Lol. Sadly I have had arguments like this with people IRL. They just think their logic is bullet proof, even though they don’t really understand it.
3 Likes
No one’s denying that a definition isn’t a definition. What you’re not doing is accounting for what allows for semantics to exist. The obvious answer is Existence. We exist because Existence exists. Semantics exists because Existence exists. Whatever is meaningful is true of Existence (though not necessarily our universe). Existence is a meaningful concept that is necessarily at least as real as us because contradictions in semantics (inconsistencies in semantics) occur when say ‘Existence isn’t as real as us’ or that that which exists everywhere (hint: Existence) isn’t everywhere or as real as us. We have not empirically observed Existence to be everywhere, we will never empirically observe this, just as we will never empirically observe round triangles. But we know that it is impossible for round triangles to exist because that is an inconsistency in semantics. Similarly we know that Existence exist everywhere because its rejection results in an inconsistency in semantics. In other words reason and logic dictate that such things are not true of Existence. Not because science falsifies it. Not because science observed that round triangles cannot be true. Again, consistency in semantics. Meanings/semantics mean what they mean. This is an absolute truth. Whether or not we are focused on the same meaning or not, is another matter. For example your label for the semantic of ‘triangle’ will be different to a French man’s labels for the semantic of ‘triangle’. But meanings absolutely mean what they mean (as in they are a priori). This is why translations can happen between different languages. There is only one set of meanings in Existence that all beings work with and communicate with. They use different words or even bodily gestures, but it’s all with conveying semantics in mind.
We cannot even begin to do science or any meaningful thing without accepting that meanings mean what they mean. So when you say I have it backwards, I think you should think this over some more. A computer can’t do anything meaningful without FIRST being programmed to meaningfully distinguish one empirical thing from another. If you think we discovered meanings, or just interpreted our empirical observations with the meanings that magically just seemed to have come from nowhere, then this conversation will go nowhere as my proof wholly rests on the premise of consistency in semantics (as all proofs do) When any belief or thing is semantically inconsistent, it is certainly wrong. And my proofs show that the belief ‘existence is finite and imperfect’ is semantically inconsistent, therefore, certainly wrong. Which leaves only one alternative: Existence is Infinite and Perfect.
Because non-existence cannot make semantics possible. There are an endless number of semantics that we are aware of. A finite computer cannot store endless data. Only infinite can store an infinite amount of data. It is contradictory to say a finite thing can contain an infinite thing. See the inconsistency in semantics? It is contradictory to say an imperfect thing is a perfect thing, or that an imperfect thing, can contain a perfect thing. See again, the inconsistency in semantics?
If you believe in x and x is inconsistent in meaning, then x is definitely false. Science recognises this a priori truth (just to emphasise here, this is an a priori truth. It is not a scientific a priori truth as some falsely believe. It is an a priori truth that science naturally adheres to and is wholly based on…consistency in meaning/semantics. A meaningful scientific theory) that it did not observe empirically, but knew before began making empirical observations, and then applied it to its observations. Your standards are like this: Show me empirical proof that what is false by definition is false. Again, you have it backwards. If it’s false by definition, then by definition, it’s false. We do not create semantics or bring semantics into Existence. We recognise semantics and label them. We label semantics and try to see which definition each of us if focused on or discussing whist making sure no semantical inconsistencies occur.
We do know. Again if x false by definition, then it’s false. A finite existence is false by definition because it is semantically inconsistent. Only one option remains: Existence is Infinite. Alternatively, you can believe existence came from non-existence. But you cannot meaningfully such a thing because such a thing is semantically inconsistent. Again non-existence is that which by definition does not exist. So if non-existence has never existed and will never exist…Existence has always existed and will always exist. Existence is thus infinite. Once you grasp why any x with semantical inconsistencies is 100% false of Existence (which again, is what science adheres to fully), then you may be able to grasp my argument. Until then, you won’t be able to grasp it.
See above.
Again, what do you think falsification involves at its core? It involves inconsistency in semantics. If x is semantically inconsistent, then it is definitely false. Science fully adhere to this a priori truth without empirically verifying it (because it can’t…again see what I mean when I say you have it backwards?). It recognises that that empirical observation leads to an inconsistency in semantics with that theory. So it refutes that theory or belief in this way. Maths and philosophy work in the same way. Except maths and philosophy deal with absolute truths, science takes some of the absolute truths of philosophy (falsification) and then applies them when interpreting empirical observations.
Whenever something (empirical observation or otherwise) leads to revealing semantical inconsistencies in a given belief or theory, then that belief or theory is definitely wrong. I’ve shown through argument that believing in a finite and imperfect existence, results in an inconsistency in semantics. It’s sufficiently clear. I don’t see the need for me to post it again. If you spend enough time on it or if you spend enough time reading my replies on this thread in a sincere to truth and unbiased manner, I believe you will see the point that I am making.
Then I’ll leave you to your ‘understanding’. If you have any interest in gaining any real understanding (such as what falsification actually involves), see my previous post.
If it was obvious, we wouldn’t have pages of you trying to explain it.
1 Like
I am done with this forum. I was expecting the discussion to involve whether or not semantics such as omnipotence and omniscience are semantically consistent or not. But, I see myself having to educate on basics such as what science actually is, and, why semantical inconsistencies in any given theory or belief or statement, definitively prove that that belief, or theory, or statement, is false. Since I can no longer be bothered to debate here given the seemingly low standards here, if anyone wants something conclusive on why the attributes of Existence/God are semantically consistent, then try the following link:
How many postulates did your proof(s) contain?
I’m challenging you to answer this question, with a reply to this post, that contains the answer expressed as an integer. It seems pretty simple. If it contained 5 postulates, just hit reply, the number 5 on your keyboard (maybe with a smiley face so you have the minimum number of characters), and send it. I’m guessing you are not capable of preforming this task without additional help. We’ll see.
1 Like
I spent some time thinking about this overnight. I concluded that I may have misunderstood your claim. Probably because I’ve never heard it expressed that way.
[quote=“Philosopher, post:162, topic:1124”]
Perhaps someone can just accept these truths without any logic involved. [/quote]
Mathematical proofs are an exception. I was talking about scientific ‘findings’. Science does not deal in truths, but in that which can be demonstrated. In that sense, scientific method is rational and logical.
A skeptic, I avoid the word ‘truths’. Although I don’t fully understand, I accept that there are mathematical truths. With in my world of understanding, I’m unconvinced that ‘truths’ exist, including so called scientific ‘laws’ .Scientific theories are an explanation of that which has been demonstrated. No scientific theory is ever closed. Best example is can think of is Newton in physics. Einstein did not show that Newton was mistaken, Newton was merely incomplete. Einstein may also be incomplete for all I know.
You lose me when you try to argue reality into existence.
My perception is reality may not be argued into existence. Theist have been trying for millennia without success.
As far as I’m aware infinity is used as a mathematical concept only. We are unable to observe it. Existence seems to be observable to me.
As a general principle, I demand empirical evidence before I am able to accept a claim.
I think we may need to agree to differ.
3 Likes
The important question is, are you willing to change if you are proven wrong? If not, then quit wasting our time. I can say that I am willing, but your logic is incorrect at best. You are making some big assumptions. Please see below.
Obviously this universe existing allows for things to exist inside of it. It is also obvious that semantics, as you call it, exists because existence exists. This is circular logic and does not prove anything. The fact existence is real does not mean that beings that can comprehend meaning must exist. Any extrapolation is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. You must explain to me why it wouldn’t be.
This is silly. We made definitions for circles, triangles, squares, etc. Applying a definition of a circle to a square, for instance, is pointless. Saying that our definitions for circles and squares are not the same is a fact, but has no deeper meaning. A tree is not a squirrel, but this does not prove anything other than the definitions are different.
We don’t know this. What does everywhere mean?
Once again, silly. If it is round, then it is not a triangle.
There is no such thing as “absolute truth” because truth is completely dependent on how we define things. If a definition we have matches something in reality, then it is true. Period. If it does not, then it is not true. The word absolute does not add anything here and is pointlessly redundant if nothing else. A^2+B^2 = C^2 only has meaning with right triangles. Any other type of shape it won’t. You keep saying the same thing over and over again and it is just as meaningless then as it is now.
Epistemology is the study of knowledge. In order to know something, it musts be measurable, falsifiable, repeatable, and people must be willing to change their model.
You are making a claim that your proofs show that the universe is infinite and perfect. They do not. “semantics” are not infinite. Dictionaries are finite. And perfection requires a lot of defining on its own. You are way oversimplifying something really complicated.
False, we are not aware of this! This is an assumption on your part and that takes faith. You are then trying to use that to say that god exists which, as we saw, takes a fallacy.
Trump had a finite existence in public office. Any problems there? Nope, it’s a fact! Since infinity is not built into the definition of existence, there is no problem with the “semantics”. All we have evidence of is finite existence. Finite existence is NOT false by definition. We invented units of time so that we can quantify the length of time things exist. Is the existence of the universe itself finite? We don’t know, and assuming it is, once again, a post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy.
This is an assumption. It is faith, not evidence. Me just saying that the tooth fairy must exist is faith and it does not make it a proof. Once again, even if it is true, that does not mean that a deity must exist.
Wrong, you don’t understand the concept. The whole point of falsifiability is to prevent ideas from going into our models that are not true. It is easy to make up invisible things. Just saying that finite thing is infinite is a claim itself.
Is it wrong to put unfalsifiable things in a syllogism and expect to get falsifiable things out?
1 Like
This is one area that has interested me as of late. I am a definitely a fan of math. While things can be mathematically proven, it does not make them useful or even real. Mathematicians have proven that .999999 (out to infinity) = 1, but it is functionally useless (we were rounding things before we ever knew about this) and we have no way to ever really prove it. Imaginary numbers were invented by a French mathematician a few hundred years ago and it was seen as something interesting, but useless. However now, math using imaginary numbers is useful in multi-phase power delivery systems. It’s not that imaginary numbers are real, but we can use that math to describe something real. You can discover many neat thigs that are true mathematically, but are have no relevance to reality. The goal of science is to describe reality using math because it is useful. So like our “semantics” friend here, people can imagine all sorts of proofs for things that aren’t real or useful. Especially when they depend on things being infinite that cannot ever be proven. The problem is that people get the idea that things are real when they are not, and even think they have proof. So just going through proofs when there is no way to measure them in reality is pointless and a waste of time until they can be.
Fascinating area.
I didn’t pass maths after grade seven. I thought that was because I was stupid. Found out it was the incompetent teachers when I went to university. Took philosophy. First term was on symbolic logic. I was lost. My tutor was great bloke. he tutored me, free, and I learned. Passed an open book exam at the end of the year.
Today my best friend is a mathematician and retired computer programmer. He’s very patient with me and I learn bits every now and then.
There I disagree with you. Imo all knowledge is worthwhile for its own sake. I spent 13 years in part time study after I left high school. I received bits of paper to prove what I’d done. I could not have persevered if it were not for the feelings of satisfaction and sense of accomplishment which came with my studies.
IF maths interest you, I urge you to persevere for that reason alone.
1 Like
I agree, I’m not saying that it is not worthwhile at all. We discovered a use for imaginary numbers, and even on its own, studying math is a worthwhile endeavor. I learned about the pointless things because of my enjoyment of it. My main point is that if it cannot be directly mapped to reality, it can’t really be used to prove something in reality. I’ve rarely seen people try to mathematically prove that god existed and it was always silly. It wasn’t math’s fault, but their attempted application of it. I’m an engineer, so naturally I care more about the application than the theory, but I appreciate both. The head of my engineering department was a Math PhD, and she was brilliant.
2 Likes
God I love math too. Damn, wish I had the head for it though. Wish I had the head for a lot of things.
BUT I do have a head for money and kids and my rural life and blahahahaha blah blah
Yes I am willing to change my belief system if it is shown to be semantically inconsistent (as should anyone). The question is, are you? Do you understand that when a given theory, belief, word, concept, movie, sentence etc. is semantically inconsistent, you are rationally obliged to reject it as being hypothetically possible? If sciences makes an empirical observation and then recognises that this observation highlights semantical inconsistencies in theory x, it changes or abandons that theory. Any given theory or belief (including the belief that existence is imperfect and finite, or the belief that triangles are round and infinite) that results in semantical inconsistencies, must be rejected precisely because they are semantically inconsistent. They cannot even be possibly true let alone certainly true. They are false by definition (semantically inconsistent). If empirical observations aid in this, then so be it. But the principle stays the same with or without empirical observations. So if the phrases ‘triangles are infinite’ or ‘existence is finite’ lead to semantical inconsistencies, then they cannot even be possibly true. They are certainly false. If existence is finite, then that semantically implies non-existence existed before it (either existence has always existed, or there was non-existence and then there was existence), or that non-existence exists. This is semantically inconsistent. So:
Where existence is finite is certainly false, then Existence is infinite is certainly true. Alternatively, non-existence exists is certainly true. But non-existence exists is semantically inconsistent. So that just leaves us with ’Existence is infinite is certainly true’.
Again, I keep emphasising this point. Existence is responsible for what’s meaningful and what’s not. We are only aware of what’s meaningful or not. We do not create meaning, we label all possible meanings. That’s why you can communicate with people of different languages once you learn which labels they attach to which meaning/semantic. We are aware of meanings. We are fully dependent on Existence. All meanings/semantics that we have access to are purely because Existence is the way that it is. Triangles are the way that they are because Existence is the way that it is (existing). If Existence did not exist, then nothing would exist. Unicorns are meaningful because Existence is the way that it is, not because we are the way that we are. Round squares are meaningless because Existence is the way that it is, not because we are the way that we are. Existence is responsible for meaning and possibility/potentiality.
If you are willing, then good for you. I have lost passion and interest in debating here given what I’ve seen so far. So, I will commit to two more posts on this thread after this post (the next of which addresses your points except the one where you ask what does everywhere mean). It’s up to you if you want to look at it with the attitude that you describe.
What I am doing is saying that Existence is at least as real as we are. That is because our reality (including our dreams) exist in Existence. They do not exist in non-existence. Semantics dictates this. Rejecting this results in an inconsistency in semantics. With that in mind:
You cannot have something come from nothing. Do you agree with this? If no, then stop. You will get nowhere with what follows.
If yes, then you have to explain every MEANINGFUL term/thing/belief/theory/concept in terms of Existence such that NO INCONSISTENCIES in meaning/semantics occur (science abides by this principle, as do all things, theories, beliefs, sentences that seek be rational and meaningful, as opposed to false and meaningless and contradictory in semantics) do you agree with this CRUCIAL point? If no, then stop. If yes, then call this point A and continue.
A finite existence/being cannot produce an infinite existence/being. But it can produce/sustain finite beings. To deny this would result in SEMANTICAL INCONSISTENCIES. It would be to act in an insincere and inaccurate manner to the meanings of infinity and finite.
Infinity is meaningful, so given point A, we have to explain it in terms of Existence. Given the aforementioned paragraph, there is only one explanation possible. Existence Is infinite.
An imperfect existence/being cannot produce a perfect being. But it can produce/sustain imperfect beings. Again, just as with the above, to deny this would result in SEMANTICAL INCONSISTENCIES. It would be to act in an insincere and inaccurate manner to the meanings of perfect and imperfect. Given point A, Existence is perfect. Or do you prefer to believe that an imperfect existence/being can produce a perfect existence/being? Or do you prefer to believe that an imperfect existence/being can have some idea of what a perfect existence/being is, independently of a perfect existence/being? Again, given point A, this would amount to you believing in something, coming from nothing. It would amount to you believing in Existence coming from non-existence. Which is the same as saying non-existence exists. Such beliefs are semantically inconsistent. So you must acknowledge Existence as being both Infinite and Perfect if you are to be rational and semantically consistent (as opposed to irrational and semantically inconsistent/contradicotry).
The idea of us having been ultimately produced by a finite and imperfect being/existence, is falsified as demonstrated above. Again, if x is shown to be inconsistent in semantics, then x is falsified. x could be a belief, theory, movie, word, person, religion, science, anything. If it is semantically inconsistent, it is certainly false.
A finite/imperfect existence makes perfection/infiniteness hypothetically impossible. Yet Infinity and Perfection are meaningful and we exist in Existence and are fully contingent/dependent on It. Again if you do not believe that something can come from nothing, then:
You have to meaningfully account for why a given meaningful term/thing is meaningful such that NO INCONSISTENCIES in meaning/semantics occur.
Cause is first. A question any third grader can answer.
Oh gawd why would you inflict that on people? Think of the children!! Won’t you think of those poor children!!! What have we done to you to deserve this never ending stream of brown effluent?
2 Likes
Wow…
Or our language is insufficient to express states we don’t fully understand, as opposed to a simple three sided shape. Dear oh dear…
Utter nonsense, meanings reflect usage, language evolves and changes over time, that claim is demonstrably wrong.
…and never make mistakes of course, christ on a bike this is bullshit.
I was feeling particularly gay this morning, haven’t been that happy for ages.
Try afuckinggain.
And of course this couldn’t just reflect a limit in our language. Computer means something as does phone, do you think prehistoric humans could have grasped the meanings if they saw either a computer or a phone for the first time and someone said the fucking words? Almost as if there are new things to learn we don’t understand, and our language is inadequate to help. Maybe about concepts like existence for example? How much do you fucking imagine we have left to learn about the number of sides a fucking triangle has?
Awww, say it ain’t so, everytime I open my heart. 
I have to concur, incredibly you actually do appear to see yourself that way. Don’t worry the arrogance will ease a bit as you mature.
Well now, if you’re going to use sound rational objections, how is that even fair?
Wow wow wow, are you saying language and semantics have limits and may be insufficient to understand certain concepts, like…I dunno, existence? Hold the bus, I do believe you just drove a bus through his bombast. I think he’ll definitely take his ball home this time.
Oh fuck, I cannot strongly enough advise against this…
1 Like
It’s ironic how many theists and religious apologists feel this way, when their “iron clad reasoning” is pulled apart like wet Papier-mâché.
So in the end a mediocre flounce to go with his mediocre apologetics.
I’ll sum up, he can’t understand or fully explain certain concepts or states with words like existence or non-existence.
…therefore god exists, oh and unicorns are possible as well (seriously that’s not me taking the piss).
1 Like
Almost as if the semantics you’re using are facile, and insufficient to grasp concepts like non-existence.
Semantics are not infallible, no human method for understanding is infallible, your facile argument seems at odds with that fact, when you keep insisting the concept of non existence is impossible just because semantics can’t adequately understand or explain it.
Try turning off your biased rhetoric for a moment, and look at your claim critically.
Is it possible that a failure or contradiction in semantics to explain or understand a concept, like non-existence for example, is the fault of the limit of those semantics, rather than the impossibility of the concept.
If it helps your argument had you claiming that the existence of unicorns is possible, reason enough for pause I’d have thought.
2 Likes