight:

Krayola, i would be deeply interested in a point-by-point response to #70 above containing Dr. Angelicus' proofs.

This is because i am sorely tired of people stating that "this or that argument has been debunked" without ever actually tackling the arguments head on (you are not guilty of this, but others are, particularly Banom, who has never responded to any single part of the cosmological argument).

Krayola:

@viaro. It is unfortunate that you think we have not "attempted to carefully think through ourselves". Maybe we just disagree. But like I said, u ridicule those who disagree, and pretty much call them stupid. Whatever floats your boat.

Deep Sight:

Viaro - in fairness to Krayola, he is one of the VERY FEW who actually goes the distance, although i do not believe he has grasped the essentials of some of the arguments, but i must concede that he has a very very open mind, and considering the arguments he offers here, you will be surprised to find the fields of study that he is actually involved in.

The fallacy of quantifier-switch.

Example:

St. Thomas Aquinas's "Second Way", also known as the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God, contains the follow essential but fallacious step:

Every thing or event is caused, or brought into being, by some other thing or event;
So, some thing or event caused, or brought into being, all other things and events.

Aquinas thought that this Prime Mover was God. This questionable step has the same logical form as the following:

Every number is greater than some other number;
So, some number is less than all other numbers.

The latter inference is clearly invalid: the premise is true of the real numbers (negative and positive), while the conclusion is false. (There is no least number; they keep on going back infinitely far "to the left".) Another argument of the same form, which is clearly invalid, is the following:

Everyone is fathered by someone else;
So, someone fathered everyone else.

The fallacy of quantifier-switch.

Example:

St. Thomas Aquinas's "Second Way", also known as the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God, contains the follow essential but fallacious step:

Every thing or event is caused, or brought into being, by some other thing or event;
So, some thing or event caused, or brought into being, all other things and events.

Aquinas thought that this Prime Mover was God. This questionable step has the same logical form as the following:

Every number is greater than some other number;
So, some number is less than all other numbers.

The latter inference is clearly invalid: the premise is true of the real numbers (negative and positive), while the conclusion is false. (There is no least number; they keep on going back infinitely far "to the left".) Another argument of the same form, which is clearly invalid, is the following:

Everyone is fathered by someone else;
So, someone fathered everyone else.

coldwater:

Deepsight,

I have been following your posts recently. Your dimension of knowledge impresses me. I want to broaden my spiritual knowledge. Can you be my coach? I, among other things, need you to recommend study materials for me. Thanks.