The Problem with Hell

I fear that the main purpose of my comments to Phoenix are getting lost in this, but that's ok ... I will continue

There are a variety of ways to prove things, based on the type of thing you are attempting to prove. So, I guess I am not sure which approach you are talking about. I will assume (since it is the most widely held view) that a "seeing is believing" approach is what you speak of, considering that the "thing" in question is material in nature.

So my approach would be to determine whether I can "see" (i.e sense in any variety of different ways) myself. The problem I come across immediately is that if I try to sense myself, I have already begged the question at hand, by presupposing that I exist in the first place.

So what do I get? I get the conclusion that I presuppose my own existence.

What do you get?

I

Implicator wrote:

So my approach would be to determine whether I can "see" (i.e sense in any variety of different ways) myself. The problem I come across immediately is that if I try to sense myself, I have already begged the question at hand, by presupposing that I exist in the first place.

You're adding weight to the question that it does not require. You can feel your arms, hear your voice, see yourself. More importantly, the fact that you are capable of rationalizing your own existence at all points to a proof in my opinion.

Implicaor wrote:

So what do I get? I get the conclusion that I presuppose my own existence.

What do you get?

You presuppose nothing. The evidence of your existence is plainly visible, you are merely attempting to apply labels and doubts to what you're experiencing which are unnecessary.

I am simply evaluating the argument for my existence, the same way I evaluate the argument for anyone else's. When I evaluate the syntax of the assertion "I hear my voice", I find that the one doing the hearing (the hearing is what is supposedly justifying my existence) is ... me! I must first be assumed to exist before I can hear anything, else there would just be hearing.

Cogito ergo sum is question-begging at its worst.

I

Implicator wrote:

I am simply evaluating the argument for my existence, the same way I evaluate the argument for anyone else's. When I evaluate the syntax of the assertion "I hear my voice", I find that the one doing the hearing (the hearing is what is supposedly justifying my existence) is ... me! I must first be assumed to exist before I can hear anything, else there would just be hearing.

Cogito ergo sum is question-begging at its worst.

I

Perhaps, but it is infinitely preferable to sitting around a coffee table and contemplating existence. You think, you do, you are. This concept is only as difficult as overly-argumentative philosophers make it.

Your continuous usage of the word 'assume' is erroneous. You assume nothing. That you are present, that you and I are having this conversation is not an assumption but a truth. Disregarding that truth in favor of debate doesn't make it any less true.

So what is this, an appeal to lost time? Something is worthy of being studied just as long as it doesn't require contemplation around a coffee table?

Perhaps - presuppose is much more accurate. That one must presuppose one's existence in order to argue for it can be shown by the following argument:

1) I can hear myself speak
2) Hearing myself speak indicates I exist
3) Therefore, I exist

Notice the use of the term "I" in premise #1. That "I" appears in a premise, while the existence of "I" is the conclusion means that the argument is circular in nature. I must presuppose "I" in order to argument for my own existence.

There is nothing erroneous about this - it is clear from evaluating the argument in syllogistic form.

I

Implicator wrote:

So what is this, an appeal to lost time? Something is worthy of being studied just as long as it doesn't require contemplation around a coffee table?

You speak of study. How can you study anything if your own existence is in question? This type of thinking is a dead end, for it will rarely yield anything but further questions.

Implicator wrote:

Perhaps - presuppose is much more accurate. That one must presuppose one's existence in order to argue for it can be shown by the following argument:

1) I can hear myself speak
2) Hearing myself speak indicates I exist
3) Therefore, I exist

Ok, if you prefer to have someone else validate your existence, look to your left and ask the person if they can hear you, and if they can see you. Then have them pinch you to make certain that all is in order.

Or simply come to the rational conclusion that you are not 1) asleep and dreaming, and 2) you do, in fact, have a direct influence on the world around you.

Implicator wrote:

Notice the use of the term "I" in premise #1. That "I" appears in a premise, while the existence of "I" is the conclusion means that the argument is circular in nature. I must presuppose "I" in order to argument for my own existence.

There is nothing erroneous about this - it is clear from evaluating the argument in syllogistic form.

It is semantics. It is philosophical fodder. It is argument for argument's sake, interesting, but of little consequence.

It demonstrates the circular nature of attempting to prove that I exist.

I

I note that nobody seems to have raised the ontological position that "existence" may operate solely as an "excluder principle". In other words we can define several categories of "non-existence" (fictional, physical etc) but it may be impossible to define "existence" itself.

Implicator wrote:

It demonstrates the circular nature of attempting to prove that I exist.

I

Heh. Well I can agree to that. If by circular you mean 'silly'.

Thanks for the dialogue.

Well for god's sake, put it in the Philosophy section with all the other opium-induced intellectual journeys. :wink: