Is there a reason to talk about the world being meaningless

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by annwn

I think i see where you went so wrong:

You are confusing a civilization that is based on innaccurate perceptions of reality [a very complex problem in itself] but in which those perceptions contribute to an order of values that constitutes their sense of the meaning of existence, and a civilization whose perceptions and the values based upon them view the world as meaningless.

I know of not a single civlilization that views existence as 'meaningless'. Even rabidly materialist and atheist regimes like those based on marxism and racism, the most sterile and stillborn abortions of 'civilization' man has ever created, must latch on some ersatz mysticism based on 'the inevitable progress of history' or 'destiny' or 'blood'.

I think I see where you've gone wrong.

Of course no civilization views existence as meaningless, because a civilization's values are not homogenous. You won't find a civilization of whom all of it's constitutents believed in the same meaning or meaningless of life, because civilizations aren't a conglomerate of robots. Not all of the Greeks believed in the dieties, not all of the Romans belived a republic or empire was the best form of rule, not all of the Mongols belived that conquering Asia was divine destiny, and not all of the Americans belived that revolution was the right way of doing things.

Besides which, you still haven't answered as to why life has meaning.

[annwn]

Originally Posted by Entropic

Besides which, you still haven't answered as to why life has meaning.

Without going into details, and because I'm in a place where I can't consult my Mortimer Adlers in order to do justice to him, who has conditioned my thinking on this subject, I'm unfortunately forced to resort to Wikipedia for the sake of brevity:



In his 1981 book How to Think About God, Adler attempts to demonstrate God as the exnihilator of the cosmos. The steps taken to demonstrate this are as follows:

The existence of an effect requiring the concurrent existence and action of an efficient cause implies the existence and action of that cause

The cosmos as a whole exists

The existence of the cosmos as a whole is radically contingent (meaning that it needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence to preserve it in being, and prevent it from being annihilated, or reduced to nothing)

If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God
Two of the four premises, the first and the last, appear to be true with certitude. The second is true beyond a reasonable doubt. If the one remaining premise, the third, is also true beyond a reasonable doubt, then we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists and acts to sustain the cosmos in existence.

[Entropic]

Your logic fails.

You can't claim a being is supernatural, and then claim that being must exist because it is mandated by natural reason. It's a contradiction of terms.

Second, your premises suck.

The existence of an effect doesn't neccesarily require a cause. You've falled in to the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Just because we see the effect (the Q in an If P then Q statement) doesn't mean the effect is what you say it is.

The second statement assumes the cosmos actually exists, which you haven't established. It's not an axiom, so you can't claim that it's true beyond a reasonable doubt.

The third statement sucks because you haven't proven that the cosmos exists, that it requires causation, and therefore you have no basis as to why it is radically continent.

To put the rotted cherry on top of the Shit Cream Cone of logic you've just served, you posited an impossible to prove conclusion as the natural result of your faulty logic.

Seriously, go read an introductory text like forall(x).

[annwn]

Originally Posted by Entropic

Your logic fails.

You can't claim a being is supernatural, and then claim that being must exist because it is mandated by natural reason. It's a contradiction of terms.

Second, your premises suck.

The existence of an effect doesn't neccesarily require a cause. You've falled in to the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. Just because we see the effect (the Q in an If P then Q statement) doesn't mean the effect is what you say it is.

The second statement assumes the cosmos actually exists, which you haven't established. It's not an axiom, so you can't claim that it's true beyond a reasonable doubt.

The third statement sucks because you haven't proven that the cosmos exists, that it requires causation, and therefore you have no basis as to why it is radically continent.

To put the rotted cherry on top of the Shit Cream Cone of logic you've just served, you posited an impossible to prove conclusion as the natural result of your faulty logic.

Seriously, go read an introductory text like forall(x).

Well, THAT one seemed to go over your head.....

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by annwn

Well, THAT one seemed to go over your head.....

No, it didn't, and you know it.

[annwn]

Originally Posted by Entropic

No, it didn't, and you know it.

Go back, reread, then come back to me. Apologies are unnecessary.

[annwn]

Originally Posted by annwn

Go back, reread, then come back to me. Apologies are unnecessary.

You DO realize that I didn't write that part after the colon?: Mortimer J. Adler did, or rather, it was a summary of his argument.

You have a problem, take it up with HIM [if he were alive, that is]; i'm sure he'd be as amused by your inability to follow an argument as i am.

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by annwn

Go back, reread, then come back to me. Apologies are unnecessary.

I did.

You posted someone else's thinking who you claimed to have influenced yours, therefore making it also your thinking. I then logically disassembled what you said, and you asserted I missed the point.

Seriously, you haven't given shit-for-proof for your entire duration of your stay here. I know I'm as green as the next fuck who comes in here, but for somene who claims to be part of the Gothigensia, so far you haven't given rational reasons for believe why the sky is blue.

Originally Posted by annwn

You DO realize that I didn't write that part after the colon?: Mortimer J. Adler did, or rather, it was a summary of his argument.

You have a problem, take it up with HIM [if he were alive, that is]; i'm sure he'd be as amused by your inability to follow an argument as i am.

You claimed it was part of [/b]your thinking, and it was either part or whole of your answer as to why the world can't be meaningless.

Own up to your own ideas, and don't pass it off to some dead fuck.

[annwn]

Unfuckingbelievable!

I've got to email this boneheadery to all my firends and family members in academia!

You LITERALLY have no clue how to frame or pick apart an argument!!!

[JCC]

Originally Posted by annwn

Unfuckingbelievable!

I've got to email this boneheadery to all my firends and family members in academia!

That won't take long.

[Entropic]

Go ahead. At this point, I'm beginning to doubt whether you can spell academia without consulting the Book of Friedman.

Seriously, you must be a troll. There is no other explanation for this. So far you've managed to assert that Alan, Saya, and JCC are all beneath you, that Islam is going to take over the world, that Scandinavia is a horrible set of countries to live in, the world has meaning because God says so, you don't need to provide proof or facts to back up your argument, the words of a dead guy are both simultaneously part and nort part of your thinking, and that anyone who doesn't fall rank-in-file with your arguments is incapable of being an individualist!

Pretty damn productive for your first two days as a poster.

[annwn]

My goodness, you don't even know that 'affirming the consequent' is only a fallacy under certain conditions! And this is not one of those conditions.

Because for your criticism to be right, there MUST be a clearly demonstrable case out there for an 'effect' to exist without a cause. Please provide one.

[Entropic]

So now that you realize you can't accuse us with boneheadery with looking like a prick, you finally come back to the argument? Well, part of it, anyway, since you dropped half of my statements.

Originally Posted by annwn

My goodness, you don't even know that 'affirming the consequent' is only a fallacy under certain conditions! And this is not one of those conditions.

And you haven't proven (or even given reason) why this is a specific condition. You can't argue that God is an IFF statement because there are other logical alternatives and you can't argue God is a definition because we aren't discussing tautologies. So what special case is it, that exempts it from affirming the consequence?

Originally Posted by annwn

Because for your criticism to be right, there MUST be a clearly demonstrable case out there for an 'effect' to exist without a cause. Please provide one.

There are no real demonstrations of it, just like there are no real demonstrations of a hypercube or real demonstrations of God. We're arguing logic and reason, remember?

[annwn]

The existence of the cosmos actually IS an axiom, one of the irreducible presuppositions of philosophy. If it did not exist, it would be impossible to assert either its existence or non-existence, or anything else about it. Doubts about its existence are a disease of language, and an exercise in reasoning that takes no account of empirical experience, which must be a starting point for all reasoning in the first place.

[annwn]

I'm still waiting for an example of any observable phenomena that does not have a cause.

Go ahead.....

[annwn]

Originally Posted by annwn

I'm still waiting for an example of any observable phenomena that does not have a cause.

Go ahead.....

Just so you don't pop a blood vessel, you won't be able to find any.


And on that note, everything you've said so far is a waste of time.

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by annwn

The existence of the cosmos actually IS an axiom, one of the irreducible presuppositions of philosophy. If it did not exist, it would be impossible to assert either its existence or non-existence, or anything else about it. Doubts about its existence are a disease of language, and an exercise in reasoning that takes no account of empirical experience, which must be a starting point for all reasoning in the first place.

It's not an axiom. You can doubt the existence of the cosmos by reducing to solipism. Since solipism negates the necessary existence of the cosmos, the existence of the universe is not self-evident, and therefore not an axiom.

If it did not exist, but our minds did exist, it would still be possible to assert about it's existence or non-existence, because the only mechanism required to make those assertions is our own ability to reason.

Originally Posted by annwn

I'm still waiting for an example of any observable phenomena that does not have a cause.

Go ahead.....

Originally Posted by Entropic

There are no real demonstrations of it, just like there are no real demonstrations of a hypercube or real demonstrations of God. We're arguing logic and reason, remember?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Anyway, as fun playing this logical whack-a-mole, I really need to get back to work. I'll either post later on tonight, or tomorrow morning.

[annwn]

Originally Posted by Entropic

It's not an axiom. You can doubt the existence of the cosmos by reducing to solipism. Since solipism negates the necessary existence of the cosmos, the existence of the universe is not self-evident, and therefore not an axiom.

If it did not exist, but our minds did exist, it would still be possible to assert about it's existence or non-existence, because the only mechanism required to make those assertions is our own ability to reason.





^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Anyway, as fun playing this logical whack-a-mole, I really need to get back to work. I'll either post later on tonight, or tomorrow morning.

I said 'observable phenomena', not mental constructs or the ultimate implications of observable phenomena.

[annwn]

Originally Posted by Entropic

If it did not exist, but our minds did exist, it would still be possible to assert about it's existence or non-existence, because the only mechanism required to make those assertions is our own ability to reason.

No, it would not, because under the conditions of pure solipsism you operate under, the only thing whose existence you would be able to comment on is your own mind, not any cosmos beyond it.

[Tam Li Hua]

I rather like existence, and find a lot of meaning in it personally. ^_^

[Entropic]

I'm taking a coffee break to comment on this. Be glad you interrupted my coffee.

Originally Posted by annwn

I said 'observable phenomena', not mental constructs or the ultimate implications of observable phenomena.

Are you intentionally that thick? Reread what I said.

I'm telling you that there are no observable phenomena that don't have a cause, as far as I know. However, we weren't arguing observable phenomena until you started bringing it in a few posts ago. Even if we were, you would have to explain how God is an observable phenomena. If you can't explain how he is an observable phenomena, then we are right back in to the realm of logic and reason!

Originally Posted by annwn

No, it would not, because under the conditions of pure solipsism you operate under, the only thing whose existence you would be able to comment on is your own mind, not any cosmos beyond it.

You don't understand how to extend logic, do you? The only thing I can be sure of is my own mind. I can reason and come to logical conclusions about anything, because logic is an inherently consistent mental construct that only requires my mind to work. Go back and read Descartes.

[annwn]

Originally Posted by Entropic

I'm taking a coffee break to comment on this. Be glad you interrupted my coffee.



Are you intentionally that thick? Reread what I said.

I'm telling you that there are no observable phenomena that don't have a cause, as far as I know. However, we weren't arguing observable phenomena until you started bringing it in a few posts ago. Even if we were, you would have to explain how God is an observable phenomena. If you can't explain how he is an observable phenomena, then we are right back in to the realm of logic and reason!



You don't understand how to extend logic, do you? The only thing I can be sure of is my own mind. I can reason and come to logical conclusions about anything, because logic is an inherently consistent mental construct that only requires my mind to work. Go back and read Descartes.

If I left out the adjective 'observable' it's my fault.

EXACTLY! 'Extend logic'! You've forgotten that Descatres BEGAN his speculations with the existence of his own mind, extending outwards towards the cosmos. You begin and END with your own mind, denying the cosmos, therefore you can't make any judgement about anything beyond it because you deny the existence of anything beyond it.

'God', in this case, is an inference from causation, not a sensorily 'observable fact'.

Because merely my using the WORD 'cosmos' one means something that inheres and has meaning. The opposite of 'cosmos' is, after all, 'chaos'.

[ape descendant]

Originally Posted by annwn

If the cosmos needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, then that cause must be a supernatural being, supernatural in its action, and one the existence of which is uncaused, in other words, the Supreme Being, or God
Two of the four premises, the first and the last, appear to be true with certitude. The second is true beyond a reasonable doubt. If the one remaining premise, the third, is also true beyond a reasonable doubt, then we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists and acts to sustain the cosmos in existence.

Yes, the cosmos exists. It is observable and testable. I can agree with that 100%.

However, I cannot follow that the continuing existence of the cosmos is proof god makes it continue to exist.

This sort of statement is rather like saying that I have a pixie in my ass that chops off my turds, just because I dont' know what really makes them fall off in neat little piles.

The supernatural is a poor place holder for gaps in our current knowledge, why insert an likely false answer just because one does not know the true one?

Believe it or not, the phrase "I don't know" is ok, espeically when it is the truth.

[ape descendant]

Originally Posted by Entropic

Your logic fails.

The second statement assumes the cosmos actually exists, which you haven't established. It's not an axiom, so you can't claim that it's true beyond a reasonable doubt.

The third statement sucks because you haven't proven that the cosmos exists, that it requires causation, and therefore you have no basis as to why it is radically continent.
x).

Really? The Cosmos exists, that is true beyond a reasonable doub as it is the entirety of the the vast, huge thing that we live in and study.

If you want to doubt the validity of existence, don't bother debating, I mean how do you know what we're really saying any way .. or if its all in your head...

fuck.... rrrrgghghg arrrghgh

[vindicatedxjin]

1. If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I can think of no being greater
1a. If it is false that I can think of no being greater, it is false I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable
2. Being is greater than not being
3. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I can think of no being greater.
4. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable
Conclusion: If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I am thinking of a being that exists



My brain hurts... I can't deal with this... I'll go back to watching k-pop music videos.