Wednesday 2 September 2015

THIS IS ALMOST NON-SEQUITUR

https://plus.google.com/106774038347107328330/posts/YbZaetpCuQx

INTRODUCTION

... whoop whoop! I'm glad that you are all warmed up and ready for this discussion lol. Im glad that you're as excited as I am. Wooooo! Let's do this lol.

OBJECTIVE - BUT WITH VIQ

VIQ = Very Important Question
I see that you are straying away from the discussion context that I am making. That is, the sequitur of subjects-matters like minds, immateriality etc. But you have branched off on another subject matter - RELIGION. I like the way you discuss because you do not like to bother yourself with the branches of a tree but you like to attack the root. hahahaha - you wise and sneaky fellow - i like that. I bet immediately you knew my bias you were like "Drop everything, let's deal with this religious nonsense if not we will not be able to make any progress." Well done lol... I like guys like you.
Now I have to apologise because I know it takes me quite a while to reply. I am a postgraduate on the verge of searching for a job and paying loans to the bank and the real reason I even engage in these discussions is because my friend +carmel Ka invites me to them lol. That is why I discipline myself with dedicated 1 hour minimum each day to associate in these delightful discussions.

The reason I apologised is because I want to reply to you but I too have made an assumption of your axiomatic bias - so far, that you are irreligious - since you are so good at hiding your background in the way you discuss lol. Sometimes, I almost confuse you for a religious person lol - (teasing you). I am apologising because I have to go on and reply to all that you have said even though I think it would be counter-productive to do so until you have answered this very important question:
Have you taken a degree in Christian Theology or are you well vastly conversant with Christian Theology???"


The reason I am asking this question is because I am going to go on along to have to teach or educate you on the how I believe God is very much coherent with sound philosophy.
sigh
So, to play it safe, I will answer "no" for you, for now, so that I can proceed with my reply. But a confirmation from you would be nice too.

PROCESSION

Now the same reason you reject Christianity is the same, but opposite reason I accept Christianity. Your argument, in the form of that demonstrated-discussion tries to prove that. However, I would say that that demonstrated-discussion does not settle well proving your point: That Christianity is a barrier to reasonable discussion. I think that this is a fallacious argument from analogy as it philosophically fails on the grounds of necessity. Why? Because I too could conjure up a demonstration-discussion analogy that could biased prove that you were wrong. It does not prove the point that Christianity is a barrier to reasonable discussion.
Secondly, this is also an Association-Causation Fallacy because the association of people with Christianity or Mental Sickness, does not necessarily Cause the Objective Truth of their argument. A mad-man could say "1+1=2" but that does not make it wrong or right by appealing to his mad incredulity lol. The reasonableness of discussion should be assessed more intellectually objective than this, in my opinion.

Thirdly, Christianity is a very big umbrella - although, we have 1 and the same core-values; and that is "Christ". That is to say, no "Christianity" without "Christ" lol. We are divided into sects; Catholics, Protestants, Pentecostals, Baptists etc. So it would a Fallacy of Composition to use one person's thinking faculty of Christianity to make a judgement about Christianity. This is why I still remain skeptical that Christianity can CAUSE unreasonable discussions.

YOUR DISCUSSION-CONTEXT DEMANDS

As earlier said in the Objective of this reply, I know the analogy is not your case... This is what you want me to address:
You want me to address my own take on this discussion
To which you can critique and logically discuss. OK... I accept :D

ATHEISM VS IDEALISM - a bit of contextual non-sequitur

When it comes to the debate over mind vs brain, we see that mind has different properties as opposed to the properties of the brain. If you want the vast amount of experiments that are out there to prove this point, just ask and I will show you. What I do not get is the mutual inclusivity of atheism and idealism in this same context. Rather than jump the gun, I would politely ask you:
How do you define Atheistic Idealism?
Does it mean that although the properties of mind and brain are different, they are both natural? Because, last time I checked, Atheism ONLY adheres to the natural realm ALONE. So a good logically warranted justification is needed on how an atheist can believe in idealism.

FINALLY - ANSWERING YOU LOL

(1) For necessarily inherent secondary aspect: mechanism:

I agree with this argument. Yes. It is definitely "most likely" as a vast amount of our existential experiences denote this and there are no strong counter-arguments for this in my opinion.

(2) For divided awareness:

Now I understand your context because at first I was gonna ask if you were hastily generalising the "we" in your premise 1; however, I love how you draw out the dichotomy between God and Man. God is Omniscient and HE is aware of everything that is a thing and not a logical contradiction. So yes, I agree with this and I agree that God does not imbibe the same nature of awareness as us and all of us are not enough - even collectively - to sum up the awareness of God lol.

(3) Argument for variation in qualia being the reason for causal activity and mechanism:

I totally agree. Premise 4's "most likely" is used intellectually honestly. Well done.

(4) Against intelligent non mechanical beginning:

Premise 1 does not apply to God - especially the Christian God. This is over-ruled but the Bootstrap Objection of Christian Theology (BOCT). In summary or layman's language, the BOCT says that for especially for abstract entities that the what cause of those abstract entities must necessarily and ultimately be that very same abstract entity. So, God did not just create good, truth, information etc God IS love, truth, information. Why? because HE is the FIRST EFFICIENT CAUSE of those things. So God cannot be "bad", "Lies", "Contradictory-information" because HE is not the FIRST EFFICIENT CAUSE OF THOSE THINGS. So in this argument, and seeing that God is not just a singularity, but God is The Singularity in and of HIMSELF, God does not just have a beginning - HE is "_The_ Beginning". This is also an argument to avoid the logical contradiction that an Infinite Regress of Beginnings exists.
Premise 4 disturbs me - and trust me, its not because I'm religious lol - think with me for a minute. I do not see the logical-coherent-connection between "Absolute Singleness or Simpleness" and "no-variation". I think you are asking for a one-ended stick here and this is logically unwarranted. So please, justify because I totally disagree. In my opinion, the kind of Absolute Singleness or Simpleness you are asking for here is special pleading.
This is also a simple-to-complex argument; which is special pleading. You need to warrant why ALL THINGS must always only move from simple-to-complex without fallaciously appealing to the consequence that "if it were so, then the explanation of the complexity would be even more complex than what is being explained". Who sets this rule up as a main logical objective? Even the primordial soup is not "simple". Even black holes and their singularities are not "simple". In fact, I think you will be violating a Philosophical Assumption of Science called "INFINITY" (1) - that the universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macroscopic directions. Even string theory does not argue for a single-ended string. It does not seem to me that it is a NECESSITY that things must start simple. In my opinion, one-ended sticks are a logical contradictions.
OR
A "Cause" eternally existing without an "Effect" eternally existing side-by, is a logical contradiction.
So I find it logically possible for events to EITHER move from simple to complex or from complex to simple as long as it is logically consistent. But making a law out of one direction must be logically warranted.
This is coherent with Christian Theology and Doctrine because God is incomprehensible; but do not fallaciously equivocate it with the fact that HE can be fully apprehensible.
If you need further Theological explanations for this, just ask and it will be given to you lol (Matthew 7:7) hahaha

(5) Argument for a-causal advent of variation of qualia:

Now this is where I play your game with you for now in the assumption that the above argument is right. Yes, I agree with this argument for that play-along-assumption.

But seeing that I am not satisfied with the previous argument, it special pleads how a-causality can create variation in the ABSOLUTE absence of variation. Where did that a-causality come from? I bring in the BOCT again to say that, therefore, whatever that "a-causality" is, it is therefore God.
In fact, God is a person. In Christianity, we say HE is (eternally) multi-personal. AND the only Candidate that fits that description of a-causality is "personality" - in my opinion.

(6) Argument against brute fact God agency creating mechanism:

I noticed that you are not arguing for the "God Theory" as postulated by Dr Bernard Haisch which is a model of Pandeism. Rather, you only poison the well of Theism's God Theory.  If that is the definition of "God Theory" you're using, then this is a very sound argument. I agree... but I do not think it applies to the Christian God. By virtue of this argument, you only appear to Poison The Well rather than make the well better. Yes you gave a meaningful argument but make it better - if there is no explanation in God Theory for the advent of mechanisms .... where do you consider the explanation to be? If there is no logically warranted answer, then it seems like your concept of who God is must therefore be DIFFERENT from the Christian God. You appear to be arguing for a Monadic Concept of God - the Islamic Kind of God. Well done in debunking that one. I would argue that you're right coz I almost see no flaw in your logic and every other "gods" of the other religions are question-begging and special pleading. But the God of Christianity, according to the BOCT, HE is both agency and mechanism. This is to say we believe in Tritheism of God's Hypostasis. God the father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. In the language of your very own context

- God the Agency - That which creates the cause
- God the Effect - The end of the stick of causality
- God the Mechanism - The producer that allows for transition between the Agent and Effect.

agency - Genesis 1:1 ... In the beginning, God created...
agency & mechanism - John 1:1-5 ... 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3*Through* him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Maybe it was the way that other Christian defined things for you. I'm sorry but many of us Christians just get things wrong.

THIS IS WHERE I EDUCATE YOU ON CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

Lastly, I see you struggling with the Law of Identity. This is easy to prove by the fact that God is Infinitely Great. Even by virtue of the assumption of science in reference (1), infinite exists in order for our mathematics to be coherent. Now consider the following philosophical arguments for infinity:
- The Banach-Tarski Paradox
- Georg Cantor's Diagonal Argument for Infinite Uncountable Numbers
- Hilbert's Paradox of the Grand Hotel
- Hilbert's Paradox of the Grand Hotel from the perspective of Circle's Shape.
- Ian Stewart's Hyperwebster dictionary
- Ian Stewart's Hyperwebster dictionary from the perspective of a sphere
- Zeno's Paradox



We use the philosophy of infinity (2) in the Naturalistic Theism of Christian Theology and Doctrine. Just watch this video so that I do not have to explain each of those points (3).
1 + infinity = infinity
1 - infinity = infinity
1 x infinity = infinity
1 / infinity = infinity - ie according to philosophy lol
In fact, look at the video from time 8:13 to 9:24 - and notice how the circle never needed its missing piece to be complete when looking at it from the perspective of infinity.
But, to say, if mathematics behaves MOSTLY like this, then why is it impossible for God to ADD or SUBTRACT from HIS identity and HE still remains HIS very same identity? The subtracted piece from the circle can assume a new individual identity while God remains in HIS own unchanging identity. God is complete all by HIMSELF and in no need of you to add or subtract from HIM to complete HIM. God is not a Unitarian like a human being who when you subtract from his identity, he looses it lol. God is Infinite and multi-personal in the opinion of Christian Theology and Doctrine.

(7) Argument that mind is made of awareness and qualia:

I agree ... whoop whoop ... well done :) - you looked like you were on fire on that day writing this out lol - figuratively lol.

(8) ontological arguments.

Well, I debunked your controversy over the conservation of identity so, therefore, the very first premise of the ontological argument still stands in my opinion
It IS POSSIBLE that a maximally great being exists
In Christian Theology, when we say "Maximally Great Being (MGB)" we mean that God possesses "Greater Making Properties (GMP)". A Greater Making Property, as opposed to a "Lesser Making Property (LMP)" can be likened to the following
- GMP: an ever dripping tap becomes a mighty ocean and so much more at Maximum.
- LMP: an ever reducing ocean become impossible to exist at Maximum.

This first premise would be better if it said only 'it is possible that primary necessary being exists, ( leave out the 'a' so it reads '.....primary necessary being exists' to avoid automatically accepting brute fact supernatural associations the phrase 'a being' carries and recognize in the argument the word 'being' can be used differently).

I still find it special pleading and question begging as to where "a-causality" will come from to create variation, according to your arguments, when all that exists is ABSOLUTE singleness or simpleness. This, in my opinion, makes your "necessary primary being (NPB)" to be an impossible concept because it would be like asking for a one-ended stick. It is gibberish to me and logically inconceivable. God, according to Christian Theology and other versions of the ontological argument (e.g. St. Anselm's Ontological Argument (4)), is the Greatest Conceivable Being (GCB) and your NPB appears to be inconceivable and not powerful. It would not be "Self-Existent" but rather contingent on some sort of external a-causality. But if you meant to say "internal acausality" then that would be circular reasoning because you will be saying that "variation" existed before creation "variation". So my question still stands, "Where does this a-causality come from if all that previously exists is
 ABSOLUTE singleness or ABSOLUTE simplicity???

> 1.  If God exists then He is a maximally great being.
Well except he is not capable of creating mechanism, so not that great. He can't even exist since mechanism requires an explanation.
Since God is Self-Existent from all Eternity, where the Father Caused the Son and the Son Caused the Father. Think of it, you cannot be a Father unless a son is begotten by you. And a son cannot be a son unless he is begotten of you. Both of you elevate yourselves confluently to the title of Father and Son. Your argument here does not apply to the Christian God. When you're debating against a Muslim, for example, then you will be successful.

> 2.  A maximally great being would only entail maximally great qualities.
True but what is defined as great will depend on your perspective and your interpretation of life.
Although I adhere to idealism, I do not adhere to solipsism. Greatness, in my opinion, exists irrespective of my appeal to my incredulous perspective.

> 3.  A maximally great quality is a good quality to the maximum extent.
Okay. But good for what?
Please study some Perfect Being Theology in the Philosophy and Doctrine of the Christian Religion. (5)

John Mill argued that:
If in ascribing goodness to God I do not mean what I mean by goodness; if I do not mean the goodness of which I have some knowledge, but an incomprehensible attribute of an incomprehensible substance, which for aught I know may be a totally different quality from that which I love and venerate … what do I mean in calling it goodness? … To say that God's goodness may be different in kind from man's goodness, what is it but saying, with a slight change of phraseology, that God may possibly be not good? (6)
The question is not "Good for what"? A maximally great quality is a good quality because it is something that I love and venerate. Even satan loves and venerates "maximally great qualities" <>.

> 4.  Creating things is a good quality.
He can't create anything that isn't like himself. That would violate the law of conservation of identity. He can't produce this reality.
Debunked for Christianity by moi. But the argument is not "he can't do it" ... the argument is "it is a good quality for him to do it". But I guess you were just trying to make a point in your discussion category/ flow/ context.

> 5.  A maximally great being would entail by it's nature the good quality of being creative to the maximal extent.
Then God cannot be a maximally great being because there are limits to his creativity.
You make a category error here and moving the goalpost. Just because God is constrained/ limited by HIS MGB Nature to only do things that are Maximally Great - ie, only greater making things - does not rationally cohere with the fact that God is limited because HE cannot create a Lesser Making Property (LMP). As Christians, we already tell you "HE is a Maximally Great Being". But then you move the goalpost into the logical absurd and say, "But HE cannot create lesser making properties such as raping children or telling lies so HE is not so great for being limited to GMP alone." Then you have to prove that Infinity is limited because no matter how much you subtract from it, it is forever limited to being unlimited. This is logical jargon in my opinion.
Philosophically speaking, God doesn't exist because he would have been alone at the beginning with no possibility of creating mechanism. 
I agree... depends on your concept of God lol. Here's a video to help (I think) (7), (8). Even your NPB fails by this logically sound theoretical testing methodology.



If you start to talk of creation ex-nihilo I will point out that nothing cannot be so how can there be creation out of something that doesn't even exist. There was only God in the beginning so he only has himself to play with and create things out of.
Again, depends on your concept of God. But you see... you prove my point that even you yourself argue for the IMPOSSIBLITY of an ABSOLUTE-simple-to-complex transition and hence, your replacement argument of a Necessary Primary Being (NPB) ... does not stand your own critique.


CONCLUSION

You are logically sound all the way through but I do not think you have a very good concept of the Christian God. And your replacement fails your own criteria under special pleading grounds.
God bless you :D

REFERENCES

(6) Mill, John Stuart, 1865. “Mr. Mansel on the Limits of Religious Thought,” in Pike 1964: 37–45.

No comments:

Post a Comment