Is there a reason to talk about the world being meaningless

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by annwn

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'.

By merely using the word "Jackalope", one means something inheres and has meaning. The opposite of "Jackalope" is, after all, "Antarabbit".

The opposite of cosmos etymologically is chaos, sure. That has absolutely nothing to do with the debate at hand.

You're assuming that because I mention Descartes, I take everything he says to be true. I'd stop that. I begin and end with my own mind because that is the only thing I can be sure of. The rest is, at best, guesses, approximations, and most-likely outcomes based on logic. They are in no way certain, because there is no possibility for them to be certain.

This is in contrast to you, which asserts that the cosmos exists because the cosmos exists because the cosmos exists and therefore so does God.

I don't deny the existence of what is beyond my own mind. I don't say that it exists either. I'm in a state where I have to choose which is most probable, and I don't have sufficient information to make the same logical leap of faith that you do.

Besides which, you still haven't proven why the cosmos exists or given a reason why it's an axiom.

Second, God isn't possible to be an inference. You can't argue that something supernatural caused something natural, and then support it with logic that only fits in something natural.

Even if it was possible to be an inference, you would then have to point out which God is the correct inference, from the pantheon of Gods to choose from.

Originally Posted by ape descendant

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

First of all, don't say "don't bother debating", because that's nothing more than, "I'm going to get the last in word in so don't bother saying anything else".

Second, I want the reasons why the cosmos exists. I'm not dead-set against it existing, I simply haven't been presented enough evidence that the cosmos does exist. Up until now, we've had constant statements of, "The cosmos exists", "It's beyond a reasonable doubt", "It's an axiom", etc, without any justification as to why it exists.

Third, I honestly don't know that we're really saying anything. That's the entire point of the skepticism I've brought to the thread.

[ape descendant]

I'm not sure why you are not already aware of the proof of the existence of the cosmos. I think its rather retarded to have to tell some one that existence, exists by its very definition. It is observable and testable. In fact all that we have observed and tested as human beings exists within the cosmos.

What sort of evidence would it take to convince you, I mean, aside from the evidence you witness every time you do anything, ever.

[ape descendant]

By the way, to clarify my point a bit. I am using the word cosmos in the Carl Sagan sense as interchangeable with the word universe.

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by ape descendant

I'm not sure why you are not already aware of the proof of the existence of the cosmos. I think its rather retarded to have to tell some one that existence, exists by its very definition. It is observable and testable. In fact all that we have observed and tested as human beings exists within the cosmos.

What sort of evidence would it take to convince you, I mean, aside from the evidence you witness every time you do anything, ever.

How can we be certain that what we know is what we know? I know that my mind exists, but this is as far as I can know. I can't be entirely sure that you exist, this computer exists, or even this world exists, because I'm limited by what my perceptions allow me to understand. Even though I can observe and test, I can't ever be sure that my observations aren't being influenced.

What would convince me that the cosmos exists externally of my perceptions would be a solid logical postulate that makes the cosmos existence the only logically option. Unfortunately, since this is philosophy and not science, I can't guarantee such an answer is possible.

[ape descendant]

Originally Posted by Entropic

How can we be certain that what we know is what we know? I know that my mind exists, but this is as far as I can know. I can't be entirely sure that you exist, this computer exists, or even this world exists, because I'm limited by what my perceptions allow me to understand. Even though I can observe and test, I can't ever be sure that my observations aren't being influenced.

Why bother, I'm not just trying to shut you up as you seem to believe from previous posts, but rather I'm trying to make a point.

If you completely mistrust your perceptions, why do anything at all? Why have this conversation if you're unsure of the conversation in the first place, let alone the apparatus it is taking place on?

Your very interaction with existence, shows that you take for granted, the fact that it is here.

[Entropic]

Pragmatism is the simple answer.

It's more pragmatic and satisfying to simply assuming that I am real, that you are real, and that this conversation is happening.

However, pragmatism isn't what is always what is true or right. An example might be relying on a placebo: Even though a placebo isn't a true cure, belief in the placebo is the most satisfying and pragmatic.

I'm looking for a reason to believe the cosmos exists without having to rely on "axioms", or relying on axioms that are essentially definitions of themselves (For instance, A is equal to B, B is equal to C, therefore A is equal to C).

I apologize if I gave off the wrong impression. I simply have the disdain for words like, "Don't bother debating".

[ape descendant]

Originally Posted by Entropic

I apologize if I gave off the wrong impression. I simply have the disdain for words like, "Don't bother debating".

Its ok, I have a disdain for intellectual masturbation.

[Entropic]

Originally Posted by ape descendant

Its ok, I have a disdain for intellectual masturbation.

Then why, exactly, are you on a forum?

[Catch]

The real question might be why not do something as much as why do somthing?

The giant abdomanible snow pig does not need to be seen in order to know it is real.

[Alan]

Entropic, you seem to know your Kant. Can you explain me how there can be such a thing as a synthetic a priori?
If you don't believe it can, can you help me figure out how Kant would defend his assertion? I feel I'm too biased to actually give him a chance.

[Entropic]

Honestly, I can't imagine a scenario where there is a piece of a priori information that is also synthetic.

The only thing I could think of, is that Kant believed in synthetic a priori because the existence of God would make such knowledge neccessary, and therefore he defended the existence of synthetic a priori judgements on that ground. Sort of like the argument, "God exists because the defintion of God includes existence", except that definition of God doesn't include existence, neccesitating a synthetic judgement.

[Catch]

Yah, the bible states that the earth is intended to be a party planet.