Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Servidor

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    2,749
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Servidor

  • Rank
    Crying Clown
  • Birthday 09/08/1990

Profile Information

  • Location
    The Brocken

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

11,649 profile views
  1. I see. However, why couldn't the universe at bottom be identical with what it means “to be?” It seems to me that that's what everybody who holds it ‘just is’ intends by the claim. If your only disproof is that the universe could conceivably have not existed, God too could conceivably not exist. There are people who are very confident there exists no such thing or being. An atheist's response to your refutation is as simple as shuffling the word ‘essence’ round. Label the universe's essence as ‘to exist’ and it equally well no longer requires a first cause. The very notion of the universe as the sum total of space, time, matter and all physical reality really involves that anything that exists has to be, in some significant sense, part of it. It's only by presupposing there is some other sort of things (immaterial, spiritual, so on) that one can avoid it. It isn't very fair to say we know they exist just because by definition they must. That's purely a matter of how we define them, after all. We can define any number of things like that and thereby populate reality with innumerable novel things. Recall Meinong's jungle. We've strayed so far from the original issue, however, that we've come back to it full circle. The sole refutation available is to show that the universe is a set of mutually dependent causes, the persisting existence of which is only accountable by something/s outside of the causal collection that they definitely, not definitionally, actually are. It is not very simple to do. By a stroke of fantastic good luck though, Aristotle's already done the work. It took a sophisticated account of causality, paired with a world-shattering distinction between potential and actual infinities, that demonstrates the latter are impossible, and rests atop the axiom ‘out of nothing, nothing can come.’ Nothing to do with arguing out of an arbitrary definition. Definitions are descriptive. They are valuable only when they correspond to the thing defined. You cannot define a thing into existence. That would be very simple, but strictly circular as well. Literally “It is because I say it is.”
  2. Saw this and thought of this thread.
  3. What if freedom from pain was happiness? And so the two poll options were one and the same? Aristippus and Epicurus thought so.
  4. I have always found this objection a bit embarassing whenever I hear it being brought up. It's interesting that a preeminently mathematical mind of the kind Russell possessed, didn't see the problem here. The primary problem is precisely the fact that the universe, crudely put, is a collection of causes. A collection of causes cannot consistently account for themselves taken together as a whole. No collection of causes is exhaustively explicable in terms of its parts. If I can explain every domino's being knocked down in terms of another domino, I don't explain how the dominoes started to knock one another down to begin with. And I cannot. I can't explain it from inside the domain of the dominoes, using dominoes themselves alone. God would not, presumably, be a collection of causes like that. That's more promising as a candidate for a brute fact then than the sum of causally dependent parts. Whether the universe really is a collection of causes in such a straightforward sense, is open to enquiry. Russell allows it however. Or it seems he did. Perhaps in asserting the universe "just is," he intended that it is therefore not a collection of causes of the kind envisaged in the proof. I do wonder if the OP will ever get round to their refutation though lol.
  5. Wonder! Aristotle and Socrates for the win. The other two, without suggesting they have no merits in other respects and contexts, don't seem to me capable of doing the work here. Skepticism as an attitude or tendency has a 'can't-do' touch to it. It is broadly negative. Good at breaking, but not for building. Skeptics are in their element telling or showing you what isn't the case or what you don't know. Fear of the Lord, I don't see has anything to do with knowing as such. I can't see somebody seriously saying they know anything, outside of a strict religious framework, because they fear the Lord. Both these claims fall to a further fatal flaw they share, which wonder does not: that they presuppose knowledge. Knowledge precedes them. In the absence of backwards causation, they can't very well be its beginning then. Skepticism takes time and experience to develop and distil in a mind. Fear of the Lord requires considerable background knowledge. About the Lord, why one would fear them, so on. Wonder? It's the first thing we do! A child's eyes light up and their brains work away on perceived perplexities well before they begin to talk. Once they can, it is all questions. "Who's that?" "Why this?" "If I Y will X happen?" Questions coupled with a positive, proactive, 'can-do' approach. That's the beginning of knowledge. That is wonder.
  6. Welcome back.  Where have you been?  Long time we haven't heard from you.

    Update us in your latest journey in your life.  

  7. So cute! And now I own a company and my boss works for me.
  8. If you're ever beginning to take yourself slightly too seriously, reread something you wrote on a discussion forum four years ago.
  9. Salaam alaikum and Здравствуйте.

  10. Salam Brother, I just wanted you to know your refuting of Anti-Quran Science is why I have regained faith in the Quran thanks alot.

  11. Just so everyone knows, today is national cat day in the Russian Federation— Yes. In Russia there is a cat day on a par with mother's day, father's day, book day, museum day and so on.
  12. The applicant must be Australian.
  13. People in the West are apparently afraid that Russian hackers are after them. This cartoon is, probably unintentionally, doubly funny because a lot of the best upload hosts as well as the best anti-virus system (Kaspersky) are indeed Russian.
×
×
  • Create New...