How Can Anyone Believe in God?

[snex]

"Meaningful" is a ridiculously loose criterion. Besides being subjective to the point of absurdity, it is entirely disjoint from coherent. An incoherent statement would be similar to "I am an empiricist and my senses are somehow incorrect" (empiricist in the philosophical sense of course).

Sure, I can accept that physical existence is the only meaningful form of existence, but it does not follow that the other forms are somehow incoherent. You have to show that.

And where is that proof?

since altf4 already responded sufficiently to the first part of your post, ill only respond to the above..

im not the one who needs to show the incoherency of "other forms of existence." YOU are the one that asserts that these "other forms of existence" are coherent so the burden to demonstrate it is on you. i only need to point out that physical existence IS coherent and that there is a lack of observed coherency for any other proposed form.

 

[yossarian22]

im not the one who needs to show the incoherency of "other forms of existence." YOU are the one that asserts that these "other forms of existence" are coherent so the burden to demonstrate it is on you.

Again, there is no room for discussion of burden of proof. If we start, we get nowhere fast.

And No.

I do not need to prove that any other definition is coherent. You cannot prove coherency.

i only need to point out that physical existence IS coherent and that there is a lack of observed coherency for any other proposed form.

Don't be obtuse. You have to show how these other forms are incoherent.

 

[snex]

name some other form of existence and define it rigorously.

 

[Wikipedia]

Little did I know...I said nothing new.

 

[yossarian22]

AltF4

The first bit is inapplicable to what I said. I did not ask you to show me a form of Mario, I asked you to show me the concept of Mario in the physical world. Mario is, however, a piss poor example for what I am arguing.
Freedom works far better.

Anyhow, what do you mean by "Does not exist"?
Of course it exists. If you argue that it does not exist, you cannot recognize the word at all. I can't say
"In America, I have freedom". If freedom does not exist, what am I referring to? What are you denying the existence of?

Existence is not equivalent to real. If you can refer to it, it exists. Reality is a whole different game.

Here is a quick reason why.

At last, my turtle exists, just like I sad it would!

The definition of "is real" is an excluder. We are denying non-reality to my turtle. So if they are equivalent, then the following should be the same

At last, my turtle is not-nonexistent, just like I said it would be!

Now, I predicted that my turtle would exist right? So what would happen if I am wrong? My turtle winds up being non-existent? Then what was I referring to? Hence existence is not equivalent to real.

The nature of existence seems to be a large problem in many many languages. Existence is something so mundane that we never actually consider what it means. "To exist" is definitely not "To be real"

edit: forgot snex's defintion.
"able to be used as a predicate"

To eliminate any potential confusion, a predicate is an assertion about the subject of a proposition.
"Whales am large"
Large is a predicate of this proposition. Note that I can simply switch it around as desired. "Some large things are whales"
Whales are the predicate in this proposition. And to those wondering, this can be done for pretty much every word in the English language.

 

[snex]

edit: forgot snex's defintion.
"able to be used as a predicate"

To eliminate any potential confusion, a predicate is an assertion about the subject of a proposition.
"Whales am large"
Large is a predicate of this proposition. Note that I can simply switch it around as desired. "Some large things are whales"
Whales are the predicate in this proposition. And to those wondering, this can be done for pretty much every word in the English language.

how is this a form of existence? if every word in the english language, every other language, and every potential language "exists" by your definition, then your definition is superfluous. it has no way to differentiate between existing things and non-existing things. if you cant even determine whether or not something exists or doesnt exist by your definition of "existence," then your definition is incoherent.

 

[Pure-???]

Religion is a tricky subject. you're going to get all sorts of different opinions. I'm sort of the logical opposite of an agnostic. I believe there could be a god. in fact, I am willing to believe any theory about the universe as long as a) it isn't debunked and b) it isn't absolutely insane and stupid.

Few religions fall into either category.

 

[Zook]

New to the new(er) Debate Hall.

Anyways, a god could exist, simply because a god would not be bound by the basic laws of the universe. God(s) are immortal, can make stuff out of nothing, can be anywhere and everywhere at the exact same time, so why would they have to obey any physical lay?

You don't need logic to believe in (a) God, just faith.

I'm agnostic, btw.

 

[Pure-???]

New to the new(er) Debate Hall.

was that aimed at me?

 

[Zook]

was that aimed at me?

Nope! I was just saying that I'm new to the newer Debate Hall. I used to post here back in 2005 a bit.

 

[Pure-???]

oh. just wondering.

 

[Crimson King]

Christ, use PMs if you are going to have conversations.

 

[adumbrodeus]

No, I don't. You have asserted that suffering provides an overall benefit, therefore the burden of proof is on you to give evidence that suffering is beneficial.

I suggested it as a possibility.

The point of that suggestion was to illustrate your ultimate burden of proof for your idea.

Sure, if I wish to defend my proposition I have the burden of proof, but that wasn't really what I was intending in the first place. My intention simply was to point out that you hadn't proven yours.


Furthermore, you seem to have totally ignored free will as a potential element in this.

It wasn't an appeal to emotion, although its good to see that you are trying (failing actually) to increase your vocabulary. Fact, women get *****. Fact, some women become stronger because of it. Fact, most women do not. Fact, it is a form of suffering. It illustrates that suffering is not overall beneficial.

You REALLY need to learn to not be condescending...

Especially when you get caught using a blatant logical fallacy.


You COULD HAVE used it logically, you could've explained that some women become stronger because of ****, but not all. But instead, you chose to equate my argument to "**** is good for women"...

That's about as good an argument as saying **** is good for women as a whole, therefore women should stop complaining about ****.

That is not "the example of **** illustrates a flaw in the argument", that is attempting to appeal to emotions by illustrating a distasteful application.

If you had said what you are saying now, it would not be the case, but you failed to do so.


The point being, don't use logical fallacies in the future.

Your book of fables, not mine.

Heresy is a word in the English language... not something defined by a holy book.

Check a dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heresy

Definition 2.

God is perfect, therefore his will is perfect, therefore anything that happens to you is perfect. By complaining about his perfection you commit heresy against that perfection. In the case of the **** victim, James 5:9 says to not complain about what people do to you, for the lord is at the door ready to judge you. So at least **** victims shouldn't complain about getting ***** otherwise they will be judged harshly by god. They should just shut up and take it.

Your holy book is funny that way.

Since when did I reference to any specific religion?

Ummm, yeah, I don't remember ever deciding to defend Christianity specifically, so whatever reference to Jame 5:9 you might have is a moot point (though you might want to check a different translation...).

Heresy is denial of established religious truth, complaining about something doesn't deny it...

of course they physically exist. theyre in your brain. no brains = no ideas. your claim is equivalent to asserting that mario doesnt exist physically because we cant open up the gamecube and easily point to him.

You never proved that a brain exists...


Ok, we'll assume that an idea has a physical existence. Time for a PROOF BY CONTRADICTION!

Premise: Ideas have physical existence.


Ideas are equivalent to their physical existence (reflexive property).

A piece of paper expresses the idea of love and no other ideas. Therefore that paper is love. (again reflexive property)

A floppy disk expresses the idea of love and no other ideas. Therefore the floppy disk is love.

Therefore the floppy disk equals the piece of paper... huh? (any feature will do, the fact that paper is an organic material for instance, while floppy disks are made of inorganic materials)


There you have it, ideas have to have an independent existence otherwise the mediums that express the idea are the same. That obviously isn't the case, because while a floppy disk and a piece of paper may both express love, they are not the same thing.

you are stuck on wanting proofs before you even have a coherent idea of what "existence" is. the only meaningful definition of "existence" necessitates physicality.

How so? Different things require different standards to exist.

As I illustrated above, an idea CANNOT have physical existence.


Regardless, while what the standard for existence in general is, physical existence is well-defined.

Non-physical existance (whatever that is), only physical existence, so where is your proof of physical existence for anything at all?

I've had a similar argument before with people. (With myself being a Computer Scientist) Does a program exist in a physical sense? Of course it does, it just doesn't have the appearance that you normally associate with it.

Specific programs are specific applications of an idea. Regardless, while they do have a physical existence, they are also an idea and exist in that component.

Mario does in fact exist in a physical sense. He is encoded into bits on hardware that can be seen and touched. If you looked at those bits, however, you might not recognize Mario. But that's just because you're not used to seeing him that way.

But the bits are his natural form, the true identity. How you "see" him on the TV screen is just an arbitrary way of representing those bits by a computer.

Any specific example of "mario" is a discrete application of the idea of mario. The mario which you see in the disk and the circuits are not expansive enough to cover the idea that is mario. That particular mario has a physical existence, but "mario" doesn't.

Things that are strictly ideas like "freedom" do not exist in a physical way, however. The word freedom is just a construct that we humans use to describe how an object behaves. The behavior itself does not have a physical manifestation.

It is only an unfortunate property of the English language (but probably others) that we say things like ideas "exist", when they really don't.

It's because the word "exist" is expansive in it's definition and means totally different things when applied to different concepts. Which is why we use modifiers to describe what kind of existence we mean.

how is this a form of existence? if every word in the english language, every other language, and every potential language "exists" by your definition, then your definition is superfluous. it has no way to differentiate between existing things and non-existing things. if you cant even determine whether or not something exists or doesnt exist by your definition of "existence," then your definition is incoherent.

Let me state what I think he was trying to put across.


The idea of something exists if it can be used as a predicate.


So yes, if we can conceptualize something, it exists as at least an idea. If it can be used as a predicate we can conceptualize it, ergo it exists as at least an idea. On the other hand if something is not in any language then we cannot conceptualize it, therefore the idea of it does not exist (granted, it can still have a physical existence).

It's Linguistic Determinism.

PS. the link is an overview, not a source.

One caveat that should be noted, it's a sufficient condition, so an expansive and rigorious definition of existence is "all things that can be used as a predicate and/or have physical existance".

 

[yossarian22]

how is this a form of existence? if every word in the english language, every other language, and every potential language "exists" by your definition, then your definition is superfluous. it has no way to differentiate between existing things and non-existing things.

Well, duh. The fact that I can refer to something means that it does exist. Either as a concept or something physical

if you cant even determine whether or not something exists or doesnt exist by your definition of "existence," then your definition is incoherent.

Learn what "incoherent" means before you try using it. I have already pointed out that "existence" cannot mean "is real". Show me where this definition leads to either undesirable or conflicting conclusions. That my definition could be considered superfluous is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[snex]

You never proved that a brain exists...

rofl.. is this the best you can do? crap lifted from christian chain emails?

Ok, we'll assume that an idea has a physical existence. Time for a PROOF BY CONTRADICTION!

Premise: Ideas have physical existence.


Ideas are equivalent to their physical existence (reflexive property).

A piece of paper expresses the idea of love and no other ideas. Therefore that paper is love. (again reflexive property)

right here is where your argument falls flat on its face. an idea's physical existence requires a brain, as i already stated. if all you have is a piece of paper, you dont have the idea. you have a catalyst that may cause certain brains to form the idea.

A floppy disk expresses the idea of love and no other ideas. Therefore the floppy disk is love.

Therefore the floppy disk equals the piece of paper... huh? (any feature will do, the fact that paper is an organic material for instance, while floppy disks are made of inorganic materials)

you didnt think this through too well, did ya?

There you have it, ideas have to have an independent existence otherwise the mediums that express the idea are the same. That obviously isn't the case, because while a floppy disk and a piece of paper may both express love, they are not the same thing.

sure, and if i use faulty logic that completely ignores the stated premises i can prove anything too. got anything thats VALID? once youve got that much, we can work on soundness.

How so? Different things require different standards to exist.

As I illustrated above, an idea CANNOT have physical existence.

you illustrated no such thing.

a thing has a physical existence if it can affect other things that we agree have physical existence. can an idea do this? of course it can. your idea of love affects how you act towards certain people, who we both agree physically exist.

Non-physical existance (whatever that is), only physical existence, so where is your proof of physical existence for anything at all?

each individual knows that he/she exists. they also perceive things. those perceptions affect the one thing the individual knows exists - him/herself. therefore, they also physically exist. they may exist only in the perceiver's brain, or they may exist outside of it, but whichever one it is, it is physical.

Specific programs are specific applications of an idea. Regardless, while they do have a physical existence, they are also an idea and exist in that component.

show me a program that has no physical existence.

Any specific example of "mario" is a discrete application of the idea of mario. The mario which you see in the disk and the circuits are not expansive enough to cover the idea that is mario. That particular mario has a physical existence, but "mario" doesn't.

and yet you can watch him with your physical eyes that only deal with physical objects!

The idea of something exists if it can be used as a predicate.

So yes, if we can conceptualize something, it exists as at least an idea. If it can be used as a predicate we can conceptualize it, ergo it exists as at least an idea. On the other hand if something is not in any language then we cannot conceptualize it, therefore the idea of it does not exist (granted, it can still have a physical existence).

It's Linguistic Determinism.

PS. the link is an overview, not a source.

One caveat that should be noted, it's a sufficient condition, so an expansive and rigorious definition of existence is "all things that can be used as a predicate and/or have physical existance".

the definition is incoherent. under it, nothing can ever possibly not exist. the minute we start to discuss it, we force it to exist. and if EVERYTHING conceivable exists, then a contradiction also exists. and if a contradiction exists, you messed up somewhere.

Well, duh. The fact that I can refer to something means that it does exist. Either as a concept or something physical

Learn what "incoherent" means before you try using it. I have already pointed out that "existence" cannot mean "is real". Show me where this definition leads to either undesirable or conflicting conclusions. That my definition could be considered superfluous is pretty much irrelevant.

under your definition, there must exist a proposition that is both true and false at the same time, because i can use it as a predicate. yet if such a proposition does exist, we have a contradiction. if your definition supports the existence of contradictions, its incoherent.

 

[yossarian22]

under your definition, there must exist a proposition that is both true and false at the same time, because i can use it as a predicate. yet if such a proposition does exist, we have a contradiction. if your definition supports the existence of contradictions, its incoherent.

Did you even think that post through for over a minute?

Here is your argument formalized
P1: Everything that can be used as a predicate exists. (adumbrodeus, anything physical can be referred to (if it lacks a name, we can simply use "that" or "this" or one of the variety of ambiguous pronouns, so mentioning physical existence is a bit redundant.)
P2: P1 allows for the existence of everything
P3: By P2, P1 allows for statements that are simultaneously true and false.
P4: But statements cannot be both true and false
P5: Therefore, P1 cannot be correct.


P2 is blatantly incorrect. Anything that can be used as a predicate exists. That is not "everything". That is not even close to everything. Think back to 4000 years ago. The Tesla Coil did not exist then. Nobody had the idea of a coil of metal shooting arcs of electricity. It was neither a concept, nor did it have physical existence. Therefore P2 is incorrect. Not everything exists at a given point in time.

P4 could also be subject to contention, as one can make two statements that are contradictory, yet both still correct. Relativity makes it easy to point out examples.

 

[RDK]

Did you even think that post through for over a minute?

Here is your argument formalized
P1: Everything that can be used as a predicate exists. (adumbrodeus, anything physical can be referred to (if it lacks a name, we can simply use "that" or "this" or one of the variety of ambiguous pronouns, so mentioning physical existence is a bit redundant.)
P2: P1 allows for the existence of everything
P3: By P2, P1 allows for statements that are simultaneously true and false.
P4: But statements cannot be both true and false
P5: Therefore, P1 cannot be correct.


P2 is blatantly incorrect. Anything that can be used as a predicate exists. That is not "everything". That is not even close to everything. Think back to 4000 years ago. The Tesla Coil did not exist then. Nobody had the idea of a coil of metal shooting arcs of electricity. It was neither a concept, nor did it have physical existence. Therefore P2 is incorrect. Not everything exists at a given point in time.

P4 could also be subject to contention, as one can make two statements that are contradictory, yet both still correct. Relativity makes it easy to point out examples.

Show me two statements that are contradictory and yet still correct. And things like THIS are not truely contradictory:

If it is cloudy, then it's raining.

It's raining.

It's not cloudy.

This merely suggests that the source of the rain in this particular situation is not the clouds.

 

[blazedaces]

Vossarian. While I agree P2 is not necessarily true, even if we ignore that you have to admit existence by predicate (I hope that grammatically makes sense, but I think you know what I mean) allows for the existence of contradictions. Contradictions are logically invalid (let's please assume nothing that is both true and false is possible since it would lead us on a wild goose chase going nowhere...).

That's really all you need to prove this definition of existence is not coherent.

-blazed

 

[blazedaces]

Sorry for the double post but I thought I would point your guy's attention to the following:

From Wiki:

The Platonic Fallacy

The Platonic fallacy is a specific form of Centipede Fallacy, which in turn is a form of an Argument from Ignorance. It is based on the notorious difficulty in defining a concept, such as 'chair', in a way that gives both necessary and sufficient conditions for chairs, rules in only things that we consider chairs, and rules out anything that is not a chair.

The reason we find the application of categories to the real world so daunting is because categories are themselves artificial: we create them. The universe is a continuum, not a set of static categories, and as such, is under no obligation to fit into our categories. We struggle to find an absolute separation point between things like chairs and couches, or tables, or even a fallen tree log because there is, in fact, no real, obvious and absolute demarcation between such entities in the first place. The fallacy, therefore, occurs when one attempts to rely on this notorious difficulty in applying categories to the real world entities, as a grounds for holding to the concept of universals in lieu of holding to the more parsimonious category/continuum explanation.

I thought this was relevant to the current discussion.

-blazed

 

[RDK]

The problem is that Yossarian deals in absolutes, when there are none.

How did we even get into this pseudo-debate about the definition of existence? It's pointless.

 

[blazedaces]

The problem is that Yossarian deals in absolutes, when there are none.

How did we even get into this pseudo-debate about the definition of existence? It's pointless.

I couldn't agree more that there is absolutely no point to this.

Still, I can't help but point out that to claim "there are no absolutes" is to claim an absolute (which is a contradiction), therefore "there are no absolutes" must be false and therefore "there are absolutes" must be true.

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.

-blazed

Edit: And I should point out the most well known philosopher to point that out (and as far as I know the original one) was Plato.

 

[RDK]

I couldn't agree more that there is absolutely no point to this.

Still, I can't help but point out that to claim "there are no absolutes" is to claim an absolute (which is a contradiction), therefore "there are no absolutes" must be false and therefore "there are absolutes" must be true.

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.

-blazed

>_>

Spoiler

10FACEPALMS

 

[yossarian22]

Show me two statements that are contradictory and yet still correct. And things like THIS are not truely contradictory:

If it is cloudy, then it's raining.

It's raining.

It's not cloudy.

This merely suggests that the source of the rain in this particular situation is not the clouds.

The car is moving at 60 mph
The car is not moving at all.

Depending on position, both statements could be correct. We prevent these two statements from being contradictory by sticking (or implying) the modifier "relative to me" onto the predicate.

Vossarian. While I agree P2 is not necessarily true, even if we ignore that you have to admit existence by predicate (I hope that grammatically makes sense, but I think you know what I mean) allows for the existence of contradictions. Contradictions are logically invalid (let's please assume nothing that is both true and false is possible since it would lead us on a wild goose chase going nowhere...).

That's really all you need to prove this definition of existence is not coherent.

-blazed

You have shown that the concept exists. It clearly does, as we are referring to it in this discussion. A relatively simple Tu Quoque argument from there.

There are a couple better ones. For instance, predicates are either exclusive or inclusive. For something to be true and false requires that a predicate both exclude and include the same quality. We would have something along the lines of
"A is neither black nor not black". Then what is it? We cannot think of what it is, hence it does not exist. The concept of it does, but that is pretty much irrelevant, as there is no application of the concept.

The last little tangential argument came directly from the idea that we should not believe in something we have no evidence for. We believe in things we lack evidence for all the time. The validity of our senses, our thoughts, the universe.

to RDK. Language is exclusive, hence I can talk in absolutes. I cannot be both green and not-green at the same time. Relativism is almost as weak as Skepticism anyhow.

 

[blazedaces]

Before I reply I want to point out that our thoughts and our language are not required nor are they consistently logical. We have irrational thoughts all the time (and by we I mean human beings in general). And language, an extension of thought (or the other way around depending on who you ask), can easily describe irrational concepts.

The car is moving at 60 mph
The car is not moving at all.

Depending on position, both statements could be correct. We prevent these two statements from being contradictory by sticking (or implying) the modifier "relative to me" onto the predicate.

Your incomplete description of the situation only shows that the description is incomplete. If it were complete, then it would be illogical or should I say not logically possible.

Look, I can do the same thing right here:

10 = 16.

This is logically (and an extension of logic, mathematically) impossible... unless I'm not describing it completely by saying

10 in base 16 (hexadecimal) = 16 in base 10 (decimal)

You haven't shown them to be possible, you've just manipulated language to try and find a loop hole that does not exist. Stop, it's unbecoming of you.

You have shown that the concept exists. It clearly does, as we are referring to it in this discussion. A relatively simple Tu Quoque argument from there.

You're begging the question (circular argument). I'm proving your definition is incoherent. I don't assume the definition is coherent and then try to prove or disprove its validity (what you're doing).

Also, the Tu Quoque argument is a logical fallacy in and of itself. I can say or do something that I also claim is wrong to say or do. Just because I do or say it, doesn't make my argument any worse. You're not attacking the argument, you're attacking me (it's actually a form of ad hominem if you think about it though I'm not sure if it's categorized as such).

There are a couple better ones. For instance, predicates are either exclusive or inclusive. For something to be true and false requires that a predicate both exclude and include the same quality. We would have something along the lines of
"A is neither black nor not black". Then what is it? We cannot think of what it is, hence it does not exist. The concept of it does, but that is pretty much irrelevant, as there is no application of the concept.

Here you're contradicting yourself. First you're assuming that existence simply relies on reference (or the possibility of being used as a predicate which in my eyes is the same thing, am I mistaken?), but then for some odd reason to keep your definition from contradicting itself somewhere you claim existence depends on thought (our ability to think of something or imagine it).

You're creating loop holes in your own argument in order to latch onto your argument. You're ignoring reality and the arguments we present against you, and abandoning logic to cling onto your point of view. There's a name for this fallacy, but I don't remember it at the moment.

The last little tangential argument came directly from the idea that we should not believe in something we have no evidence for. We believe in things we lack evidence for all the time. The validity of our senses, our thoughts, the universe.

I'm not entirely sure what argument this is directly referenced to (is it the definition of the platonic fallacy I pointed out?). I'm going to assume it is.

So we agree that we are at times irrational? What are you trying to show by pointing this out? That we as humans aren't always logical? I notice you don't try to show the argument to be invalid, you just point out we don't always obey it. These common fallacies probably wouldn't be defined if we never committed them.

-blazed

 

[yossarian22]

Before I reply I want to point out that our thoughts and our language are not required nor are they consistently logical. We have irrational thoughts all the time (and by we I mean human beings in general). And language, an extension of thought (or the other way around depending on who you ask), can easily describe irrational concepts.

There is a huge difference between something that is real and something that exists.

Unicorns are not real, but they still exist.
Airplanes are real, and they do exist.
The concept of a statement that is simultaneously true and false is not real, but the concept exists.

And I would hazard that language is required in some way shape or form in order for thought to exist. Language is nothing more than an abstraction of our senses. That is pretty much opinion, as there is no real evidence either way. If there is, I would be interested in reading it.

You're begging the question (circular argument). I'm proving your definition is incoherent. I don't assume the definition is coherent and then try to prove or disprove its validity (what you're doing).

I am not doing anything of the sort.

You cannot deny that this concept exists. If it did not exist, what are you referring to? This is, incidentally,a form of the classic argument used to attack the notion that "existence" is equatable to "is real".

Hence, tu quoque.

Also, the Tu Quoque argument is a logical fallacy in and of itself. I can say or do something that I also claim is wrong to say or do. Just because I do or say it, doesn't make my argument any worse. You're not attacking the argument, you're attacking me (it's actually a form of ad hominem if you think about it though I'm not sure if it's categorized as such).

Phrased the way you put it, it is a fallacy. It can also be perfectly legitimate as an argument.

According to you, accepting my position leads to incoherence, but I have shown that rejecting my position leads to the same scenario.

Here you're contradicting yourself. First you're assuming that existence simply relies on reference (or the possibility of being used as a predicate which in my eyes is the same thing, am I mistaken?), but then for some odd reason to keep your definition from contradicting itself somewhere you claim existence depends on thought (our ability to think of something or imagine it).

We cannot reference something if we cannot think of it, hence "able to be referred to" and "can be thought of" is one and the same

I'm not entirely sure what argument this is directly referenced to (is it the definition of the platonic fallacy I pointed out?). I'm going to assume it is.
-blazed

Its not.
You were wondering why we were having this discussion about existence, correct? It was a few pages back.

I will respond to the rest later.

 

[Deleted member]

I dunno how you became so knowledgeable and insightful Yossarian, but it's **** impressive.

As a spectator on this particular tangent - I'm surprised at how well he is defending himself. Not once has anyone really called him out properly, and hence, defeated him in any of these past few post-chains.

He comes out of nowhere and immediately owns us all at debating. It's crazy.

 

[blazedaces]

There is a huge difference between something that is real and something that exists.

Unicorns are not real, but they still exist.
Airplanes are real, and they do exist.
The concept of a statement that is simultaneously true and false is not real, but the concept exists.

Well, this all depends on semantics. The definitions of "real" and "exists". According to your definition of exist real and exist are practically exclusive.

I think they're extremely related if not one in the same depending on your definition of "real". I think observable (that is tangential) is one possible definition of exist (one that is coherent and consistent).

It in fact fits all your criteria and never wavers. If I refer to something it is because it is in my head (stored in the form of neurons) or it is on a piece of paper or in a book, or drawn somewhere. I can point to it, or write out words to describe it to you. Before I do that, it does not exist in your head necessarily. Why do you think there are issues of semantics between debaters all the time? Differing definitions! They are different in each of our heads.

Unicorns only exist in our imaginations. They do not exist anywhere in the real world (this refers to the world outside of our minds, but still this depends on the definition of the word real). Are imaginary numbers in the real world?

As for the concept of something that is both true and false. This concept of the idea of something existing that is both true and false... it is possible in our imaginations to exist (the vague concept). But we can't possibly imagine something that is both true and false. If you think otherwise you don't understand what is logic.

Logic is a way of observing the world. To say something exists that is both true and false is like saying a word exists in the english language written in hebrew letters.

And I would hazard that language is required in some way shape or form in order for thought to exist. Language is nothing more than an abstraction of our senses. That is pretty much opinion, as there is no real evidence either way. If there is, I would be interested in reading it.

I disagree. I think of language as another way to express ourselves, that's all. Albeit a more rigorously defined way than let's say barking or charades.

Still, I was just pointing out that they affect each other, that is, the language we know affects in some way our thoughts and our thoughts definitely control much of our language. Still, it's not a topic I really want to get into at the moment...

I am not doing anything of the sort.

You cannot deny that this concept exists. If it did not exist, what are you referring to? This is, incidentally,a form of the classic argument used to attack the notion that "existence" is equatable to "is real".

You're still doing it right now. It's like saying "god is everything and anything", and me replying "but god isn't this piece of dirt is it?", and you replying "aha, but don't you see, god is everything and anything, so you can't question that the piece of dirt is god". You defined exist as "being able to be referred to" and then when I refer to something you call me out on it.

I'm not trying to conform to your definition! It's incoherent (that means not logically consistent!). It doesn't work as a definition for exist. There are other definitions (like the one I mentioned at the top) which fit all your criteria, but aren't your definition and are indeed coherent!

Phrased the way you put it, it is a fallacy. It can also be perfectly legitimate as an argument.

I love how you just claim it can be, but don't actually show so yourself. I know the only ways it can be, but you certainly weren't using it that way. You were using it in a fallacious manner. Stop trying to fall back on semantics every time you're shown to be wrong in some way.

According to you, accepting my position leads to incoherence, but I have shown that rejecting my position leads to the same scenario.

I love again, how you don't even try to disagree with my position. You agree then, that your position leads to incoherency?

Good, then we agree that your definition is incoherent. I'm done here.

Rejecting your position is only inconsistent with your definition of existence. That's all. Look at my definition above.

We cannot reference something if we cannot think of it, hence "able to be referred to" and "can be thought of" is one and the same

Squares and rectangles my friend (in that all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares). We can't refer to something that can not be thought up, but we can certainly imagine/think of something we can't possibly express to its utmost precision. We can imagine drawings we are incapable of drawing and emotions we can't express even if we had the knowledge of all existing languages in the known universe.

Delorted, you use similar arguments when you debate. You both stumble and fall backwards to debates on semantics. Since you like this form of falling back onto A = A (all circular arguments come to this) you think he's debating well.

I think you're just falling for similar fallacies that the masses all easily fall for when listening to politicians.

-blazed

 

[snex]

according to yossarian, any object A exists if A can be used as a predicate.

i define A to be "an object that does not exist"

either the universe must now explode, or yossarian's definition of existence is wrong.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'll edit in the rest later, but need to point this out.

according to yossarian, any object A exists if A can be used as a predicate.

i define A to be "an object that does not exist"

either the universe must now explode, or yossarian's definition of existence is wrong.

But it's either the idea or physical existence (non-exclusive "or" by the way).

So if you define it, the idea MUST exist by definition. Therefore "an object that does not exist", unless you limit it to physical existence, is inherently a contradiction in terms. By defining it, you PROVED that the idea of the object exists.


Gotta love English, eh?





As a general clarification, "existence" as yossarian is defining it extends to either physical existence or the existence of the concept. Since it is the way he defined it, it's fair to for him to argue using this definition since it was established during the course of the debate.

Oh, btw since this is a change in terms, I must refine my argument based on the definition of "exist" that was established during the debate. There is no proof that reality physically exists, because undoubtedly the idea of reality does exist.

 

[RDK]

But he's missing the point (not that it matters--this whole debate is stupid). Physical existence =/= conceptual existence. What is "real" is truly a matter of perception, as Yossarian went to great lengthsto show us.

You can say that concepts and ideas "exist" all day long, but you're not getting the big picture. Defining or imagining a concept does not mean it "exists" per se, but again--that's reliant on semantics.

Before we go any further, maybe Yoss should define his terms for us.

 

[AltF4]

This is dumb. Ideas do not "exist". It is just laziness that we say:

"Freedom exists"

rather than the correct:

"Objects which exhibit behavior that can be described as free, exist"


The "freedom" does not in any sense ACTUALLY exist. When someone says "god exists" they do not mean the concept of god. They mean the god itself. Defining existence to include ideas is idiotic. Anything can be said to "exist" then!

Furthermore, this is clearly not the common usage of the word. There is an clear and distinct difference between there being a coherent concept for an object and that object having an instantiation in the real world.

That instantiation is what we're talking about with existence. Existence necessarily deals with material (physical, IE: made of matter) objects.

 

[snex]

I'll edit in the rest later, but need to point this out.

But it's either the idea or physical existence (non-exclusive "or" by the way).

So if you define it, the idea MUST exist by definition. Therefore "an object that does not exist", unless you limit it to physical existence, is inherently a contradiction in terms. By defining it, you PROVED that the idea of the object exists.

this makes absolutely no sense. yossarian's definition of "existence" supports a contradiction and is therefore incoherent - end of debate.

 

[adumbrodeus]

yossarian22, a minute change in the definition changes it to common usage in English, from which this would greatly benefit.

If something is able to be used as a predicate, then either it exists physically (or(inclusive) something equivalent to physical) or(inclusive) the idea of it exists.

That is the common usage of "exists" and it maintains the rigor of the previous definition.

this makes absolutely no sense. yossarian's definition of "existence" supports a contradiction and is therefore incoherent - end of debate.

Why does it make no sense?



No, your object is a contradiction in terms, therefore cannot be a counterpoint. It's equivalent to not mapping every input to an output in a function, by doing that you no longer have a function.

By defining a concept, you make it so that there is conceptually defined. Or are you saying that an object that is not conceptually defined is not an idea? Assuming my brain exists, I'm sure that it's there somewhere.

Granted, it is an attribute of all things that do not conceptually exist is present in all things that have no conceptual definitions. However, once you define it, something cannot by definition not exist as an idea.

This is dumb. Ideas do not "exist". It is just laziness that we say:

"Freedom exists"

rather than the correct:

"Objects which exhibit behavior that can be described as free, exist"

It's not laziness, it's the nature of the English language that it has an incredibly vague definition or "existence". You want other such eccentricities, try the split infinitive for one. English is a HORRIBLE language, yet that is the nature of the beast, you cannot pretend that it doesn't have certain attributes because they are stupid.

The "freedom" does not in any sense ACTUALLY exist. When someone says "god exists" they do not mean the concept of god. They mean the god itself. Defining existence to include ideas is idiotic. Anything can be said to "exist" then!

Yes, anything that has been conceptually defined exists as a concept, including what qualifies as not being conceptually defined.

Furthermore, this is clearly not the common usage of the word. There is an clear and distinct difference between there being a coherent concept for an object and that object having an instantiation in the real world.

The common usage is to say the idea of x exists, which really lends no problems for the overall concepts discussed.

I was merely referencing to his definition because it was defined. From there we can go to common usage, which is what the word actually means due to the intrinsic nature of language.

That instantiation is what we're talking about with existence. Existence necessarily deals with material (physical, IE: made of matter) objects.

That is not what it means in English... English is far too vague for that.

 

[AltF4]

Adbumbrodeus: You're missing what I'm saying I think. What I'm trying to get across is that when we're debating whether or not god exists, we're not talking about the kind of "existence" that ideas have. We're talking about the kind of existence chairs have. Nobody is doubting the "existence" of the concept of god.

We all understand the meaning of the word existence in the context of a debate about god's existence. This whole tangent is just a diversion into semantic bickering.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Adbumbrodeus: You're missing what I'm saying I think. What I'm trying to get across is that when we're debating whether or not god exists, we're not talking about the kind of "existence" that ideas have. We're talking about the kind of existence chairs have. Nobody is doubting the "existence" of the concept of god.

We all understand the meaning of the word existence in the context of a debate about god's existence. This whole tangent is just a diversion into semantic bickering.

Of course, I see no problem with your intentions, but the issue I had was with what you said, not with what you intended from it.

But yes, I very much doubt that anyone here is arguing that God does not exist conceptually, however this particular issue was really another creation of the nihilism tangent.

 

[snex]

yossarian22, a minute change in the definition changes it to common usage in English, from which this would greatly benefit.

If something is able to be used as a predicate, then either it exists physically (or(inclusive) something equivalent to physical) or(inclusive) the idea of it exists.

That is the common usage of "exists" and it maintains the rigor of the previous definition.

what is the point of that definition? since ideas are physical, you are just being redundant. and you havent answered my challenge, which was to provide a definition of "existence" that encompasses non-physical things.

Why does it make no sense?

No, your object is a contradiction in terms, therefore cannot be a counterpoint. It's equivalent to not mapping every input to an output in a function, by doing that you no longer have a function.

By defining a concept, you make it so that there is conceptually defined. Or are you saying that an object that is not conceptually defined is not an idea? Assuming my brain exists, I'm sure that it's there somewhere.

my object is not a contradiction in terms. yossarian claimed that any object X exists if X can be used as a predicate. i named an object that can be used as a predicate, and therefore it must exist by definition. but if it exists, then it must not exist, because of its nature of non-existence. yossarian's definition contains the contradiction, and is therefore incoherent, and therefore does not meet my challenge to provide a definition of "existence" that encompasses non-physical objects.

Granted, it is an attribute of all things that do not conceptually exist is present in all things that have no conceptual definitions. However, once you define it, something cannot by definition not exist as an idea.

yossarian's definition had nothing to do with "existing as an idea." his definition is that anything that can be used as a predicate EXISTS, period.

This whole tangent is just a diversion into semantic bickering.

this tangent exists because yossarian asserts that there are coherent definitions of "existence" that encompass more than physical things, and he challenged me to demonstrate that any are incoherent. so far hes 0 for 1.

 

[yossarian22]

snex and blazedaces (I am responding to both of you together as your arguments are fundamentally the same): you two have only shown that the concept of that object that includes and excludes a quality (you two just used different qualities) exists. I reject the notion that this concept is actually applicable to anything, and hence I escape incoherence.
Adumbrodeus' response is still apt here.
No, your object is a contradiction in terms, therefore cannot be a counterpoint. It's equivalent to not mapping every input to an output in a function, by doing that you no longer have a function.


And snex, a difference from physical existence and existence as an idea is implied by my usage of the word "predicate".

(existence(physicality))
Existence as an idea can be considered discrete from physical existence.

I dislike spelling out every single conclusion that follows from a premise, as I figure that they are implied. If this leads to confusion, I apologize. My definitions are rarely far from the norm (when they are, I explicitly state such)

Anyhow, I am going to retract my earlier statements about two contradictory statements being simultaneously true. Besides being nothing more than an interesting secondary argument, using it would require me to take a radically different epistemology. That is something I neither have the time nor the inclination to set up. If anybody is interested in that position, PM me.

and snex: you have yet to show anything except shortsightedness.

 

[blazedaces]

Vossarian and Adumbrodeus:

You're now delving into why this definition starts to crumble: you're not able to talk about existence of objects and of concepts as the same thing, since they are fundamentally different. Only objects exist (according to a definition of existence that is coherent). Concepts do not. You would like them to, but concepts only exist in the sense that we can store either in our brains or in a computer or on paper as an object (0's and 1's, or words) that concept.

That's all.

I don't like repeating myself. Your definition is not coherent, therefore it should not be used. Period.

The whole talk about exclusive and inclusive qualities is just the use of jargon to confuse the issue. You're not actually refuting anything that's being said. You're still using circular logic and assuming your definition of existence is a valid definition while trying to prove it is so.

Adumbrodeus, he can use any definition he likes, except that we're not trying to prove his definition is his definition (what he keeps proving, again A=A, the conclusion of circular arguments), we're proving his definition is incoherent (not logically consistent).

As for the one point you seem to quote Vossarian of Adumbrodeus', this is further circular arguing. We're not saying f(x) is not f(x) (we're not saying Vossarian's definition of existence is not his definition of existence), we're saying his definition is not coherent.

In mathematical terms it's as if we arrived at 1 = 0 using Vossarian's methods.

You guys have to give this up. I know from experience this is just going to go on in circles. You refuse to accept that your definition or theory could possibly be wrong, so at this point you're just rationalizing. Instead of abandoning this nonsense so we can talk about something more useful, we're going to continue to waste time pointing out the obvious.

There's no point in talking about this anymore (though RDK pointed that out a long time ago).

-blazed

 

[snex]

yossarian, does my object A exist or not under your definition of "existence?" a simple yes or no will do.

 

[yossarian22]

yossarian, does my object A exist or not under your definition of "existence?" a simple yes or no will do.

No.
The concept of the idea does exist. Try again. Existence has never implied truth or falsehood.

Vossarian and Adumbrodeus:

You're now delving into why this definition starts to crumble: you're not able to talk about existence of objects and of concepts as the same thing, since they are fundamentally different.

Really?
I can refer to both objects and concepts. I can just make more assertions about the quality of X under my system.

Only objects exist (according to a definition of existence that is coherent). Concepts do not. You would like them to, but concepts only exist in the sense that we can store either in our brains or in a computer or on paper as an object (0's and 1's, or words) that concept.

That's all.

What a compelling argument.

I don't like repeating myself. Your definition is not coherent, therefore it should not be used. Period.

Brilliant proof, except neither you or snex have shown such.

And please, please, PLEASE read a book about reduction to the absurd and how it works.

When you make an reductio ad absurdum, you take my definition as a premise. In other words, you assume that it is the correct definition. When you defend your argument against any other argument, you either attack the premises or the conclusion. I cannot attack the premise, therefore I must attack your conclusions. Both of you have latched onto the word incoherent and have thrown it around. Stop.

The whole talk about exclusive and inclusive qualities is just the use of jargon to confuse the issue.

It is entirely relevant. Sorry if you cannot see as such.

I also cannot forgive you for comparing me to a politician