How can you construct a counter-proof within the theist belief system when there is no solid construct to begin with?

That's when you look nervously at the theist and cross to the other side of the street and hope they don't flip any literature at you and ask for "donations".

---

TEAM
LL

/em wades into the fray.

I must say the entertainment value alone of these threads has provided me with several hours of enjoyment.

By all means keep up the good work.

It is my firm belief that the hope of humanity lies with people such as you find here. The ones that mainstream society don't really understand or want to listen to.

And thanks again.

/goes back to lurking in the shadows.

---

How can you construct a counter-proof within the theist belief system when there is no solid construct to begin with?

That's when you look nervously at the theist and cross to the other side of the street and hope they don't flip any literature at you and ask for "donations".

Precisely. Even to attempt such an 'argument' is to toss reason out the window and implicitly accept the premises of the theist as being valid. I don't have to argue against the existence of the Cheshire Cat by using the 'construct' of Alice In Wonderland instead of reason, logic, and evidence.

One epistemology (reason) conflicts with the other (mysticism) in a way that is thoroughly incompatible. It's either or.

There cannot be a compromise between the two. You can't use one on Monday and the other on Tuesdays and presume that what you are doing is anything resembling 'thought' not to mention maintain consistency. Subjectivist philosophers notwithstanding....

------------still waiting to hear what Octagon actually believes in. Barring that I'll look forward to his latest word count he's posted here in the forums. We've got to be up to about 8,000 words now and I still don't have a clue. I am certain this is not a failure of my faculties.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

How can you construct a counter-proof within the theist belief system when there is no solid construct to begin with?

That's when you look nervously at the theist and cross to the other side of the street and hope they don't flip any literature at you and ask for "donations".

This is a good point.

Never argue with a fool, they will pull you down to their level and beat you with experience.

---

Funny how we get bogged down in lyrical philosophical arguments when the question at hand, and its answer are so simply stated.

Q: Why is there anything?
A: We don't have a clue.

Any conjecture beyond that point is just that...conjecture. Not a single one of us "knows" that God exists, just as not a single one of us "knows" that he doesn't exist.

It is an inexplicable, mind-blowing observation to realize we've been "thrown into existence", without a clue as to how we got here, or why it happened.

Thus, the only cogent, fundamentally logical belief system based on both our predicament and all that we can observe through scientific means, can be stated simply as ---- hopeful agnosticsm.

Funny how we get bogged down in lyrical philosophical arguments when the question at hand, and its answer are so simply stated.

Q: Why is there anything?
A: We don't have a clue.

Any conjecture beyond that point is just that...conjecture. Not a single one of us "knows" that God exists, just as not a single one of us "knows" that he doesn't exist.

It is an inexplicable, mind-blowing observation to realize we've been "thrown into existence", without a clue as to how we got here, or why it happened.

Thus, the only cogent, fundamentally logical belief system based on both our predicament and all that we can observe through scientific means, can be stated simply as ---- hopeful agnosticsm.

Got to really take issue with you here. The existential (i refer here also to that as the proper name of said school of thought) question "Why is there anything" presupposes that there is a teleological answer. It is related to the question "why is there something instead of nothing?". That presupposes that a Universe composed of 'nothing' is an actual alternative to a Universe WITH something, matter, energy, and the like. Simply put there is no such thing as a 'nothing'. A nothing has no identity. It has no characteristics of any sort. If it did it wouldn't be a nothing, it would be a something.

Answer to your question? Of course there is something. Existence is fundamental and presupposed by all possible questions. It is axiomatic in that it is beyond provability because it is THE FOUNDATION of proof of all things. It is beyond scrutiny of any sort in any conceivable manner; by us or hyper intelligent godlike alien beings...... The axiom 'Existence exists' is the first of the 3 (rational) axioms of philosophy. The 2nd is 'The law of identity', meaning that which exists is what it is. The 3rd is 'Consciousness is conscious'. There are things that exist that I am conscious of.

The failure of the existentialists in the past century to recognize these axioms and be done with their nonsense is a great vexation to me......

ps Hopeful agnosticism? Hoping for what? Agnostic? What is it that you don't know?

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

I'm wondering what separated the something from the nothing.

---

TEAM
LL

I'm wondering what separated the something from the nothing.

I can't tell if you are jesting with me here, but the answer is 'nothing'. The concept 'seperation' presupposes the concept 'existence'. And it is also an ontologically relative concept requiring at minimum of two entities to appy to reality, ie be useful/truthful.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Answer to your question? Of course there is something. Existence is fundamental and presupposed by all possible questions. It is axiomatic in that it is beyond provability because it is THE FOUNDATION of proof of all things. It is beyond scrutiny of any sort in any conceivable manner; by us or hyper intelligent godlike alien beings...... The axiom 'Existence exists' is the first of the 3 (rational) axioms of philosophy. The 2nd is 'The law of identity', meaning that which exists is what it is. The 3rd is 'Consciousness is conscious'. There are things that exist that I am conscious of.

The failure of the existentialists in the past century to recognize these axioms and be done with their nonsense is a great vexation to me......

How is existence presupposed, when existence is the question?

It is only presupposed because it is unanswerable.

Since it is unanswerable, you internalize it as the framework for your debate, as did Aristotle 2,300 years ago.

Since it is unanswerable, it must be accepted to continue discussion.

However, it is ultimately the only question of interest.

Answer to your question? Of course there is something. Existence is fundamental and presupposed by all possible questions. It is axiomatic in that it is beyond provability because it is THE FOUNDATION of proof of all things. It is beyond scrutiny of any sort in any conceivable manner; by us or hyper intelligent godlike alien beings...... The axiom 'Existence exists' is the first of the 3 (rational) axioms of philosophy. The 2nd is 'The law of identity', meaning that which exists is what it is. The 3rd is 'Consciousness is conscious'. There are things that exist that I am conscious of.

The failure of the existentialists in the past century to recognize these axioms and be done with their nonsense is a great vexation to me......

How is existence presupposed, when existence is the question?

It is only presupposed because it is unanswerable.

Since it is unanswerable, you internalize it as the framework for your debate, as did Aristotle 2,300 years ago.

Since it is unanswerable, it must be accepted to continue discussion.

However, it is ultimately the only question of interest.

And your alternative to how it is you are able to type here ? Even if you are a robot,.....it exists or not? Do not tire me with 100 year old pessimistic arguments that suggest I do not exist while typing this message.

Unanswerable??? It doesn't require an answer as it is axiomatic. It precludes all possible answers...Answers of what? About what?? Answers to questions about what subject matter? Existence? It is presuppositional. Do you mean to say that your subject matter is not in accordance with things that exist? Are we dealing with Leprechauns and Unicorns here? Come on.

Then who am I talking to? Stretch the imagination for a minute...maybe you are a computer (bear with me, folks---the Cartesian dilemma)?

You by definition exist here? how? It's a constructive analysis. All of this nonsense is well, just nonsense.

Let me know when/if you have received evidence that you or other facts do not exist. I'm curious to understand how it is you can correspond with something that by deinition has ZERO ability to become aware to you......your dichotomy is so simply overcome it almost makes me believe you do not believe what you are professing to believe......perhaps you should bivouac in a cabin.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

And your alternative to how it is you are able to type here ? Even if you are a robot,.....it exists or not? Do not tire me with 100 year old pessimistic arguments that suggest I do not exist while typing this message.
[snip]

The CAUSE of our existence Robert, the CAUSE.

And your alternative to how it is you are able to type here ? Even if you are a robot,.....it exists or not? Do not tire me with 100 year old pessimistic arguments that suggest I do not exist while typing this message.
[snip]

The CAUSE of our existence Robert, the CAUSE.

There is not one cause of our existence. Does this shock you?

Existence just IS...IT JUST IS.

Let me explain it to you another way...what would you compare this question to? To nothingness? Why? That is a non comparison. If that is what you are after why do you seek a Universe without qualities? A universe without qualities is a non universe, a NON- EXISTENCE.......YOU SEEK something beyond the knowable.....beyond the universe (s). Your philosophy leads to mystical epistemology and therefore mystical precepts of morality as already implied by your posts. A 'god' that is known to science is just one more item in the known universe that is subject to scientific scruitiny (at this point the philosophers must yield to the scientist....and let the scientist exercise his power of observation...)

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Existence just IS...IT JUST IS.

Let me explain it to you another way...what would you compare this question to? To nothingness? Why? That is a non comparison. If that is what you are after why do you seek a Universe without qualities? A universe without qualities is a non universe, a NON- EXISTENCE.......YOU SEEK something beyond the knowable.....beyond the universe (s). Your philosophy leads to mystical epistemology and therefore mystical precepts of morality as already implied by your posts. A 'god' that is known to science is just one more item in the known universe that is subject to scientific scruitiny (at this point the philosophers must yield to the scientist....and let the scientist exercise his power of observation...)

I agree that to all we can know and observe, existence just IS. As I mentioned above, we have been 'thrown into existence' without any knowledge as to why. That, however, appears to end your inquiry, because beyond that lie questions that lead to unknowable or unprovable answers. It is a philosophical and scientific abyss. However, as a scientist and philosopher, is it not worth peering into the abyss?

Let the clock run in reverse, past your parents, your grandparents, through decades, centuries, millenia, past the dinosaurs, comet impacts, the primordial soup, the rocky volcanic turbulence, the condensing of atoms, billions of years of expansion......

And we arrive at a small marble, one that holds all that is and all that will become.

[I presume you accept the Big Bang Theory, one which has been bolstered by all subsequent scientific observations, such as temperature, hydrogen/helium concentrations, microwave background radiation.]

So, we're back at our marble.

If you accept it, it becomes one definitive 'starting point'.

[Now, as an intellectual aside, keep in mind such an idea has only been around for the past half century, orders of magnitude more recent than the philosophical, religious or otherwise mystical theories.]

However, back to the marble.

Of the marble, do you not ask --

For how long was it there?
What was there before?
Why is there a marble at all?

Does the abyss temper your intellectual curiosity?

And we arrive at a small marble, one that holds all that is and all that will become.

[I presume you accept the Big Bang Theory, one which has been bolstered by all subsequent scientific observations, such as temperature, hydrogen/helium concentrations, microwave background radiation.]

There are other theories out there provoking serious inquiry, such as modified steady state and pulse theories.

So, we're back at our marble.

If you accept it, it becomes one definitive 'starting point'.

I'll accept it for the sake of this post, but even with one 'true' theory it's still more complex than you thought.

Of the marble, do you not ask --

For how long was it there?
What was there before?
Why is there a marble at all?

Does the abyss temper your intellectual curiosity?

The marble, as far as anyone can visualize, was a singularity like a black hole. Singularities have no physical size at all, just mass, location, spin, and electrical charge. Since the entire known Universe was in this marble, "location" and "spin" are meaningless and whatever electrical charge it might have would be our definition of neutral.

The idea that this singularity was loitering around waiting for the right moment to explode doesn't gel with modern concepts of time (which themselves rely on the Big Bang or Pulse model, but we're accepting the Big Bang model for the moment). Time started at the Big Bang. There was no time before it, so it didn't experience "waiting."

Concepts of spacetime location are only meaningful within our Universe. If the Universe exists within some larger spacetime, it is completely hidden from us.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

The CAUSE of our existence Robert, the CAUSE.

There is not one cause of our existence. Does this shock you?

Existence just IS...IT JUST IS.

I understand that scientists presuppose the existince of the Universe (although I'm unclear if observable reality 'exists' or if something 'exists' because it is in observable reality), but some people are not satisfied with summarily dismissing things simply because they cannot be proven with current scientific knowledge.

I'm not saying you're wrong for discounting them in your own thinking, but when someone brings up a point that doesn't fit with your philosophy (your philosophy being Philosophy) you tend to react by briefly citing a definition without any explanation. When that citation doesn't immediately change the person's point, you seem to get annoyed.

Rightly or wrongly, Philosophy does not have the societal weight of so-called hard sciences. Elsewhere in this forum you'll see some respond to a naive statement about physics by citing a formula with about a sentence of explanation. Debate may or may not ensue. Philosophy is not as "trusted" a science, if for no other reason that its domain overlaps with that of religion. I would humbly suggest that when you cite an axiom, that you give a link to an explanation of the axiom or provide a capsule review of the axiom in your post.

Simply calling something an axiom is not an explanation. In monotheistic faiths it is axiomatic that God created the world, but unsuprisingly this axiom doesn't hold water with non-adherents to the faith.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

There is not one cause of our existence. Does this shock you?

I'm not saying you're wrong for discounting them in your own thinking, but when someone brings up a point that doesn't fit with your philosophy (your philosophy being Philosophy) you tend to react by briefly citing a definition without any explanation. When that citation doesn't immediately change the person's point, you seem to get annoyed.

Well stated. Furthermore, the statement "There is not ONE cause of our existence." is a 'belief' with no more basis in fact than its antithesis.

The difference between science and philosophy is on humorous display here, highlighted by the philosopher's inability to state 3 simple words.

When faced with an unanswerable question, the philosopher rejects all that the question contains -- the framework of the question, the language of the question, the question itself -- and descends into circular argument in an attempt to prove the very question invalid.

The scientist, on the other hand, responds quite simply -- "I DON'T KNOW."
---

Of the origin of life and the universe itself -- WE DON'T KNOW.

I'm a little puzzled at the mix of subjects in the thread title, but what the hey. :-)

I'm curious at the claim that intelligence is rare. That seems to be a pretty big assumption. I hear people say "If there was other intelligent life in the universe, why haven't they contacted us?" My standard reply is "What makes you think they either could or would?"

Here are a few possible scenarios:

1) No other (ET) intelligent life exists.
2) Other intelligent life exists, but isn't technologically advanced enough.
3) Other technologically advanced intelligent life exists, but isn't looking for anyone else.
4) Other technologically advanced intelligent life exists that is looking for someone else, but hasn't detected us (yet).
5) Other technologically advanced intelligent life exists that is looking for someone else, has detected us, but hasn't tried to contact us.
6) Other technologically advanced intelligent life exists that is looking for someone else, has detected us, has tried to contact us, but we didn't detect the signal.
7) (Others...)

I can see merit especially in #4 and #5. Imagine for a moment what our state of technological advancement may be hundreds (or thousands) of years from now. If such an advanced civilization detected us, would they even be interested in contacting us? It could be comparable to us trying to have an intelligent conversation with an orangutan.

But... IMO, SETI is worth trying anyway. :-)

---

Hey - What planet is this?

Why do they cut off the posts and limit to a set number per thread? I wish I could read all that was posted.

---

TEAM
LL

Why do they cut off the posts and limit to a set number per thread? I wish I could read all that was posted.

You can change that in your forum preferences under the display and behaviour setting. :-)

---

Reality Internet Personality

Why do they cut off the posts and limit to a set number per thread? I wish I could read all that was posted.

On my system (which I am assuming is the default unless someone is playing a trick on me), a thread will display the first message and the 75 most recent posts. There should be a link next to the first message saying "Click here to display all messages."

The "window of 75" may be for the benefit of dial-up users, bandwidth conservation, the forum programmer's favorite number is 75, who knows... but it is a behavior that you can change if you find it annoying.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.