Total Posts:50|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Proof for God

 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/25/2014 9:55:53 AMPosted: 3 years ago1. Reality = all and only that which is real.2. The definition of reality is real.3. Reality is therefore self-defining.4. Since reality's definition excludes the unreal, it must be coherently self-defining.5. Reality must provide itself with a real reason that its definition is X as opposed to Y else there would be no reason that reality is X and not Y, and thus no reason that reality isn't Y which means it could be Y which is a contradiction.6. Reality is thus self-justifying.7. Reality embodies the answers to all question.8. Reality is self-configuring, self-justifying, self-distributed and self-modeling.9. God exists.This was my first attempt, so you have to be nice :)
 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/25/2014 11:24:10 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/25/2014 9:55:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:1. Reality = all and only that which is real.2. The definition of reality is real.3. Reality is therefore self-defining.4. Since reality's definition excludes the unreal, it must be coherently self-defining.5. Reality must provide itself with a real reason that its definition is X as opposed to Y else there would be no reason that reality is X and not Y, and thus no reason that reality isn't Y which means it could be Y which is a contradiction.6. Reality is thus self-justifying.7. Reality embodies the answers to all question.8. Reality is self-configuring, self-justifying, self-distributed and self-modeling.9. God exists.This was my first attempt, so you have to be nice :)2 is overly simplistic. The definition is only real in the sense that we can, using language create a word (reality), and understand what it represents.5 is unjustified. There is no contradiction in the notion that X could be Y, but isn't--that's essentially the foundation of modal logic.7 is false.9 (the conclusion) does not follow.Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/25/2014 11:30:43 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/25/2014 11:24:10 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 7/25/2014 9:55:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:1. Reality = all and only that which is real.2. The definition of reality is real.3. Reality is therefore self-defining.4. Since reality's definition excludes the unreal, it must be coherently self-defining.5. Reality must provide itself with a real reason that its definition is X as opposed to Y else there would be no reason that reality is X and not Y, and thus no reason that reality isn't Y which means it could be Y which is a contradiction.6. Reality is thus self-justifying.7. Reality embodies the answers to all question.8. Reality is self-configuring, self-justifying, self-distributed and self-modeling.9. God exists.This was my first attempt, so you have to be nice :)2 is overly simplistic. The definition is only real in the sense that we can, using language create a word (reality), and understand what it represents.By "the definition of reality", I mean "what is included in reality" i.e. what is real.5 is unjustified. There is no contradiction in the notion that X could be Y, but isn't--that's essentially the foundation of modal logic.If X could be Y, then there is no real reason that it isn't Y. But if there is no real reason that it isn't Y, then it could be Y (and Y is defined as what reality is not) which is a contradiction. Merely appealing to the existence of modal logic is not actually an argument.
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/25/2014 11:49:45 AMPosted: 3 years ago"If X could be Y, then there is no real reason that it isn't Y. But if there is no real reason that it isn't Y, then it could be Y"I just realized that I repeat myself here. Anyway, I hope you understand my point.
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/25/2014 11:52:51 AMPosted: 3 years agoLet X be defined as what reality is, and let Y be defined as what reality is not. Reality must provide itself with a real reason that it is X and not Y, for if it didn't, there would be no real reason that it is not Y, and it would thus be possible for X to be Y (for reality to be not itself) which is contradictory.
 Posts: 4,939 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/25/2014 9:50:36 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/25/2014 9:55:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:1. Reality = all and only that which is real.2. The definition of reality is real.3. Reality is therefore self-defining.4. Since reality's definition excludes the unreal, it must be coherently self-defining.5. Reality must provide itself with a real reason that its definition is X as opposed to Y else there would be no reason that reality is X and not Y, and thus no reason that reality isn't Y which means it could be Y which is a contradiction.6. Reality is thus self-justifying.7. Reality embodies the answers to all question.8. Reality is self-configuring, self-justifying, self-distributed and self-modeling.9. God exists.This was my first attempt, so you have to be nice :)5. You are talking about reality as if it were a being. Reality has no responsibilities and doesn't need to provide anything, so your or else scenario doesn't follow.9. How on earth did you get from 8 to 9?
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/25/2014 10:09:01 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/25/2014 9:55:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:1. Reality = all and only that which is real.2. The definition of reality is real.3. Reality is therefore self-defining.4. Since reality's definition excludes the unreal, it must be coherently self-defining.5. Reality must provide itself with a real reason that its definition is X as opposed to Y else there would be no reason that reality is X and not Y, and thus no reason that reality isn't Y which means it could be Y which is a contradiction.6. Reality is thus self-justifying.7. Reality embodies the answers to all question.8. Reality is self-configuring, self-justifying, self-distributed and self-modeling.9. God exists.This was my first attempt, so you have to be nice :)My problem with Langan is his assumption that conclusions such as this can even be ascertained a priori.To pick up where I left off on my point regarding evolution - the way in which we think is configured around survival and not absolute truth, so surely there are limits to our comprehension of the universe. It makes sense, then, that serious advancements in our understanding of the universe would be facilitated only by empirical clues."A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/26/2014 9:56:56 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/25/2014 10:09:01 PM, 000ike wrote:At 7/25/2014 9:55:53 AM, dylancatlow wrote:1. Reality = all and only that which is real.2. The definition of reality is real.3. Reality is therefore self-defining.4. Since reality's definition excludes the unreal, it must be coherently self-defining.5. Reality must provide itself with a real reason that its definition is X as opposed to Y else there would be no reason that reality is X and not Y, and thus no reason that reality isn't Y which means it could be Y which is a contradiction.6. Reality is thus self-justifying.7. Reality embodies the answers to all question.8. Reality is self-configuring, self-justifying, self-distributed and self-modeling.9. God exists.This was my first attempt, so you have to be nice :)My problem with Langan is his assumption that conclusions such as this can even be ascertained a priori.These quotes should help clarify where Langan is coming from:There are several kinds of "theory". The CTMU is certainly a theory in the general sense that it is a descriptive or explanatory function T which takes the universe U as an argument: T = T(U). However, instead of employing logical deduction to derive theorems from axioms, it employs logical induction to derive the overall structure of reality from certain necessary properties thereof (which are themselves deduced from the facts of existence and perception). That is, it derives the unique structure capable of manifesting all of the required properties.Logical induction does not have to assume the uniformity of nature; it can be taken for granted that nature is uniformly logical. For if nature were anywhere illogical, then it would be inconsistent, and could not be coherently perceived or conceived. But if something cannot be coherently perceived or conceived, then it cannot be recognized as reality, and has no place in a theory of reality. So for theoretical purposes, reality exhibits logical homogeneity, and logical induction thus escapes Hume's problem of empirical induction. (Q.E.D.)In theoretically (cognitively) connecting perceptual reality in an explanatory causal network, one can't always progress by short obvious steps; sometimes one must plunge into an ocean of non-testability in order to come up with a superior testable description on the far shore (think of this kind of insight as analogous to irreducible complexity, but often followed by a simplificative "refolding stage"). In other words, it is not always easy to distinguish (empirically fruitful) science from nonscience as science progresses; one must rely on logic and mathematics in the "blind spots" between islands of perceptibility.The scientific value of the CTMU resides largely in the fact that within its framework, certain logical truths can be regarded as scientific truths (as opposed to tentatively-confirmed scientific hypotheses).The CTMU elevates empirical induction to the model-theoretic level of reasoning, thus circumventing the problem of induction.To pick up where I left off on my point regarding evolution - the way in which we think is configured around survival and not absolute truth, so surely there are limits to our comprehension of the universe. It makes sense, then, that serious advancements in our understanding of the universe would be facilitated only by empirical clues.
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/26/2014 10:59:21 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/26/2014 9:56:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/25/2014 10:09:01 PM, 000ike wrote:My problem with Langan is his assumption that conclusions such as this can even be ascertained a priori.These quotes should help clarify where Langan is coming from:There are several kinds of "theory". The CTMU is certainly a theory in the general sense that it is a descriptive or explanatory function T which takes the universe U as an argument: T = T(U). However, instead of employing logical deduction to derive theorems from axioms, it employs logical induction to derive the overall structure of reality from certain necessary properties thereof (which are themselves deduced from the facts of existence and perception). That is, it derives the unique structure capable of manifesting all of the required properties.Logical induction does not have to assume the uniformity of nature; it can be taken for granted that nature is uniformly logical. For if nature were anywhere illogical, then it would be inconsistent, and could not be coherently perceived or conceived. But if something cannot be coherently perceived or conceived, then it cannot be recognized as reality, and has no place in a theory of reality. So for theoretical purposes, reality exhibits logical homogeneity, and logical induction thus escapes Hume's problem of empirical induction. (Q.E.D.)In theoretically (cognitively) connecting perceptual reality in an explanatory causal network, one can't always progress by short obvious steps; sometimes one must plunge into an ocean of non-testability in order to come up with a superior testable description on the far shore (think of this kind of insight as analogous to irreducible complexity, but often followed by a simplificative "refolding stage"). In other words, it is not always easy to distinguish (empirically fruitful) science from nonscience as science progresses; one must rely on logic and mathematics in the "blind spots" between islands of perceptibility.The scientific value of the CTMU resides largely in the fact that within its framework, certain logical truths can be regarded as scientific truths (as opposed to tentatively-confirmed scientific hypotheses).The CTMU elevates empirical induction to the model-theoretic level of reasoning, thus circumventing the problem of induction.To pick up where I left off on my point regarding evolution - the way in which we think is configured around survival and not absolute truth, so surely there are limits to our comprehension of the universe. It makes sense, then, that serious advancements in our understanding of the universe would be facilitated only by empirical clues.There is some circularity in the use of pure reason to justify the universality of pure reason. At best, such an argument would prove that logic is self-contained and nonlogic is incomprehensible. My point (that is not addressed by your quotes) which I want you to address, is the fact that evolution contextualizes our analytical faculties, making them contingent on circumstances irrelevant (or only indirectly relevant) to the truth.I feel like I'm talking to a bot using an algorithm for conversation. Please stop pseudo-quoting Langan (as the absence of quotes and citations errs on complete plagiarism) and respond to the point I raised."A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
 Posts: 4,250 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/26/2014 11:00:53 AMPosted: 3 years agointeresting thoughts...Equestrian election http://www.debate.org... This House would impose democracy http://www.debate.org... Reign of Terror is unjustified http://www.debate.org... Raise min. wage to \$10.10 http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/26/2014 11:23:24 AMPosted: 3 years agoActually, the first two quotes were Langan's wife.
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/26/2014 11:34:56 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/26/2014 10:59:21 AM, 000ike wrote:At 7/26/2014 9:56:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/25/2014 10:09:01 PM, 000ike wrote:My problem with Langan is his assumption that conclusions such as this can even be ascertained a priori.These quotes should help clarify where Langan is coming from:There are several kinds of "theory". The CTMU is certainly a theory in the general sense that it is a descriptive or explanatory function T which takes the universe U as an argument: T = T(U). However, instead of employing logical deduction to derive theorems from axioms, it employs logical induction to derive the overall structure of reality from certain necessary properties thereof (which are themselves deduced from the facts of existence and perception). That is, it derives the unique structure capable of manifesting all of the required properties.Logical induction does not have to assume the uniformity of nature; it can be taken for granted that nature is uniformly logical. For if nature were anywhere illogical, then it would be inconsistent, and could not be coherently perceived or conceived. But if something cannot be coherently perceived or conceived, then it cannot be recognized as reality, and has no place in a theory of reality. So for theoretical purposes, reality exhibits logical homogeneity, and logical induction thus escapes Hume's problem of empirical induction. (Q.E.D.)In theoretically (cognitively) connecting perceptual reality in an explanatory causal network, one can't always progress by short obvious steps; sometimes one must plunge into an ocean of non-testability in order to come up with a superior testable description on the far shore (think of this kind of insight as analogous to irreducible complexity, but often followed by a simplificative "refolding stage"). In other words, it is not always easy to distinguish (empirically fruitful) science from nonscience as science progresses; one must rely on logic and mathematics in the "blind spots" between islands of perceptibility.The scientific value of the CTMU resides largely in the fact that within its framework, certain logical truths can be regarded as scientific truths (as opposed to tentatively-confirmed scientific hypotheses).The CTMU elevates empirical induction to the model-theoretic level of reasoning, thus circumventing the problem of induction.To pick up where I left off on my point regarding evolution - the way in which we think is configured around survival and not absolute truth, so surely there are limits to our comprehension of the universe. It makes sense, then, that serious advancements in our understanding of the universe would be facilitated only by empirical clues.There is some circularity in the use of pure reason to justify the universality of pure reason.Truth and reality are really synonymous. If something is true, then it is (is real). The universality of pure reason simply means that everything that is true (exists) is true.I feel like I'm talking to a bot using an algorithm for conversation. Please stop pseudo-quoting Langan (as the absence of quotes and citations errs on complete plagiarism) and respond to the point I raised.
 Posts: 13,770 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/26/2014 11:57:00 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/26/2014 10:59:21 AM, 000ike wrote:At 7/26/2014 9:56:56 AM, dylancatlow wrote:Did that help at all?
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/26/2014 12:31:56 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 7/26/2014 11:08:58 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 7/26/2014 10:59:21 AM, 000ike wrote:To pick up where I left off on my point regarding evolution - the way in which we think is configured around survival and not absolute truth, so surely there are limits to our comprehension of the universe. It makes sense, then, that serious advancements in our understanding of the universe would be facilitated only by empirical clues.There is some circularity in the use of pure reason to justify the universality of pure reason. At best, such an argument would prove that logic is self-contained and nonlogic is incomprehensible. My point (that is not addressed by your quotes) which I want you to address, is the fact that evolution contextualizes our analytical faculties, making them contingent on circumstances irrelevant (or only indirectly relevant) to the truth.The point is that this circularity is justified by the definition of truth itself (truth is the standard against which its own validity can be determined). Our brains are the products of evolution, but to claim that they are incapable of discerning absolute truth amounts to self-contradiction. All statements aim at absolute truth whether or not their content is absolute (e.g. a statement which claims "we might know X" amounts to "it is absolutely true that we might know X"). Thus, an argument to the effect that something cannot be known because it is based on the assumption we can know undermines its own medium and is therefore false.I'm advocating for a distinction between incomprehensibility and impossibility - two concepts inelegantly conflated by the argument you've proposed. So this has less to do with restrictions on knowledge than it does restrictions on certainty. Logic is self-justifying, but concomitantly, its syntax for justification requires consistency with an external truth (i.e the sun is hot because it's sustained by exothermic chemical reactions vs. the sun is hot because the sun is hot). Therefore, when we attempt to justify the syntax of logic itself a paradox arises - as though we are to use illogic to justify logic. Here lies the limitation of reason whereupon the system it uses to vindicate all propositions cannot be used to vindicate itself.The phrase "this circularity is justified" alone betrays the logic you're defending and is tantamount to "this contradiction is justified" in that both are fallacious and make no sense. Axioms compose the outer wall of logic, but are assumed true because all is incomprehensible without them. This assumption, however, does not entail an ignorance of the problem thus described, but inclusion of it through a reduction in maximum certainty.For this reason, the conclusion of your post is invalid (via logic itself), and must be amended to the following: "an argument to the effect that something cannot be known ... is therefore incomprehensible or apparently false." ALL things are uncertain.However, there are degrees of certainty which vary depending on the consistency of the claim with other independent conduits of information. This is why I think Langan needs some empirical basis to his theory. FINALLY (lol I'm almost done), a conclusion of such immense cosmological importance - one that professes to include all that is and all that can be - confers unto the human wit a degree of certainty and validity it does not possess. And so his conclusions are not trustworthy if determined a priori."A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
 Posts: 11,196 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/26/2014 12:42:19 PMPosted: 3 years agoit should, moreover, be understood that this objection ONLY applies to langan because of the nature of his theory and the nature of his justification ... which attempts to unearth truths so fundamental to existence itself. No other theory or pronouncement lays claim to this degree certainty.In a way, this might be an objection to all Theories of Everything."A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault