Marijuana.com

Lothar121

Metaphysical Principles and Definitions

Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR): For every positive fact, whatsoever, there is a sufficient reason, known or unknown, explaining why it is.
Ex Nihilo, Nihil Fit (ENNF): “From nothing, nothing comes,” a corollary of PSR. If every positive fact has a sufficient reason explaining why it is, then something cannot come from nothing because nothing has no explanatory power.

The World: Everything existing in space and time, i. e. the spacio-temporal universe.

Dependent Being: A being that depends upon something(s) outside itself for its existence and explanation.

Independent Being: A being that depends upon nothing outside itself for its existence and explanation

1.) At every moment of its existence, everything in the world is dependent. (Premise)
2.) If, at every moment of its existence, everything in the world is dependent, then, at every moment of its existence, the world as a whole is dependent. (Premise)
3.) At every moment of its existence, the world is dependent. (from 1 & 2)
4.) At every moment of its existence, the world depends on something, call it I, other than itself, for its existence. (from 3 & and the Definition of Dependent Being)
5.) I is either an infinite and eternal regress of dependent beings or an eternal, independent being. (from 4, the Definition of the World, and the Definitions of Dependent and Independent Beings)
Note on Step (5.)
Since it is dependent, the world must depend on something outside itself. The world, by definition, contains everything existing in space and time. Thus, what the world depends upon must be outside space and time, i. e. eternal. Since, by definition, dependent beings cannot depend upon themselves, if the explanation for the world is to be provided by dependent beings, there must be an infinite regress of them. Since an independent being depends on nothing outside itself, only one is needed to account for the world.

Dn+1
î
Dn
•
•
•
î
D4
î
D3
î
D2
î
D1 (The World)
6.) An infinite regress of dependent beings is not possible. (from the Definition of Dependent Being and ENNF)
Note on Step (6.)
Dependent beings, as it were, “borrow” their being or existence. Thus, an infinite regress of them is not possible. Think of this analogy. George needs to borrow $20 to buy food to live on. Mary says she’ll lend it to him but first has to borrow it from Harry.
Harry says he’ll lend it to Mary but first has to borrow it from Judy. Judy says she’ll lend it to Harry but first has to borrow it from Fred. Fred says he’ll lend it to Judy but first has to borrow it from Susan. If George is to get the money he needs to buy food to live on, can this borrowing process go on forever? Clearly not. If George is going to get the money he needs, eventually, you have to arrive at someone who actually owns $20.
Similarly, if a dependent being is going to get the being it needs to exist, eventually, you have to arrive at a being that “owns” being in itself, namely an independent being. Otherwise, something would have to come from nothing, thus violating ENNF.
7.) I is an eternal, independent being. (from 5 & 6)
8.) Therefore, an eternal, independent Creator of the world, namely I, exists. (from 4 & 7) QED.
In response, a defender of the Proof can appeal to the Principle of Uniformity. This scientific principle basically says that what is true in one part of the spacio-temporal universe is true in all parts of it.
For example, gravity operates in every other part of the spacio-temporal universe in the same way that it operates in our part of it.
Thus, if there is pervasive dependency in our part of the spacio-temporal universe, there is pervasive dependency in all other parts of the spacio-temporal universe.

The Cosmological Proof does not conclusively prove the God of traditional theism in all His glory, but it does offer strong evidence for such a God.
The eternal, independent creator of the entire spacio-temporal universe would clearly have to be very powerful and knowledgeable.
Also, the act of creation itself could be taken as one of significant, disinterested goodness.

Thoughts?

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference..
Libertyindex | Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project

 

Cassius

So many flaws in your logic, it's hard to know where to begin. So let's start at the beginning.

You purport no justification for your first premise. How can you assume everything in the world is dependent? This shouldn't be an assumption, if you want to assert it you should have facts to back it up, or logic to back it up at a minimum.

Your second premise isn't a premise, it's a conclusion based on your first premise. However, by your definition of dependence, the world wouldn't need EVERYTHING in it as dependent to be dependent itself. Only one thing in the world has to be dependent in order for the world to be dependent, because if the cause of that one thing were removed, the thing itself would be removed, and it would no longer be the same world. Thus if the world is comprised, say, of the letters of the alphabet, any single one letter (say C) being dependent is enough for the world to be dependent upon whatever C is dependent upon.

It is worth noting at this point, however, that the cause of dependence must be external to the system in question. I.e.: If C depends on the number 7, then the world (which is A,B,C...Z) depends on the number 7. However, if C depends on G, then the world is not dependent (based on C anyway) even though C is, because G is internal to the world even though it's external to C. In simplest terms, the world can be independent if the dependence of its components are dependent only on each other.

Your statement (3) is just restating what you said in (2). You need to rewrite the logic here so you're not repeating yourself.

Statement (4) falls apart because of what I said above... every component of the world may be dependent and the world still be independent, if the dependencies of the component are inherent to the world-system. I.e.: the world is comprised of 6 billion people, all these people depend on each other, that doesn't mean that the world depends on anything.

If you want to prove that the world depends on something external to itself as you state in (4), you need to prove that a component (say, you or I) depends on something external to THE WORLD, not just external to itself. And proving that you (or anyone else, or any component of the world) depends on God is just as hard as proving that the world depends on it. You're really back where you started.

Statement (5) is false also, because even if statement (4) were true, you don't cover all the possible cases. "I" could be an independent being as you suggest, or an infinite series of dependent beings (dependent on each other in sequence) as you suggest. However, it could also be a finite series of dependent beings, with an independent being at the end. It could be multiple independent beings, or multiple infinite series of dependent beings. This'll stretch your brain muscles, but if you think about it, it's entirely plausible: It could even be a finite loop of dependent beings. A depends on B depends on C which depends on A. This happens in closed systems in scientific experiments (for example, we depend on plants for oxygen, they depend on us for carbon dioxide, and we each produce the opposite), and there's nothing that disproves it could happen on a bigger scale, as a chain of causality for the universe. We could be dependent on another (dimension, alternate universe, some other unknown form of existence), and they could be dependent on a third for their existence, and the third could be dependent on us. If any of our universes ceases to exist, so would the chain, and everything would come crashing down. For that matter, we could be dependent on JUST ONE other universe of dependent, mortal, non-eternal beings for our existence, and they could be dependent on us. This satisfies the proposed necessity of the world being dependent, without invoking any supernatural beings that there is no evidence for.

Your statement (6) trying to disprove the possibility of an infinite series of dependent beings is also flawed. The only argument you present is the analogy you give, and you can't prove things by analogy. Analogies are useful for helping people understand a concept, but they can't be used as a proof. The reason in this case: your analogy operates under different, more specific rules than the universe itself. Certain things can happen in the universe that can't happen in a simple financial example from everyday life. One example is temporal causality. We live our lives in a linear timeframe, where we expect that if A causes B, then A must precede B. This is where your analogy comes from. However, what if George travels back in time and borrowed the $20 from his former self? His memories might even include being a philanthropic youth, giving $20 to some beggar who claimed to be from the future but just looked like he needed a meal, so he gave it to him. This can't happen on Earth based on OUR abilities and technology, but we don't define the boundaries of what can happen in the universe -- it's a big place.

Statement (7) deduces the existence of an independent being by eliminating the possibility of an infinite series of dependent beings in (6). Even if (6) were not flawed, (7) still would be, because as I said above, you didn't cover all the possible cases in (5). The process of elimination only works if you know all the possibilities, and our knowledge of the universe is so limited (99.999% of us have never left our planet!) that it is astronomically improbable that any such list we make would ever be complete.

Good job on the latin, though. You obviously have taken some logic classes / debates before, and this is a subject I've tried to prove/disprove myself in the past, so I can relate to your plight. Quad erat demonstradum. (sp?)

Cassius

Come on, don't end this now. That was a good attempt =). Let's keep it going! We may yet prove/disprove the existence of God; if anyone can do it stoners can!

Lothar121

Cassius, sorry about the delay, I've been busy. Here we go.



As philosopher Stephen T. Davis points out, Composition is not always a fallacy. For example, “Every part of this table is made of wood; therefore, the table as a whole is made of wood” is a perfectly valid inference. This is just an example of how composition is not always fallacy. It’s hard to set hard and fast rules as to when Composition is fallacious and when it’s not. In this case, however, the inference in back of (2.) does not seem to be a fallacious Composition.The spacio-temporal universe as a whole derives its existence from its parts. Thus, it’s not unreasonable to transfer the ontological status of the parts to the whole.


I would come out and say the occom's razor would make it logical to believe in consolidation since it is more simplicistic. Thus, poly-theism would not be logical because of the lack of consolidation, although it is entirely plausible.

It makes sense to me based on our system of logic in this world.


I would once again appeal to the Principle of Uniformity. This scientific principle basically says that what is true in one part of the spacio-temporal universe is true in all parts of it.


I love it. I am curious to see your response. These are arguments theists like myself put up quite often. These arguments are directly derived from one of my former philosophy profs.

Buzzby

Even if your conclusions follow from your definitions and premises, all that proves is that you've created a consistent conceptual system. Let's look at your definitions:


The universe exists. Why would anyone assume that there is a reason that it exists? If physics knows what's going on, at one time the universe did not exist. In an instant, for no particular reason, it came into being as a random event in the quantum soup that underlies all the universes.


Again, physics indicates that subatomic particles are constantly appearing and disappearing from the universe. This is the source of Steven Hawkings' interpretation that black holes gradually dissipate. Particles normally appear with their antiparticles and then annihilate each other. If they appear at the event horizon of a black hole the anti-particle can get sucked in, reducing the hole's mass and the normal particle escapes, increasing the mass of the universe.

Everything with which we normally interact is dependent on the existence of the universe, but the universe itself is not dependent on anything else. Nothing in this system requires an outside agency for its existence.

#3 does not follow from #1 and #2 because premise #2 is incorrect. The fact that all the components of a system have a particular property does not imply that the overall system has that property. Following your logic you could say, "Every part of the human body lacks consciousness, therefore a human being is not conscious" or "Human beings are composed of matter. Matter is not intelligent. Therefore human beings are not intelligent". The whole is not only greater than the sum of its parts, it is also fundamentally different than its parts. The interaction of components creates a new form of existence (epiphenomena).

__________________

 

silverspork

Bottom line: You either beleive or you don't. There is no real proof god exists, or that he doesnt for that matter. Too many flaws on both sides.

Hiz Highness

The difference being that one side claims to have all the answers (religion) and one does not (science). One can be tested, proven, and reaffirmed (science), and one can not (religion).

-HH

Cassius

The whole thing strikes me as ludicrous, in that the definition of what "God" is happens to change to fit the circumstances. Something good happens? You're blessed that God loves you that much. Something bad happens? God works in mysterious ways.

I'm the first to admit that we don't, and probably never will, have the answers to life, the universe, and everything. (Ssshhhh Douglas Adams fans =P). But to take all the questions about the mysteries of life, roll the answers up in one big ball and call it "God" sounds to me like a solution people take when they feel they have to have SOME answer or they'll go crazy.

I, for one, don't mind the suspense. You theists do realize that, even though it's highly likely that there is SOMETHING or SOMETHINGS out there we can't explain, it's also highly likely that there isn't ONE being responsible for ALL of it, don't you? Which means it's highly likely that you're wrong in your beliefs. I prefer to answer questions I can't answer with "I don't know", rather than with "God must be behind it."

Of course, some people derive great emotional and spiritual strength from their religious beliefs, and I don't knock them for that. I just get my emotional and spiritual strength from my own personal integrity and desire to grow and learn. In the long run, I think it'll make me a stronger person than believing that the answer to everything we don't have the answer to is "God" and that 2000 years ago the guy who was nailed to a tree for saying people should be nice to each other was his literal son.

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }

Higher Logic

*shrug* No one can test, prove, and reaffirm the "big bang theory." You're comparing apples to oranges, in a sense. I'll use this quote of mine from another post:

Science concerns itself with the measurement of energy processes and sequences of energy transformations. It answers questions based on objective, observed, public data. Religion, however, involves a systematic attempt to answer the same questions subjectively, in terms of direct personal experience.

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ

Hiz Highness

Science is larger than the big bang theory. A theory is not a law, which allows for some modicum of doubt. However, many religions are generally based on scant evidence (if any) are often taught as fact, and leave no room for doubt. There is no theory of redemption. There is no theory of keeping the sabbath holy. There is no theory of gays being an abomination to god.

The big bang, on the other hand, is theory.

Science has given us everything from personal computers to gel cubes that can stop light dead in it's tracks, and then release it. You can thank science that people aren't dying in their late 20's early 30's on average.

I'd say making a simplified statement like "both have flaws" is an attempt to equate the two where there is no comparison.

-HH