JujuSugar's Posts
Nairaland Forum › JujuSugar's Profile › JujuSugar's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (of 9 pages)
NnennaG6:Why? What is it about reduction to mechanistic particle movements that would make it inadequate as a basis? Why would reason need a transcendent unitary basis? There is reason since we transcend and communicate in unity that which is true and that which is false and able to confirm or falsify the results of reason and truth.This premise is simply false. Truth is undefinable. Whatever consistent formula/test for identifying true propositions you can come up with, you can always use Cantor's diagonalization to generate a true proposition that the formula/test will fail to identify as such. The only reason why truth seems transcendent and universal is because when two people meet in practice, their intuitive vague notion of truth is similar enough to communicate effectively. That does not actually require truth to be truly transcendent. Here's how I avoid the issue: Step 1. Replace classical definition of knowledge (true justified belief) with something that does not hang on ill-defined and/or anthropocentric concepts. For example, I use definition that is based on fields of game theory and artificial intelligence: Knowledge is information that gives an agent power (the ability to willingly choose) over the outcome of a nontrivial scenario. It dodges the truth bullet, because information does not have inherent truth value. It doesn't arbitrarily limit knowledge and reason to human-like minds that hold beliefs. It defines knowledge based on its observable effects, instead of inherent qualities. And it captures the only aspect of knowledge that ultimately matters - power. Step 2. Redefine reason. Reason is the ability/process of deriving knowledge from information. In other words, before you perform reasoning on given information, you have less power than after you perform the reasoning. It is validated by whether the resulting information actually constitutes knowledge. There is no one singular reason. Rather you can compare the "reasonability" of processes, based on the efficacy of results they produce. That does not require there to be some ultimate maximal reason (though it is not inconsistent with that notion). Under this model, truth is just a concept. A tool for manipulating information into knowledge. The ultimate arbiter of truth is the reality itself, or at least the part of it you occupy. You may notice, this model does not make any proclamations/assumptions about ontological or metaphysical nature of reality. It just defines concepts that you may (or may not) identify in reality. I know this is a big bone to chew on. It approaches reason from a completely different direction than classical philosophy does. But then again... classical philosophy has been circlejerking on a treadmill for at least the last 200 years. Meanwhile other branches of philosophy (natural science, mathematics, computer science, humanities) are progressing in leaps and bounds. |
This is an issue that existence of god doesn't fix. Even if we assume that there is some transcendent basis for reason, we have no good reason to believe that we have any sort of reliable access to it. People behave irrationally most of the time. That's something really hard to explain away, if we have some god-given capacity for reason. Consider this simple syllogism: P1: If god exists, reason is justified. P2: God exists. C: Therefore reason is justified. It might seem like a valid syllogism, but it's actually not. In order to infer C from P1 and P2, you need to apply reason (specifically modus monens). Which you can't do (justifiably) unless you already have prior justification for reason. If you do have it, that defeats the purpose of the argument. The problem is not specific to god. You can substitute anything for "god" in that argument and you'll end up with the exact same issue. Even if one of those things is in fact what makes reason work, there's no rational basis to come to that conclusion. You can never really justify reason itself. Not by invoking god, spirits, epiphenomena or anything else. The least "damaging" position is to just presuppose it. |
Near1:As you said, a per se chain refers to the concurrent/simultaneous actualization of change. This kind of finitude is perfectly consistent with a past-eternal universe. I'm inclined to agree that a per se chain can't be infinite and must, therefore, end somewhere. However, I disagree that this is what "theists call God." It could be the universe itself. How so? First, if existential inertia (not to be confused with Newton's inertia) is true of the actual world, then the argument has no force whatsoever (See Existential inertia and the Aristotelian proof). So, Thomists have to refute this possibility. Second, there are alternative accounts of per se chains (i.e., alternative to Aquinas') in which Aquinas' argument does not work: “The account runs as follows: A per se, sustaining cause C is required for substance S’s being in condition or outcome O only if (i) there is some causal or explanatory factor or force F—intrinsic or extrinsic to S —acting on S to bring S toward some condition or outcome ~ O; (ii) F is a net factor or force in the absence of C’s causal operation; and (iii) S (or some state of affairs involving S) is in condition or outcome O distinct from ~ O. ... The account... provides a foundation for a new undercutting defeater of the Aristotelian proof." (Stage One of the Aristotelian Proof: A Critical Appraisal, p.6) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For this reason and many others, I reject Aquinas' first way. |
For those who do not know, the William Lane Craig standard Kalam cosmological argument runs as follows: P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. P2. The universe began to exist. C1. Therefore, the universe has a cause. P3. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful. C2. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful. Objections: 1> There is no good scientific reason for concluding our Lorentzian four-dimensional spatio-temporal manifold had an absolute beginning. Of course, we can debate Big Bang cosmology, singularity theorems (like the BGV and Hawking-Penrose theorems) and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I have read extensively about these subjects and asked about them to several professional cosmologists (including Vilenkin, Andrei Linde and many others). 2> The philosophical arguments against an infinite regress of past events (viz., the traversal of an infinite timeline) as well as arguments against an actual infinite are fallacious and consequently unsound. Many philosophers agree on this point (e.g., Oppy, Arnold, Moriston and many others). We can debate that as well. 3> Even if it had a beginning, there is no reason to conclude it had a cause, as causality seems to be a property of the physical manifold -- if there is no manifold, there is no causality. So, Craig has the burden to demonstrate causality is transcendental (and metaphysically necessary) rather than a description of how the manifold works (and thus dependent on the manifold). 4> Even if causality holds without our Lorentzian manifold, it is a non-sequitur to say the cause must be immaterial, non-spatial and personal. This apologetical claim assumes all of physical reality began, and there is no proof this is true! 5> Even if it is shown that the cause is immaterial, it doesn't follow it must be a personal mind. Beyond the fact that many philosophers (e.g., Alexander Pruss) argue abstract objects are causally efficacious, there are other equally speculative proposals that postulate immaterial substances. Just one example: Life is defined by Qi even though it is impossible to grasp, measure, quantify, see or isolate. Immaterial yet essential, the material world is formed by it. An invisible force known only by its effects, Qi is recognized indirectly by what it fosters, generates and protects... Qi is an invisible substance, as well as an immaterial force that manifests as movement and activity. (Between Heaven and Earth, pp. 30, 34, by Beinfield and Korngold) 6> Even if I grant an uncaused sentient being, that wouldn't demonstrate it is still around today. Couldn't it have simply started everything and then extinguished itself? As philosopher Paul Edwards explained: Nor does the [Kalam] argument establish the present existence of the first cause. It does not prove this, since experience clearly shows that an effect may exist long after its cause has been destroyed. Critiques of God (p.46) |
Focus on yourselves and mind your business! If the girl decides to strip naked act porn in public, it's still her choice and doesn't interfere in your personal business. Live and let live |
sonmvayina:If what you said above is true, then how did you come to know about his existence? |
Religion on its own is a beast. It Marks people (religious segregation), threatens those who have not accepted it (the hell concept), often times ostracizes people who refuse it, and much more. The person begging you to accept religion is often charismatic and loved by the community, and you are tricked and decieved to give money you don't have and dedicate your only existence to its power over you. Don't know about you but this makes sense to me |
Stephani3e:To punish us for the evils he already knew we'd commit *chuckle* It doesn't make any sense to meIt's supposed to. According to christians Can't he just forgive us since he is a merciful God?Nope. Ain't happening sis. Sorry. Sometimes some when I use logical reasoning, some parts of the Bible doesn't make sense to me,Color me surprised |
Vic2Ree:First of all, Superman's speed is roughly on par with Thanos. Thanos is certainly more durable but Superman isn't that far behind and might have a signifigant speed advantage. If this was ignoring special abilities and tech I could actually argue Superman. But Thanos isn't primarily a stat-based fighter anyway. He's way more versatile then Superman and he has really hax abilities that Superman doesn't have any way to counter (or at least not all of them). So while Superman physically might have parity, it's Thanos hax that makes him so dangerous anyway. |
Vic2Ree:You read comics, right? The standard versions of Superman and Thanos. Not the Thanos enhanced with the infinity gauntlet. |
J2381:Yeah... You do realize that Superman would actually own Thanos, right? |
St1ckman:Somethings probability is based on the likelihood of it happening. Nothing else. Whether it is technically a choice or a default position, or a lack of making a choice etc. doesn't change that. |
St1ckman:Oga that's not how mathematics works. The probability of something being correct is not dependent on it being a choice we can make in general. Not to mention that not all religions have equal chance of being correct. |
ITearHerTotoWyd:Thanks but don't worry. I was never interested! |
ITearHerTotoWyd:Yeah, right |
ITearHerTotoWyd:Your moniker is ITearHerTotoWyd but u dey fear toto. Lol! |
massmediang:Consider oxidation and air pollution. Not everything has to be supernatural |
ITearHerTotoWyd:Why? Do you want to suck it? |
ITearHerTotoWyd:This one is puking . When you find out where else people willingly put their mouths, it's gonna blow your mind. |
Is this how students fight now?... |
lepasharon: ![]() |
NnennaG6:Nne, that is an interesting assertion,..... but are you sure that it has any basis in fact?...... Or is it simply a necessary supposition for the free will argument to remain coherent?...... |
NnennaG6:Nne, when you say ME, you have to be more specific o!..... I am an aggregate subject to change, not a self-existent entity...... What I was when I first posted...... is different from what I am now,..... and will be very different ten years in the future...... My dear, you have assumed some sort of intrinsic essence for the self that has yet to be demonstrated! |
NnennaG6:Pls ma, who is the YOU who does the choosing? |
gloria34: gloria34: ![]() |
Nawa, see fight .....
|
nuelsam:Lol. Didn't u already answer your own question in the OP? What more do u want to know? People can be very petty. Guys and babes alike. There's nothing to see here.... |
Silentscreamer:What did he say now that makes him stupid? I'm curious |
Dumbass thread... |




