My argument against materialism

[punshhh]

Both are finite.



Perhaps.



Perhaps as well.



From previous stuff. The only question that remains is: by what mechanism did the universe come into being. And the answer to that is: we don't quite know, yet.



Perhaps.



Perhaps. But evidence seems to indicate that time is a property of the universe. So far, no infinite.

I'll take the perhaps's as a 'don't know' if I may.

You mention previous stuff, just another banana, how did that banana arise or did that have no beginning or end?

Then your problem is one of lack of imagination. You can't understand how the universe exists; you can't fathom not understanding something, therefore it's a paradox. I assure you, the cosmos needs not make sense to you.

I am happy with the mystery of existence, I see a logical paradox here though.
Do you see a paradox? and if not please explain your position.

Oh and one persons fantasy might be anothers meat and two veg'.

 

[punshhh]

That's assuming you're speaking a language. GIGO*

gibberish in gibberish out.

Perhaps you will provide a solution for my paradox about bananas now.

 

[PixyMisa]

Bananas are cloned.

 

[punshhh]

If it's gibberish, I suggest you rethink your words.

I am trying my best, I do want to be understood.
But I'm here now, and my philosophy is my philosophy.
I appreciate I might be an enigma(polite phrase) to you.

I am quite happy to go on my merry way and leave you guys to your back slapping convention.

Its fun here though and I'd quite like to shoot some pool.

 

[punshhh]

Bananas are cloned.

Thankyou Pixy for your solution to my paradox about bananas, I would like to point out to you that its just another banana.

'What goes up must come down', The banana is up (I can hold it in my hand)

from where did it rise up from and to where will it fall?


Also about the maths question, are you happy to agree with Robin that the relationships revealed by maths are logically necessary truths?

 

[punshhh]

Well there is your problem.

Pi is something that cannot possibly have any value other than the one it does. Not even potentially.

It is not something that could be decided by an omnipotent God.

It is something that cannot logically be otherwise.

Earlier you seemed to be hinting at the idea of mathematics being the figment of a creators mind.

Impossible.

The axioms and symbols and rules we use for doing mathematics are constructs of human minds.

But the relationships they reveal are logically necessary truths.

No God could have set those truths, no God could change them.

I agree it is a problem for defenders of what is generally understood to be the definition of God.
I do agree with your position and am aware of such problems, as such I will not attempt to justify or explain the existence of "God" on this forum, it is impossible. However I am refering to a comsological argument in which I would not rule out the potential for Pi to be different.

Regarding the notion of mathematics being a figment of a creators mind. Again I was using a turn of phrase which I thought edge would understand.
If and when I discuss such a thing I will use more refined phraseology

 

[dlorde]

.. I’d have to enquire of whatever alternate awareness it is you’re suggesting I’m confabulating with.

"Confabulating with" ? not really

Sounds borderline wooish to me.

That's probably the 'whoosh' as it zips over your head.

 

[Belz...]

I'll take the perhaps's as a 'don't know' if I may.

Hopefully you don't interpret "I don't know" as some sort of a lisence for you to invent the answer.

You mention previous stuff, just another banana, how did that banana arise or did that have no beginning or end?

The banana itself had a beginning, albeit a progressive one. The fundamental elements of the banana were assembled during the early big bang.

Do you see a paradox? and if not please explain your position.

I don't see a paradox. Either something exists or it doesn't, and something clearly does. Therefore it seems to me that complete non-existence is physically impossible. And since there IS NO TIME OR SPACE without the universe, one cannot speak of "infinite" anything.

Oh and one persons fantasy might be anothers meat and two veg'.

Irrelevant. Your fantasy does not alter reality.

 

[dlorde]

..I have at no time claimed that this creator would exercise its omnipotent power..

But it would do at some point, right? Or else how could it be a creator?

 

[dlorde]

So math and logic don't exist, how do they manifest in the known universe and a notional universe as you said?

I have evidence for their presence

Or are they illusory?

They are tools that we use that are based on abstractions from our observations of how the universe behaves. They have a descriptive function in that they describe how the universe behaves, and a prescriptive function in allowing us to use them to ensure our cogitations fit (do not contradict) the way the universe behaves.

For example, we observe that the force of gravity is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance. We can establish the precise proportions numerically and so describe the effect of gravity mathematically. We can then use this abstract mathematical description prescriptively, to calculate the gravity of an arbitrary mass at an arbitrary distance.

The universe behaves the way it behaves regardless. We model this behaviour using logic and maths.

 

[punshhh]

But it would do at some point, right? Or else how could it be a creator?

Yes, now I have a paradox.

For my logic to continue, I would have to say that the creation occurred an infinite time ago. Hence we have an eternity another paradox.

I realise that eternity/infinity is paradoxical and that the cosmology I am suggesting has to jump this hurdle.

My precedent is that we already have a physical paradox (the one about bananas), I take this as evidence of paradox in nature.

The banana is here suggesting that paradoxes are not an obstacle to physical existence.

Maybe a different form of logic is required, an equivalent to calculus.

 

[SumDood]

Its fun here though and I'd quite like to shoot some pool.

Add a few pitchers of beer and its a date.

 

[dlorde]

There's a specific logical proof of god called the Transcendental Argument for God. Look it up if you like to play find-the-fallacy.

Theoretical Bullsh1t covers it at some length...

 

[laca]

Yes, now I have a paradox.

For my logic to continue, I would have to say that the creation occurred an infinite time ago.

How does that solve anything? The creation would still have occurred.

Hence we have an eternity another paradox.

I realise that eternity/infinity is paradoxical and that the cosmology I am suggesting has to jump this hurdle.

I must have missed it. What is the cosmology you're suggesting?

My precedent is that we already have a physical paradox (the one about bananas), I take this as evidence of paradox in nature.

There's no paradox.

The banana is here suggesting that paradoxes are not an obstacle to physical existence.

Well, imaginary ones are of course no obstacle. Real ones however tend to be really pesky.

Maybe a different form of logic is required, an equivalent to calculus.

Say what now?

 

[dlorde]

My precedent is that we already have a physical paradox (the one about bananas), I take this as evidence of paradox in nature.

The banana is here suggesting that paradoxes are not an obstacle to physical existence.

Maybe a different form of logic is required, an equivalent to calculus.

You need a form of logic where you can accept that the existence of bananas is not a paradox - but that we can't trace their origin back further than shortly after the big bang. You have to be able to admit that we don't yet know, and possibly may never know.

Hint: start with what we do know, and work from that. Don't start with infinities and try to work back - infinities are very complicated and difficult to work with, particularly in metaphysics. If you'd like to know how the universe could arise from nothing, Laurence Krauss has a good explanation. If you want to discuss where the nothing came from, that's a whole other thread (the Hackenthorpe Vacuum - take an ordinary vacuum, and suck all the vacuum out ).

 

[Belz...]

Yes, now I have a paradox.

I'm not sure you're clear about what that word means.

 

[punshhh]

Add a few pitchers of beer and its a date.

Well blow me down, I've just finished bottling 40 pints of homebrew.

It must be a sign!

 

[punshhh]

You need a form of logic where you can accept that the existence of bananas is not a paradox - but that we can't trace their origin back further than shortly after the big bang. You have to be able to admit that we don't yet know, and possibly may never know.

Hint: start with what we do know, and work from that. Don't start with infinities and try to work back - infinities are very complicated and difficult to work with, particularly in metaphysics. If you'd like to know how the universe could arise from nothing, Laurence Krauss has a good explanation. If you want to discuss where the nothing came from, that's a whole other thread (the Hackenthorpe Vacuum - take an ordinary vacuum, and suck all the vacuum out ).

Thanks for the links, I'll give it a look.

I am already starting with the most scientifically testable aspects of my philosophy relating to metaphysics/existentialism.

I may have more testable stuff for the study of the 'self' and the 'moment', but thats for other threads.

There is no need for me to address what can be tested with science, this is already well documented, not least in this thread, regarding which I am in primarily in agreement.

Perhaps you will offer a solution to the banana paradox?

 

[punshhh]

I'm not sure you're clear about what that word means.

Feel free to offer solutions to any paradox's I point out.

 

[Nonpareil]

Feel free to offer solutions to any paradox's I point out.

What paradoxes?