No idea which category this should be under but.

[Eugene]

Descartes and st. aquinius postulated that since I can convieve of an infinite being, one must exist.
But I had some trouble with that, mostly that the phrase "infinite being" is a contradiction in terms. In order to "be" you must be limited to "being", I.e. you could not "not be". So for something to be infinite it must at the same time be and not be.... maybe the secret of the crucifiction nu?

[sassure]

Ah, but can we really conceive of an infinite being at all?

[Fractual_]

you can concieve ANYTHING, but it still only exists in your head.

[Eugene]

no, you cannot concieve of anything unless you have some experience with it. And in cases like the boogy man or unicorn or other fantastic creatures they are only extrapolations and idunno the word morphings of different sources.
But every religion seems to have a concept of a perfect, infinite being/creator, and since in everyday experience we never ever have anything related to this it must somehow be innate.
Descartes did this: he broke down all the toughts we have into three catergories. First is the Innate, that which we are born with (eat sleep sex food etc.) then there are the imaginative, things we concieve of that come from experience (unicorns age of empires 2 etc.) and finally scientific a priori knowledge (a triangle has three sides, there are 360 degrees in a circle).
Since we cannot imagine something without experience, and since there is really no scientific justification for a god (in fact there seems to be an opposite most of the times) then we are left with an innate idea. And why would we have this innate idea unless there is a creator who wishes us to be aware of it's presence.... hmmm...

[the dauer]

I think we only use the term being because it helps us find a way to better relate to some sort of supernatural, assuming we believe in that at all. What says god is in actuality a being in any sense that we can understand? For those who believe that god predates existence, doesn't this mean that his own existence is not in itself "being?" And besides, if god created logic, doesn't that mean that he himself is not bound by those laws? He is not his creation.

[osiris]

I can concieve of there being no infinite "being". Does that mean he does not exist?

look, aquinas would postulate anything if it served to somehow meet the appearance of evidence for the faith in which he presided. this is the same guy who thought that masturbation was the cause of numerous handicaps, like atrophied limbs and the such.

and descartes: "i think therefore i am". is it not equally valid, if not moreso, to say "i am, therefore i think." intelligent design supposes that existance is a result of consciousness, but what if consciousness is a result of existance? to me, these philosophies illustrate how arrogant man can be in regard to his place in nature.

much love :)

[Sage-Phoenix]

Ah yes the ontological argument.

I don't buy it eithier. For something supposedly based on logic it is very illogical. Try and present any [lack of] evidence and the response is 'but it's God. God's diiffrent.' which is a lame cop out to me.

It does raise interesting questions about whether something exists or not. After all most people have an idea what a unicorn is (from Disney and all that) but you never see them roaming around. So do they exist or not?

TTFN

Sage

[HuckFinn]

I highly recommend He is There and He Is Not Silent by Francis Schaeffer for further exploration of this subject. Here's a small sampling of excerpts:

http://www.rationalpi.com/theshelter/silent.html

[Eugene]

well, i think therefore i am is a valid arguement, for by trying to prove you do not think you think. And if something thinks, then there must be a something to do the thinking.
As for god being a "being" it isn't a semantic arguement or anything like that, it is just that if something exists it is limited in the fact that it exists and does not not exist. an a unicorn is just a horse with a horn, a morphing of two different ideas while a perfect infinite being is not a morphing of anything.

As for the bible, it has some good teachings and some good stories and all, but it is pretty much bullshit.

[sky_pink]

I honestly can't see why 'infinite' would mean both being and not being.

Rather the opposite, actually.

[osiris]

eugene,
it is a valid argument for a conscious being to make, but what of unconscious objects? are they not also part of existance? and what of the empty space? does it not, in its own way, exist?

really, i think(haha), from the continuation of the argument you give above, it would be more proper to express it as "i think, therefore i think." lol.

much love :)

[Professor Jumbo]

you can concieve ANYTHING, You can can you? Well, do it. Concieve of something (and do please tell us what it is) that has never before been concieved of and which has absolutely no connection whatsoever to anything that has even been concieved of. In short, concieve of something that is entirly new in every single respect.

[Antimatter235]

Of course you can't create a concept out of nothing. A painter can't paint with colors and brushes that doesn't exist, it doesn't mean the creation "must" exist outside the canvas in some tangible form.

And, of course, all concepts doesn't come from experience. They come from other concepts that might be questionable themselves.

[Professor Jumbo]

Ah yes the ontological argument.

No, not the ontological argument; it has not quite showed up yet in this thread though similar things have appeared. In brief, the ontological arguement is as follows.

I can have the concept of a being than which no greater being can be concieved. The specifics, attributes, powers and what not of this being are not important for the moment though one will become so later. What matters is that I can have the idea that there exists a being so great that no greater being than it can be thought of. Now, as the argument goes, existence is a greater thing than non-existence any being that exists must have then have an aspect of greatness above any and all non-existing beings. If I can concieve of there existing a being greater than any other being that can be concieved (and I can) then we know that that being must in fact exist, for if it did not exist than it would not be a being greater than which nothing can be convieved.

For the original read the works of Peter Anselm of Canturbury. It is he, and not Aquinas or Descartes who developed this argument. While in its day heralded by the Catholic Church as a great achievement, and while it has survived to today as a master work of religious philosophy it never really convinced very many people.

[Antimatter235]

Of course if we create a scale of "greaterness" to classify beings on you can create an imaginary "being" that will always be on top. Even if we were to discover such being the previous hypotesis of such being would be just a hypotesis not yet tested (possibly wrong, possibly true).

[sky_pink]

You can can you? Well, do it. Concieve of something (and do please tell us what it is) that has never before been concieved of and which has absolutely no connection whatsoever to anything that has even been concieved of. In short, concieve of something that is entirly new in every single respect.
I can coceive anything, too.

Tell me what to conceive, and I'll conceive it in a moment's time! (Unless I'm drunk, of course...) :D :D

[Eugene]

Okay, see, god is a being of infinite attributes, but one of those attributes cannot be that the being does not exist, or else god would not exist, and would therefore not have almost any attributes then.
As for why physical objects exist if they do not think. There is no real way to prove that they do. It is called methodical doubt basically if there is any way to disprove anything than we simply throw it away. The objects you percieve to exist might not, just as any situation you find yourself in might not exist (think dreams). That and there is no real point in proving them to start with.

[sky_pink]

If you lure me out of logic, you'll have to deal with me being illogical...

[osiris]

ah, but according to you, or descartes, whichever, dreams do exist, because they can be concieved. when one concieves themselves, they are concieving of the object of their "self", are they not? so one could also say, "i think this is a dream, so therefore it is." "i think that is a rock, therefore it is." do you see how endlessly we can "prove" the existance of things by concieving them?

lol.

much love

[sky_pink]

I think it has to do more with what CAN exist. Or, you can;t put these things in context. Everything that one can conceive exists (every object), but not so the situations. To say you cannot imagine a thing (a concept) that doesn't exist, but of course you can imagine millions of non-existant combinations of things.

[osiris]

I am imagining the concept of non-existance, therefore I have imagined a concept that does not exist.

lol.

sorry. descartes is a laugh riot.

much love :)

[Professor Jumbo]

so one could also say, "i think this is a dream, so therefore it is." "i think that is a rock, therefore it is." do you see how endlessly we can "prove" the existance of things by concieving them?
Yet Descartes never did this, neither did he intend to. The cogito, or cogito ergo sum "I think, therefore I am" was a one use statement, and was not intended to prove his existence on the basis of the mere fact that he could concieve of it. The reason that it works is that it was the one indubitable statement that Descarteas and been looking for. "i think that is a rock, therefore it is." can be doubted and Descartes would not have accepted it as having any validity whatsoever. You could be crazy, your eyes could be messed up, there could be some kind of optical illusion going on, and etc. there are many ways in which the statement "i think that is a rock, therefore it is." is doubtful. We have all had the experience of seeing something from far off, thinking that it was a particular thing, then finding out that it is something entirely different once we get closer to it, this duobt can be applied to your "I think that is a rock" objection.

Descartes thought that "I think therefore I am" could not be doubted. It is for this reason that Descartes acepted it and no other as indubitable. As a fun thing to do, try and doubt it. You will always come back to the necessity for your own existence in at least some capacity.

[osiris]

"We have all had the experience of seeing something from far off, thinking that it was a particular thing, then finding out that it is something entirely different once we get closer to it,"

indeed, nor do i doubt that many if not all of us have had this same dilemma when regarding our "selves". some honest looks in the intellectual mirror will show some major misconceptions about what we are, and descartes, thinking that thought is the basis or justification of existance, could be said to be one of those misconceptions. again this seems highly arrogant to me. and certain experiences of mine, of which i will remain humbly skeptical, keep me equally skeptical of descartes claim. i am not disreputing it outright, but i am not accepting it as absolutely valid. There is more to existance than consciousness. How it interplays with that, where it begins and ends, i cannot rightly say.

much love :)

[osiris]

"You will always come back to the necessity for your own existence in at least some capacity."

and here again, in a veiled way, you make my point. if i think, therefore i am, i come back to the point that i must exist in order to think, in order that i may regard my existance. it's a paradox. a self-engorging infinite loop.

think(haha) about it.

much love :)

[Professor Jumbo]

and here again, in a veiled way, you make my point. if i think, therefore i am, i come back to the point that i must exist in order to think, in order that i may regard my existance. it's a paradox. a self-engorging infinite loop.
You should really read Descartes. Again though you are putting words into my mouth, also into Descartes'. In order for your paradoxical loop to hold, you must add to Descartes' theory that which he never said. In essence, you are trying to alter the theory until it becomes something to which you can object. This, however, is rather irresponsible. I suppose that I have to spell it out for you now.

The theory "cogito ergo sum". Has no aspect of "in order that I may regard my existance". Nowhere in the cogito or in any of Descartes' writtings does anything like this appear neither can it be derived from any of his writtings or theories, it is of your own invention entirely and is groundless as part of an objection. In short, you made it up, it is a non-sequitur.

The strenght of the cogito lies in this: that it cannot be reasonably or logically doubted. You cannot doubt that you are thinking, if you doubt something, anything, you therefore are thinking, there is simply no way around it. Even if you are making up nonesense about descartes theories you are still thinking. If you are thinking you must exist in at least some capactiy, perhaps you are a brain in a vat, perhaps you have no corporeal existence and are merely an energy blob, perhpas you are thought itself. At anyrate if you think then your existence is a foregone conclusion. Try doubting it, go ahead. . . are you doubting it? . . . well, are you? Now that you are doubting it, or trying anyway, are you thinking? Of course you are thinking if you are doubting. Now, do your thoughts exist? Where did your thoughts come from? Doesn't matter really, maybe you and your thoughts are one and the same. If not, then your thoughs came from something that must exist, in this case you. If you and your thoughts are one and the same then, if your thoughts exist you must exist too.

There is no way around this one, unless you want to add a bunch of garbage to the theory until it is nonsensical than come along with some great big objection, whoopied-doo!

[osiris]

*sigh*

i was not putting words into either your mouth or descartes(whom i have read by the way). i am however amending the fact that you must exist in order to think, and just because you can think about your existance does not mean that your existance is comprised solely of thought.
so i am not doubting that i am a thinking existing being but that my existance is comprised solely of thought. and if we are then to say that conception of something is proof of its existance, than i am sitting here concieving that my existance is not solely comprised of thought, and though i am indeed thinking this, this still in no way validates descartes theory, for i am feeling it, and intuiting it, as well as physically expressing it. there is a symbiotic relationship betwixt all of these things(and many others), that descartes' theory would wish to seperate or trace back to thought as its origin, but thought is only a part of the ultimate expression/manifestation. existance is not merely thought, though thought may possibly merely exist. feeling can also possibly merely exist, as a residue of energy in a room. have you ever felt a charged atmosphere? you can think about that charge, but your thinking doesn't make that charge a thought alone, your thought is the thought and the charge is the charge, yet the charge and the thought exist simultaneously, thought regarding the existance of the charge through the perception of a deeper sense. and maybe you don't feel that charge, or attribute that as some psychological delusion, and perhaps it is, but if it is delusion, what is it that makes you so sure it is psychological in nature- because you think so? and indeed if it psychological in nature, than it is your thinking mind decieving you not the existance of the charge, so where does that leave you? (note i am using you as in "a person" not necessarily you. i've not discussed enough with you specifically and probably can never know you that much in order to truly understand the depth fo your perception)

there is more to this than either you, i or descartes is percieving, and i am not willing to accept his theory as inalienable, but as a portion reconcilable to all other theories, both those that have been surmised and those yet to be surmised.... and this may all seem nonsense to you, but it certainly would if the only sense you use of the subtle multitudes inherent within you is that of your intellect, as, apparently, did descartes, and countless philosophers before and since.

shrug.

much love :)

[osiris]

to simplify that- i can intuite, i can emote, i can biologically lust or feel pain, and i can analyze all of this after the fact through my intellect and express it through verbal communication, therefore, all existance is not comprised of thought.

of course the process can go any number of ways, involving all or only some of those senses. when we try to isolate any one as the cause we find ourselves tangled in a web of deception.

much love :)

[osiris]

lol. sorry, but my intuitive thought process is in spiraling emanation.

i am also willing to accept that consciousness in some way wills existance into being, but not that all of existance is the product of conscious will.

much love :)

[Professor Jumbo]

i am however amending the fact that you must exist in order to think, and just because you can think about your existance does not mean that your existance is comprised solely of thought.
so i am not doubting that i am a thinking existing being but that my existance is comprised solely of thought.
Ahh, perhaps then our existence is not comprised solely of thought. Again though, for the cogito the nature of our existence does not matter, all that matters is that we exist and, of course, that we think. That our existence is comprised solely of thought is only one possibility. Another possibility is that we exist physically exactly as we perceive ourselves, which Descartes ultimately concluded was in fact the case (more or less anyway).


if we are then to say that conception of something is proof of its existance, than i am sitting here concieving that my existance is not solely comprised of thought, and though i am indeed thinking this, this still in no way validates descartes theory,But who is saying this anyhow? Who has been saying "conception of something is proof of its existence"? Descartes didn't say it, I haven't said it, it is not a concept that has been strongly present in this thread.

to simplify that- i can intuite, i can emote, i can biologically lust or feel pain, and i can analyze all of this after the fact through my intellect and express it through verbal communication, therefore, all existance is not comprised of thought.

of course the process can go any number of ways, involving all or only some of those senses. when we try to isolate any one as the cause we find ourselves tangled in a web of deception. The difficulty here, at least in terms of Descartes seems to be one of interpretation. Descartes did not think that all of existence was comprised of thought. He merely thought that that we think is how we can be certain of our existence. He did not reduce feeling and intuiting to products of thought, he in fact labeled them as kinds of thought, though they were differnt from the thought that the cogito refers to.

To end my spiel for the moment: What you are getting at seems rather similar to Husserl's (I might be wrong about it being Husserl actually) idea of what we can know for certain. He thought that to say "I think therefore I am" though valid enough in itself, was too limited and set itself up too high. If one feels hot, for example, the statement "I perceive myself to be hot" is just as indubitable as "I think therefore I am" or if one should see a blue truck the statment "I perceive a blue truck" is again just as indubitable as "I think therefore I am". Neither the statment about hot nor the one about the truck suggests or is meant to suggest anything about anykind of external reality. Yet, to have these peceptions we must be aware and must be perceiving, which then implies our existence. It could of course be the case that the perceiver is being decieved, is dreaming, is a loony, and etcetera; none of this matters. Try it with something, your keyboard for example, or maybe jab yourself with a pin. This works with emotion too, so look at something funny or sad or whatever. Now that you have done this can you doubt that you have or have had such perceptions? Even if you are looney or being decieved or dreaming you still have had the perception.

Again this seems more along that line of whta you were getting at, and in fcat is both more useful and more descriptive that merely "I think therefore I am"

much love :)[/QUOTE]

[osiris]

yes, you are more or less summarizing my point. i just get such an emanation of damned pompousness from descartes, especially that particular treatise... and again, as you say, he regarded intuition and emotion and whatnot as forms of thought, and i see this to be his most erroneous assesment, and the crux of my disapproval of his entire philosophy. you can think about it, but that doesn't make that which you think of to be thought. only the subject of your thought, even when referring to your self.

but we just went there. i can shut up now.

much love :)

[Alsharad]

So is my existence contingent? I know I exist (because I cannot doubt it), but does that mean that the statement "I exist" is universally true or is the statement true only under certain conditions (namely that I think)?

Hmmm...