5
   

How is this definition of "belief"?

 
 
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 07:26 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Was that supposed to be an answer to my questions?
Those are not paradoxes, but logical absurdities enabled exclusively by grammar.
I see where you take your pointers...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 07:28 pm
@Cyracuz,
Hey, you're just not getting the point of the point. LOL
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 07:33 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
My very rational and natural requirement of both a discrete space/time frame instead of an infinitely divisible continuum, as a finite number of causal steps, conclusively leads to the assertion of an uncaused cause a prime mover...its needs not be classified as a "God" as modern physics presents options a plenty, Multiverse hypothesis being the most favoured explanation for the time being in theoretical physics...

Here is the link for the Cosmological argument:
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
I am posting these links for those of you not familiar with the classical arguments and interested in following the process with care...I am not replying to users on ignore for obvious reasons. This is a place of rational debate not a place to jump past peoples arguments...
An uncaused cause cannot be observed or created by anyone or anything it is by definition the bedrock of reality and can be classified as objective because is independent if uncaused !

By now it seams quite obvious that some of the participants around are unwilling or incapable of following the steps and their necessary conclusions, reason why I rather keep on trusting with those able to address the problems with genuine commitment.

Regards: Filipe de Albuquerque
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 07:41 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
You are making blind guesses if you are saying that REALITY is subjective.


I really am not saying that.
Here is what I am saying:

"Reality is subjective" is unknowable.

"Reality is objective" is equally unknowable.

Your claim that whatever reality is, it must be objective, is an assumption.

Or are you bold enough to claim that there is no way in hell there could be any kind of reality without this "objective reality" you claim is definitely there?


Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 07:52 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
This is a place of rational debate not a place to jump past peoples arguments...


It was, until you showed up.
But you have clearly demonstrated that you possess neither the clarity of mind or the integrity to engage in rational debate.
I am not surprised if you have me on ignore after having failed to account for your claims. Talk about jumping past people's arguments. LOL
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 07:57 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
You are making blind guesses if you are saying that REALITY is subjective.


I really am not saying that.
Here is what I am saying:

"Reality is subjective" is unknowable.


That truly does not seem to be what you have been saying, but I will accept now that it is.

Quote:

"Reality is objective" is equally unknowable.

Your claim that whatever reality is, it must be objective, is an assumption.


It most assuredly is not an assumption. It follows logically from the facts that REALITY IS what IS. And since that is so...it is objective. I am willing to allow that if your blind guess that REALITY depends upon humans having perceptions...then it can be subjective...but in being that...it IS OBJECTIVELY so.

No matter what...whatever IS...IS. That is objective.

Quote:
Or are you bold enough to claim that there is no way in hell there could be any kind of reality without this "objective reality" you claim is definitely there?


"Boldness" has nothing to do with it. Logic dictates that REALITY...whatever it IS...has to be objective, because whatever IS...IS.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 07:58 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
From the same link:

Quote:
Identity of a First Cause

An objection against the theist implication of the proposition is that even if one accepts the argument as a proof of a First Cause, it does not identify that First Cause with God. The argument does not go on to ascribe to the First Cause some of the basic attributes commonly associated with, for instance, a theistic God, such as immanence or omnibenevolence.[14] Rather, it simply argues that a First Cause (e.g. the Big Bang singularity, God, or an unarticulated First Cause) must exist.[16]

Furthermore, even if one chooses to accept God as the First Cause, there is an argument that God's continued interaction with the Universe is not required. This is the foundation for beliefs such as deism that accept that a god created the Universe, but then ceased to have any further interaction with it,[17] and even pandeism, which proposes that the creator of the universe actually became the universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity.[18][19]

Existence of causal loops

A causal loop is a form of predestination paradox arising where traveling backwards in time is deemed a possibility. A sufficiently powerful entity in such a world would have the capacity to travel backwards in time to a point before its own existence, and to then create itself, thereby initiating everything which follows from it.

The usual reason which is given to refute the possibility of a causal loop is it requires that the loop as a whole be its own cause. Richard Hanley argues that causal loops are not logically, physically, or epistemically impossible: "[In timed systems,] the only possibly objectionable feature that all causal loops share is that coincidence is required to explain them."


A causal loop with a finite number of steps which does not assume time as a fundamental feature of reality will explain reality as an ensemble without any cause. "Causality" thus become a phenomenal feature on the perspective of any being inside space time but not of reality as a whole...such reality would be itself uncaused.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 08:15 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Let's see; 'reality is what is = is objectively so.' That's logic? LOL

What am I missing?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 08:19 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Looking at the Set composing such reality with a looping finite number of steps in a timeless environment would indeed refer us back to the intuitive conclusion Frank has been hammering for pages without end...

Reality is what it is, (through space/time) top to bottom and back, literally !
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 08:33 pm
Again it is completely and totally proven that reality is independent of observers...

1 - Assume reality
2 - assume an observer
2.1 - Observer needs itself be real

it follows :

3 - If using the term creation is needed to establish a causal link between observer and reality the observer cannot be the creator of reality !

It is as simple as following those few steps.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 09:18 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Simple for some people - by divorcing oneself from logic.

[quote]If using the term creation is needed to establish a causal link between observer and reality the observer cannot be the creator of reality ![/quote]

That's a mighty big "IF."
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 10:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You just lost yet another opportunity to shut the **** up...the hypothesis being tested is not my claim on the contrary I have been refuting it for 20 pages or so...the "if" there is not my claim Einstein, is your sides hypothetical !!! I'm guessing you don't have a side as you bottom line seam lost onto what the hypothesis claims and who is bringing it forward...now if you please let me keep you at ignore and avoid trashing my posts with lies so I am not compelled to defend myself ! Freaking Christ give me patience ! Rolling Eyes
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Jun, 2013 10:24 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
When a poster bothers to post any article without articulating their position, we must assume you believe the writer's opinion. If not, you need to make that clear.
Whoever wrote that article don't know crap! I'll let my criticism stand.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 02:58 am
@cicerone imposter,
I wrote that the "if" in there refers back to YOUR SIDE HYPOTHESIS which was logically refuted whether you realise what that means or not I couldn't care less you don't seam to even be able of framing the problem properly ! (if not just prove me wrong and please restate what is the problem at hand and what current views are there on the matter, those views by the way are not mine or yours but of 2 major factions disputing the nature of reality. This is not a matter of 1 person writing an article I did not invented the wheel... )
The problem presented there is old in philosophy and is not debated by 1 author but by thousands of them...at this point a great deal of the scientific world on one way or another debates it alongside with philosophers exactly in the way it is framed...your arrogant middle class display of ignorance regarding fundamental questions is simply appalling...next time you want to make some criticism at least try to know what the 2 factions are disputing before you press any button Sherlock !
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 04:25 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Let's see; 'reality is what is = is objectively so.' That's logic? LOL

What am I missing?


REALITY IS...whatever IS. It IS WHAT IT IS...no matter what.

That is as objective as anything can get.

What you are missing, ci, is the logic of the argument.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 05:38 am
@cicerone imposter,
Don't mind Fil, CI.

He is obviously unable to distinguish between what is knowable and what he is able to imagine.
He is, for lack of a better word, a complete fool.

If one hundred people told Fil he was wrong, the possibility that he might be wrong would not cross his mind. Instead he would be amazed at how one hundred people could be so ignorant.
That says it all really, and tells me that talking to Fil is wasting both time and energy. He will never play fair. If he did, he would have no game...
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 05:43 am
Sorry to press this, but I still don't see the logical necessity in "It is what it is, therefore it is objective." The conclusion doesn't seem to be entailed by the premise. With all conceivable experience being subjective, it seems more empirically accurate and verifiable to say, "It is what it is, therefore it is subjective." There doesn't seem to be any experience of the objective available.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 05:59 am
@FBM,
Quote:
Sorry to press this, but I still don't see the logical necessity in "It is what it is, therefore it is objective."


There is no logical necessity. It's only Frank who has to either keep insisting there is, or admit that he in fact holds a belief.
I don't understand why he can't just admit he was wrong...
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 06:14 am
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

Sorry to press this, but I still don't see the logical necessity in "It is what it is, therefore it is objective." The conclusion doesn't seem to be entailed by the premise. With all conceivable experience being subjective, it seems more empirically accurate and verifiable to say, "It is what it is, therefore it is subjective." There doesn't seem to be any experience of the objective available.


Please do not feel sorry to press it.

If what IS...IS...how can that be anything but objective?

No matter what any human thinks or says of it....IT IS WHAT IT IS.

Nothing can be more objective than that.

Even if "what IS" is that it must be determined by what we humans think it to be...or what we humans are able to understand about it...or what we humans consider it to be...or what we humans suppose, blindly guess, or estimate it to be...

...THAT IS WHAT IT IS.

There is no more purely objective circumstance than WHAT IS.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Jun, 2013 06:15 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Sorry to press this, but I still don't see the logical necessity in "It is what it is, therefore it is objective."


There is no logical necessity. It's only Frank who has to either keep insisting there is, or admit that he in fact holds a belief.
I don't understand why he can't just admit he was wrong...


I have explained it thoroughly...and it is logical.

I do not have beliefs.

I am not wrong here. When I am wrong...I freely acknowledge that I am.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/28/2024 at 10:59:08