25 May 05
Originally posted by telerionOk, tell me telly. What am I missing in the question? I'll consider again whether it is or isn't one of those 'stupid arguments' Paul is talking about.
I'm sorry you didn't get the second question. In my opinion, it deserves more honest reflection on your part. Do you know what the question is asking?
I suppose that something of the chef is in the meal. A reflection of his character does appear on the plate. So, in that sense, then yes, God is in His creation.
25 May 05
Originally posted by chinking58The idea is if everything that is real was created by God (you've already agreed to this 3 times over) and if God did not create himself (you've made this very clear as well), then God is not real.
Ok, tell me telly. What am I missing in the question? I'll consider again whether it is or isn't one of those 'stupid arguments' Paul is talking about.
I suppose that something of the chef is in the meal. A reflection of his character does appear on the plate. So, in that sense, then yes, God is in His creation.
That is the point of the second question. It responds to an affirmative to the first question by asking if God is a part of the reality that he created.
On a side note, I'd encourage you not model yourself after Paul when considering the value of other arguments. From his writings, it is clear that he was as close-minded and thick-headed as a human can be. In contrast, if you come across a silly argument, do not only declare it as such but also demonstrate why.
25 May 05
Originally posted by telerionYou're switching between two different meanings of "real" here.
The idea is if everything that is real was created by God (you've already agreed to this 3 times over) and if God did not create himself (you've made this very clear as well), then God is not real.
That is the point of the second question. It responds to an affirmative to the first question by asking if God is a part of the reality that he created.
...[text shortened]... f you come across a silly argument, do not only declare it as such but also demonstrate why.
25 May 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerIn general, you would be correct, but the reality that chin and I are discussing was already defined on the first page of the thread as "the set of all that is real." Do you still think that I am equivocating?
You're switching between two different meanings of "real" here.
25 May 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAnd another wolf runs whimpering for the woods where he is safe from challenge.
Nonsense. There's so much nonsense here, I don't know where to begin my criticism. In all seriousness, you really should enroll in a remedial course in critical thinking if this is the sort of thing at which you would like to become at least minimally competent and possibly someday proficient. As it is now, you're just babbling. It's really embarrassing for everybody.
Seriously. I know there are some flaws in my argument, and I have not used standard terminology. But I think it's a fair argument and you have not addressed it at any point.
I suspect I have given you a dilemma that you can not resolve: if ideas and concepts are part of that which exist, then all things exist. If all things exist, then questioning "existence" as a predicate of anything undefined is useless. It concepts and ideas are not part of things that exist, then law, love, and liberty do not exist.
But as is typical of those who can not fight with fair reasoning, you have employed fallacious arguments as a sad attempt to cover your inability to deal with the issue. Are you afraid you may have to admitting the flaws in your arguments. I hope this response will embarrass you enough to address my post fairly and reasonable. But if not, I will consider you defeated, and look for someone more challenging. You have let me down again. 🙁
25 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiThis is a non sequitur.
if ideas and concepts are part of that which exist, then all things exist.
The concept of a greatest integer exists. That doesn't imply that a greatest integer exists.
Do you accept or deny that I have given several examples in this thread of things that do not exist?
25 May 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou have given several examples of true and false propositions. All that you can say is that which is logically impossible exists only as concepts entailing logical contradictions. But they exists non-the-less.
This is a non sequitur.
The concept of a greatest integer exists. That doesn't imply that a greatest integer exists.
Do you accept or deny that I have given several examples in this thread of things that do not exist?
There are other things that you know are true that have no empirical existence. All geometric shapes are purely rational. You have never seen a circle, only an approximation of a circle.
However, and this I find most interesting, if anything can not exist, it would be that which is logically impossible. But almost no one holds existence to that level of reason. They almost alway hold it to the level of empirical existence - as you have done on many occasions. So what do you say? Would you limit non-existence to those things which are deductively logically impossible, like square circles?
25 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiYou've just exhausted my patience reserves for the day. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow. In the meantime, I urge you to review the class notes that bbarr posted.
You have given several examples of true and false propositions. All that you can say is that which is logically impossible exists only as concepts entailing logical contradictions. But they exists non-the-less.
There are other things that you know are true that have no empirical existence. All geometric shapes are purely rational. You have never seen ...[text shortened]... t non-existence to those things which are deductively logically impossible, like square circles?
25 May 05
Originally posted by telerionI see. (not really)
The idea is if everything that is real was created by God (you've already agreed to this 3 times over) and if God did not create himself (you've made this very clear as well), then God is not real.
That is the point of the second question. It responds to an affirmative to the first question by asking if God is a part of the reality that he created.
...[text shortened]... f you come across a silly argument, do not only declare it as such but also demonstrate why.
So you've made up this question to prove that God, who can't be real, did or did not create anything? Or are you proving that nothing is real? Or that thinking clearly is not worth the trouble it takes?
Hows about I clear everything up with a simple qualification.
God created everything except Himself.
I have to wonder telly, what is it you want from life? It's not worth it to spend your life trying to deny God, only to face Him in the end. And when that day comes there won't be any time nor inclination to try to talk Him out of existing. God is not trying to deny you, but He is out to draw you into His house for fellowship and fun! God loves you bud!
And to add a little more to the discussion, let me throw in this verse from Colossians 1:16
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
By the way, considering the value of other arguments is what we all (must) do every day! Otherwise we would be out buying every item advertised on tv, and trying to believe every claim made by whatever speaker had our ear.
I agree with you that I should try to demonstrate why I think a particular argument is silly. I thought I was doing that, but i will be even more careful about that in the future. Thanks.
25 May 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesyou might as well suggest he review the book " See Spot Run" , but then, he probably would post some nonsense about that too.
You've just exhausted my patience reserves for the day. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow. In the meantime, I urge you to review the class notes that bbarr posted.
25 May 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesBefore things get too feisty 🙂, two definitions of real seem to be floating around:
This is a non sequitur.
The concept of a greatest integer exists. That doesn't imply that a greatest integer exists.
Do you accept or deny that I have given several examples in this thread of things that do not exist?
1. real(1): The property of emprical existence; i.e. the property by which an entity can be experienced through the senses (or extensions thereof, such as scientific instruments)
2. real(2): The property of conceptual existence; i.e. the property by which an entity can be experienced, understood, imagined or visualised in the mind
Numbers, logical propositions, laws of logic etc. are conceptual entities. These are real(2), but not real(1). In that sense, if one says that numbers are real, then one must also admit that [the concept] of unicorns are real. In referring to a number as an abstract entity (as opposed to the attribute of real(1) entities - e.g. the number 2 vs. "two oranges"😉, it is implied that one is talking of a concept.
25 May 05
Originally posted by chinking58So God created all evil things for himself?
I see. (not really)
So you've made up this question to prove that God, who can't be real, did or did not create anything? Or are you proving that nothing is real? Or that thinking clearly is not worth the trouble it takes?
Hows about I clear everything up with a simple qualification.
God created everything except Himself.
I have to wond ...[text shortened]... I thought I was doing that, but i will be even more careful about that in the future. Thanks.
Did he also create the place he was in?
Did the polythiestic gods of Sumer (Genesis does come from Sumerian mythology) merge into the monotheistic God of the bible?
Did the merging take place before or after the beginning?
25 May 05
Let's see:
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
That's not true. Here's a proof.
Let A denote your claim: All things exist.
You claim that A is true.
It follows that A is not false.
It follows that there does not exist a claim that is both A and false.
Ah, but that is the whole point of this exercise. Look at the last sentence of your proof - you are saying that there exists a claim that is both A and false.
Thus, there is at least one thing that does not exist.
But, this finding contradicts your claim. That is, your claim entails a logical contradiction, and thus it cannot be true.
Thus, your claim is false, and it is not the case that all things exist.
For an alternate proof by counterexample, there also does not exist a greatest integer.
Is existence the same as truth?
25 May 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat's correct.
1. real(1): The property of empirical existence; i.e. the property by which an entity can be experienced through the senses (or extensions thereof, such as scientific instruments)
2. real(2): The property of conceptual existence; i.e. the property by which an entity can be experienced, understood, imagined or visualised in the mind
....
And everything in real(2) does not have a corresponding presence in real(1) such as the concept of justification or an infinite straight line. But all things in the real(1) are are known in real(2), such as a chair, or a dinosaur's thigh bone.
All reasoning takes place in real(2). And it often involves ideals of things in real(1). For instance, you may reason about the protection of ducks. But you will not be thinking about a particular empirical duck, you will be thinking about a concept of a duck that represents all ducks in the wild. Language and logic are all members of real(2). In real(1) language is simple noise, and logic has no presence at all.