Well, at least you weren't supposed to refer to Him by name.Regretably no, though most children achieve manners prior to High School.
Apparently neither know what an argumentum ad ignorantiam is.
Perhaps when they matriculate into High School such grand mysteries such as manners and critical thinking shall be reveal'd.
--J.D.
Doctor X said:
Actually, this thing doesn't speak for itself, at least not to me. As far as I can tell, Iacchus wasn't making an argument at all, he was asking a question. I admit that had to look up that phrase, and found that
"So, in essence where did the Universe come from?" isn't arguing that something is true at all, is it? You said in an earlier post that it would be easier to simply ask why it is a fallacy, rather than beat about the bush, so I will: why is what Iacchus said an argumentum ad ignorantiam?
Gregory:
How the [CENSORED--Ed.] can I maintain this pompous air of over-inflated superiority if you ask me a question like that!
Anyways--should have used the damn Latin--res ipsa loquitur--[He had to look it up.--Ed.] Shut up!--anyways, the "appeal to ignorance" has two definitions. You cited the second which is, in my opinion, quite valid and, incidentally, applies in the case in question.
The first is the use of information either unknown or to which the other cannot be privy. It also applies here.
Now, let me "parse" you a bit to make all things clear.
Not quite. He was asking a rhetorical question. Let us [Us?--Ed.] review:
The question implies, particulary given his previous posts, [Accident--Ed.] Shhh!, that he is advancing an argument: that the Universe "comes from" something. Note the use of "essence" in italics.
Why?
If Tricky cannot give an answer--cannot explain the "start"--then it argues for what Iacchus wishes to establish--"A Starter." In other posts he refers to a deity, for example. In other words, if Tricky cannot disprove Iacchus's belief because he does not know how the Universe began--or "what" started it if a "what" started it.
To use an example: if I hold to the Invisible Pink Unicorn [PBUH.--Ed.], the fact you or Tricky cannot give a complete mechanism that excludes My Pink and Horny Mastress becomes my evidence that it was the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
That meets your definition.
However, Iacchus succeeded in committing the more classic definition.
His use of "essences" proves significant. He implies the existence of an entity--a "starter"--a "where" that the "Universe came from." Unfortunately, the existence of such remains unknown--certainly the "what" of this "where"--to use his terms-- is knowledge to which Tricky cannot become privy.
--J.D.
How the [CENSORED--Ed.] can I maintain this pompous air of over-inflated superiority if you ask me a question like that!
Anyways--should have used the damn Latin--res ipsa loquitur--[He had to look it up.--Ed.] Shut up!--anyways, the "appeal to ignorance" has two definitions. You cited the second which is, in my opinion, quite valid and, incidentally, applies in the case in question.
The first is the use of information either unknown or to which the other cannot be privy. It also applies here.
Now, let me "parse" you a bit to make all things clear.
Not quite. He was asking a rhetorical question. Let us [Us?--Ed.] review:
The question implies, particulary given his previous posts, [Accident--Ed.] Shhh!, that he is advancing an argument: that the Universe "comes from" something. Note the use of "essence" in italics.
Why?
If Tricky cannot give an answer--cannot explain the "start"--then it argues for what Iacchus wishes to establish--"A Starter." In other posts he refers to a deity, for example. In other words, if Tricky cannot disprove Iacchus's belief because he does not know how the Universe began--or "what" started it if a "what" started it.
To use an example: if I hold to the Invisible Pink Unicorn [PBUH.--Ed.], the fact you or Tricky cannot give a complete mechanism that excludes My Pink and Horny Mastress becomes my evidence that it was the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
That meets your definition.
However, Iacchus succeeded in committing the more classic definition.
His use of "essences" proves significant. He implies the existence of an entity--a "starter"--a "where" that the "Universe came from." Unfortunately, the existence of such remains unknown--certainly the "what" of this "where"--to use his terms-- is knowledge to which Tricky cannot become privy.
--J.D.
It also implies that the Universe is not made out of "nothing" doesn't it? So not only am I asking how does something come out of nothing, but how is it that something is here, right now? Is that which we see in there here and now in essence nothing? If so, then to whom am I speaking? ...Doctor X said:
Moving on to debate this thing, which has been argued since it was first dreamt up sometime in the sixth century
In short, what created the one thing? Are you suggesting it willed itself itself into existence? (neat trick ... )
Also, how does the supposed existence of an entity as you describe equate to "the God" you seem to be referring to? Important things such as omnisciense, omnipotence are not required (are infact denied) in your description, and we'd have to go along way to connect this entity with the god of any prevalent contemporary religion.
How do we even know such an entity still exists? Maybe it expired immediately after it had willed thing number one or two into existence ... maybe a whole chain of entities willing new ones into existence and expiring occured before one got bored and made universe ... maybe that one was a pink unicorn ... gimme some latin, Doctor X!
In short, what created the one thing? Are you suggesting it willed itself itself into existence? (neat trick ... )
Also, how does the supposed existence of an entity as you describe equate to "the God" you seem to be referring to? Important things such as omnisciense, omnipotence are not required (are infact denied) in your description, and we'd have to go along way to connect this entity with the god of any prevalent contemporary religion.
How do we even know such an entity still exists? Maybe it expired immediately after it had willed thing number one or two into existence ... maybe a whole chain of entities willing new ones into existence and expiring occured before one got bored and made universe ... maybe that one was a pink unicorn ... gimme some latin, Doctor X!
Re: Re: If only "One thing" exists, then...
Let's have some reasoning.
If a source is the absolute cause of a proceeding set of effects, then it is impossible to argue against the conclusion that, therefore, this source possesses both desire and will.
But let's see you try.
Why?Gregory said:
Let's have some reasoning.
If a source is the absolute cause of a proceeding set of effects, then it is impossible to argue against the conclusion that, therefore, this source possesses both desire and will.
But let's see you try.
Re: Re: If only "One thing" exists, then...
Not a man exists who can even prove that a universe exists outside the awareness/perception of one, so let's deal with the facts please, as this is meant to be a rational discussion dealing with fact.
No thing within awareness is acausal. So spare me the lecture about the acausality of things which exist within our awareness. It's a complete crock.
If one entity effects everything that proceeds it, then it is reason - not "pleading" - which dictates that both desire and will were instrumental in the creation of those things.Yahweh said:
The things within awareness are determined to exist.
The things within awareness have not always been there. I.e., awareness precedes the sensations which yield the awareness of the things which are perceived.
Not a man exists who can even prove that a universe exists outside the awareness/perception of one, so let's deal with the facts please, as this is meant to be a rational discussion dealing with fact.
What are you trying to infer from this?
No thing within awareness is acausal. So spare me the lecture about the acausality of things which exist within our awareness. It's a complete crock.
If a singular entity, possessing both desire and will, acts to effect the awareness of an ordered universe (as perceived), then that entity fulfilS the criteria required to be labelled 'God'.
Supposing one source, supposing it is the sole cause, do you mean subsequent, not proceeding?
The whole thing is petitio prinicipii, it begs the question;
The premise is at least as contentious as the conclusion.
It is also a fallacy of definition due to limited scope;
You are trying to explain the existence of a whole god thing, but only from a standpoint of causality.
I did support this with reason, somewhere. All "things" within awareness are interconnected and under the authority of one law. Like the branches of a tree, all things connect to one trunk.Benguin said:
I'm not. One road at a time though please.
lifegazer said:
OK, well you might have done and I missed it. I glazed over the mudslinging section in the middle!
I see your reasoning, I still say it is contentious.
All "things" within awareness are interconnected;
Are they? this is seems like solpsism to me ... I an interesting philosophical branch, but tends to be pointless in a debate as it is utterly subjective (solipsism, not your assertion!).
and under the authority of one law;
Do you mean laws of physics? I don't see the world as obeying these laws like an authority ... they are models to explain cause and effect as we observe them.
Sorry, I was being facetious. Goes back to my post about 7 up the list. Establishing the scenario you describe was the case would only establish the existence of an entity at that moment in time, not anything about the entity, how long it existed for and whether connects in anyway to a contemporaneous diety.
Well, I must have missed something, because I don't see any question marks directed at me in your posts? Can you be a little bit more specific please?Doctor X said:
Besides, what does the reiteration of what I have to say "not" have to do with your refutation of it?
Navigator
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,324
While I personally believe that 'God" is responcible for All That Is, I am equally convinced that the evidence before us all is so darn .... (there is no word for it) and maybe that's the point.
So I will just use the word 'gianormous"
(Bigger than Humugous)
Hugely Impressive.
Well even if their was/is a 'God' what made all this, it is unlikely that in human form we would be able to embrace It's totallity with our small minds.
If anything, IF this Creator of All That Is wanted to chat with you and I it would have to be at a level in which we could understand it...which would signify that It would have to create such a thing to make this posible...of course what has that got to do with the thread topic?
I don't know...maybe nothing....
Anyhoo,
What say that "God" in Singular created All That Is, so that It could spread out and explore - even in a way which would make Its awareness ignorant of Itself (in the absolute sense) and It could just as easily be a planet as it could, an ant, A galaxy as It could an Atom....etc...
Which leads me to think that 'God' is much more understandable when viewed through a human experience, when the cat lands on the lap, and I pat it and it purrs...hey god is the cat and god is the patter....
then of course, this might signify that 'we' are all 'god' and ah oh...that can;t be right, because some of 'us' don't believe in 'god' or even each other.
Or ourselves!
What a hoot!
But as God, the all powerful, you have the right to believe in god the all poweful or not, or even argue over it forever, coming to no particular agreement.
You have the right to be stupid even.
And you have the right to say 'hey ...how stupid'
or worse.
Then 'we' could make laws because even if we dont believe in god, we have the power to make and break rules and regulations, so we must be god, becuase of the power.
but then this might get some thinking that the whole point of being god is to assert power and influence over stupidity and other weaker things, and well...build a whole country and philosophy on this belief.
A whole world a whole galaxy a whole universe and a whole set of universes....
Well then you could say god is a power which wont take stupidity for any kind of sensible answer.
And you could even try to assert your superiour power and brawn over obviously weaker countries and philosophies...
But - oops...is that how god behaves?
Well on this planet perhaps - at least for a while.
What was the question again?
Yes I agree...but that is because I am God...so am very agreeable.
So I will just use the word 'gianormous"
(Bigger than Humugous)
Hugely Impressive.
Well even if their was/is a 'God' what made all this, it is unlikely that in human form we would be able to embrace It's totallity with our small minds.
If anything, IF this Creator of All That Is wanted to chat with you and I it would have to be at a level in which we could understand it...which would signify that It would have to create such a thing to make this posible...of course what has that got to do with the thread topic?
I don't know...maybe nothing....
Anyhoo,
What say that "God" in Singular created All That Is, so that It could spread out and explore - even in a way which would make Its awareness ignorant of Itself (in the absolute sense) and It could just as easily be a planet as it could, an ant, A galaxy as It could an Atom....etc...
Which leads me to think that 'God' is much more understandable when viewed through a human experience, when the cat lands on the lap, and I pat it and it purrs...hey god is the cat and god is the patter....
then of course, this might signify that 'we' are all 'god' and ah oh...that can;t be right, because some of 'us' don't believe in 'god' or even each other.
Or ourselves!
What a hoot!
But as God, the all powerful, you have the right to believe in god the all poweful or not, or even argue over it forever, coming to no particular agreement.
You have the right to be stupid even.
And you have the right to say 'hey ...how stupid'
or worse.
Then 'we' could make laws because even if we dont believe in god, we have the power to make and break rules and regulations, so we must be god, becuase of the power.
but then this might get some thinking that the whole point of being god is to assert power and influence over stupidity and other weaker things, and well...build a whole country and philosophy on this belief.
A whole world a whole galaxy a whole universe and a whole set of universes....
Well then you could say god is a power which wont take stupidity for any kind of sensible answer.
And you could even try to assert your superiour power and brawn over obviously weaker countries and philosophies...
But - oops...is that how god behaves?
Well on this planet perhaps - at least for a while.
What was the question again?
Yes I agree...but that is because I am God...so am very agreeable.
I am a solipsist in the sense that only God exists, not in the sense that only I (Lg) exist. I contend that even the sense of being human is something which exists within awareness alone. The question is: who is the essence of that awareness?Benguin said:
Also, the things within awareness are all related - interconnected - by the singular order which we observe those things "dancing" to.
Science is currently trying to relate all particles to the same thing, for example. So even science recognises this relationship.
I contend that an entity exists - possessing desire and will (and hence the knowhow - intelligence - to do what it has done) - which has created the entire universe as perceived by humankind. And you say that there is no evidence therein of a 'God'?