Soft proof of a higher existence: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Soft proof of a higher existence » Soft proof of a higher existence

Soft proof of a higher existence
A likely conclusion drawn from assumptions

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Soft proof of a higher existence

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 73

Posted 04/15/08 - 07:21 PM:	#51
Sophistry wrote: OK, let's get this sorted out. Give me an example of something you would consider a fact, and tell me why you think it's a fact. Assuming we're not thinking about the philosophy that you can only prove for sure that you yourself exists...then I'd say a fact is that my dog exists. I think that's a fact because I can sense him with one or all of my senses. Now I know we know how dogs reproduce, but say that we don't, and that no human has ever seen it happen. I adopted Jake as a full-grown puppy, and I have never seen either of his parents. How do I know that he came from a female dog? Well I wouldn't, therefore making that much a theory. I cannot say that I've seen his grandparents, but based on the theory that he ever came from another dog, I can say that I probably have. I can't call that a fact though, because it's based on a theory. I can only call his existence a fact, and from there come up with theories based on that. What an extraordinarily solipsistic position to take. Why on Earth would you imagine that just because you find it hard to understand something it is therefore improbable that it exists? You're taking my words, rearranging them, and putting them together to mean something different. Here's what I was saying: -Since it seems impossible it is therefore improbable that it exists. -It is possible that we simply can't understand it, therefore we cannot rule out the possibility. I don't think anybody is saying that your hypothesis is implausible. Of course it is possible that there might be something beyond the Universe (depending on your definition) that caused it. But you still haven't even begun to hint at a reason (other than your apparent lack of imagination) for why we should believe that hypothesis to be true. >_> Don't insult my imagination please, I'm an artist, that's what I do. Without my imagination my world would be too dull to endure. Anyway, I have already explained why you should think that this would be true, I couldn't be any clearer about it. I don't know what else you possibly expect from me. Why should I give you any more reason to think that infinity is impossible, other than its incomprehensibility?
"I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 73

Posted 04/15/08 - 07:46 PM:	#52
Wosret wrote: You seem to have systematically ignored every criticism waged against you. ...Or not. Firstly, you need to read up on what a scientific theory is, and how it is different than a common language theory. You need to learn the difference between an explanation and a fact. And you need to learn that I'm not being technical. If you want to be picky, then I'll call my first post a "possibility" instead of a theory. As for your big bang theory, no matter how you define it, a theory is not a fact. A theory is a theory. I know what a scientific theory is, and I know the difference between theory and fact. I also know that they are different things, I mean why would you come up with two words for the same thing? A scientific theory is based on observations, and is predictable and logical. A fact is based on what we already know, and we need not observe anything further to prove them. Secondly, I have see no one suggest that time, nor the universe is infinite, both me and RN have both attempted to explain to you, that as far as we know, time began 14 billion years ago, and does not go infinitely backward. Well yeah, that's because you didn't read the whole thing. Also, if you accept that time began 14 billion years ago, then you also must accept the plausibility of my..."possibility" Thirdly, you need to drop this idea that physics demands that things have a cause, this is patantly wrong, mainly because physics don't demand anything. The laws of physics are descriptive not prescriptive. Um, nothing happens without being caused to happen. Nothing just happens on its own. You don't have to look to the laws of physics to gather that much. Instead of coming up with ways to bend the meaning of humans' written laws of physics, give me an example of something that happens on its own.
"I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1904

Posted 04/15/08 - 08:10 PM:	#53
For the third time now, events happen without causes on the subatomic level. Causality is violated on the subatomic level. Causality on a higher level is observer dependent, and effects can preceed causes depending on your position of observation of them. It is possible that there are a hundred trillion tiny fairies on my shoulder right now. What is logically possible is not very interesting, what is evident, or probable is what is significant.
"I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 73

Posted 04/15/08 - 08:40 PM:	#54
Wosret wrote: For the third time now, events happen without causes on the subatomic level. Causality is violated on the subatomic level. Causality on a higher level is observer dependent, and effects can preceed causes depending on your position of observation of them. It is possible that there are a hundred trillion tiny fairies on my shoulder right now. What is logically possible is not very interesting, what is evident, or probable is what is significant. HOW is causality violated? Have they proven this as fact, or is it "scientific theory"? Before you answer, read the part of my first post that talks about subatomic particles. Also, if something is evident and/or probable then it's also logically possible, lol.
"I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 73

Posted 04/15/08 - 08:56 PM:	#55
Reformed Nihilist wrote: What? I don't understand. I never said anything about any necessity. [ii]If[/i] cause means to precede something in time (among other things), then logically it follows that nothing can precede the beginning of time. If cause doesn't mean that, I would like to understand what you think it means. I knew there was a post I almost forgot about...anyway, I think it means, simply, anything that causes an event. Usually the cause precedes the event in time, if we're playing by time's rules. If something can exist outside time, then it, needless to say, doesn't necessarily need to "precede" anything. Something that doesn't exist has no beginning or end too. Why would you posit en entity of some sort that there is both no possible evidence of or way to gather evidence on (outside of space and time, to which we are limited)? Why do people ask me why I say stuff? Who cares why, we're focusing on the plausibility here.
"I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 68
Total Posts: 7929

Posted 04/15/08 - 09:24 PM:	#56
J.D. wrote: I knew there was a post I almost forgot about...anyway, I think it means, simply, anything that causes an event. Usually the cause precedes the event in time, if we're playing by time's rules. If something can exist outside time, then it, needless to say, doesn't necessarily need to "precede" anything. But that doesn't answer the question. What do you mean by "cause", if it doesn't have anything to do with preceding an event? What do you mean tby saying that something caused an event, if that something didn't precede it? Please be specific and explicit. Why do people ask me why I say stuff? Who cares why, we're focusing on the plausibility here. I care why, which is why I asked. If there is no reason to posit such an entity, it seems a mistake to do so. If there is reason, we should consider if it is good reason or based on fallacy. I don't know what you mean by plausible. Do you mean possible, or likely? I'm not sure that such an entity is even possible, but I am sure that I see no indication that it is likely, and further, by definition of existing out of time and space, there is no possible evidence that could lead us to believe it is more likely.
Nobody ever became a famous philosopher by being a champion of ecumenical hybridism Daniel Dennett Freedom Evolves

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 73

Posted 04/15/08 - 09:42 PM:	#57
Reformed Nihilist wrote: But that doesn't answer the question. What do you mean by "cause", if it doesn't have anything to do with preceding an event? What do you mean tby saying that something caused an event, if that something didn't precede it? Please be specific and explicit. I don't understand what more you want me to say...A cause is a cause, regardless of time. The usual cause requires time, if time doesn't exist then cause wouldn't require it, assuming something can truly possibly exist beyond the limits of time. That's as clear as I can make it, a cause is a cause is a cause. I care why, which is why I asked. If there is no reason to posit such an entity, it seems a mistake to do so. If there is reason, we should consider if it is good reason or based on fallacy. I don't know what you mean by plausible. Do you mean possible, or likely? I'm not sure that such an entity is even possible, but I am sure that I see no indication that it is likely, and further, by definition of existing out of time and space, there is no possible evidence that could lead us to believe it is more likely First of all, there's no need to prod with a personal question. Secondly, you're basically asking me to do what I am already doing, which is give reasons for proposing the possibility of a higher existence. If I had no reasons, this thread wouldn't be a thread. I consider this a likely conclusion, but that is just me, the creator of the idea. That's opinion. It's definitely a possibility for sure, but the possibility is not definite. By plausibility I just mean a measure of how likely this can be. Of course there is no evidence, that would violate the premise of this theory. Whether it's true or not, it would be impossible for solid proof of anything outside our realm. That is, unless, God stuck his hand in and waved while someone caught it on tape.
"I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

Techeth
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 290

Posted 04/16/08 - 05:06 AM:	#58
Sophistry wrote: There aren't any. What are the reasons to think that there aren't fairies in orbit around Proxima Centauri? Well I don't know where proxima Centauri is so I would assume it's out of the range of observation, so there are no reasons. However this depends on your definition of fairies, and whether or not by Proxima Centauri you specifically mean that planet or it a fictional representation of any of a number of planets in the universe. I did not say lets assume there is a enternal thing on the Moon, simply that if the universe is possibly eternal then as agreed it is possible something else is. So my position on the fairies is I don't know, what's yours?
Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon Silence makes the soul feel sick - Timid Timothy THINK QUICK! Your future just became your past.

Sophistry
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 20, 2008
Location: UK
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 46

Posted 04/16/08 - 05:26 AM:	#59
J.D. wrote: I'd say a fact is that my dog exists. I think that's a fact because I can sense him with one or all of my senses. OK, here's another fact. Tell me what the difference is. Humans are related to all other forms of life by heredity. We share a common ancestor with apes, cows and all other living things We are descended from previous forms of life. We know this is a fact because of three main sources of evidence (your evidence was sense data): 1. Genetics. We can see that we share about 98% of our DNA with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. We share varying degrees of DNA with all other life on earth, and the pattern of our DNA fits precisely with what we would expect if there was a family relationship. It also maps perfectly with... 2. The fossil record. Which is an incredibly rich and full physical record of the life that have gone before us. We can see our ancestors and all the transitory forms that took life from one species to another. 3. Comparative anatomy. Comparing the internal configurations of creatures living and dead we can see that we share exactly the features that we should share given our analysis of DNA. So, three compelling pieces of evidence that all fit perfectly together. That's my evidence for the fact that all life is related and we descended from previous forms of life. Your evidence that your dog exists is that you can see him. Why isn't mine a fact when yours is? Edited by Sophistry on 04/16/08 - 05:34 AM
http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

Sophistry
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 20, 2008
Location: UK
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 46

Posted 04/16/08 - 05:30 AM:	#60
J.D. wrote: You're taking my words, rearranging them, and putting them together to mean something different. Here's what I was saying: -Since it seems impossible it is therefore improbable that it exists. -It is possible that we simply can't understand it, therefore we cannot rule out the possibility. By the way, you contradicted yourself in two lines. 'it seems impossible .... we cannot rule out the possibility' Which is it?
http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.