An Inconsistent Argument In Human Action.

[Physiocrat]

@I Ryan

If the point got lost in the length, here it is: (1) The only thing that we can do is to try to build models which correspond to reality, but that there are two ways of doing that: on the surface of language or through your actions. (2) You have to do the second, but it is optional whether you doing the second leads to you doing the first. And (3) it is nonsense to say that you could build a model in the second sense that is “usefully incorrect”, simply because that would be wordplay. If somebody always runs from a tiger in the way which leads to him escaping because he gets thirsty and starts looking for water, really what he means by “thirsty” and “looking for water” is what we mean by “scared of a tiger” and “trying to escape from the tiger”. Something can only be “usefully incorrect” if we are talking about using language which isn’t correct in the first sense but is correct in the second sense.

I thought you may go down this line. Lets change your scenario slightly- suppose you run away from the tiger since you believe it to be a demon possessed and as such exhibited awesome strength and power that it would kill you if you didn’t run away immediately. You run and hide and the tiger doesn’t kill you. You survive but believe that the tiger is not only a tiger, in the sense we would both, I assume, understand but believes also that it exhibits demon like qualities, supernatural tenacity, madness etc. In this scenario how would this lead to a true knowledge? Useful incorrectness would seem to be useful.

@I Ryan

First, I don’t know where you got the idea that “the idea of it being infinite in an actual sense of absurd”. Why couldn’t the universe just always exist? Why does it have to have a beginning and an end?

Second, if you assume that it is absurd to say that something exists forever, and that you need to invoke a creator, what about the creator itself? Doesn’t the creator need a creator? This argument is so old that I almost feel embarressed bringing it up. But I also don’t understand how you could use the “the universe needs a creator” argument, considering that it suffers from such a ridiculously simple flaw. If something needs a creator to exist, the creator needs a creator. How could anybody miss that? So I assume that I’m just missing something. Maybe you have a new spin on that argument or something.

But, if you say something like that “well, God is immaterial, and only material needs a cause”, my response is pretty simple: What the hell is an “immaterial cause” and how could I observe it? And why couldn’t we just call the whole universe “immaterial”, assume that something “immaterial” doesn’t need a cause, and move on?

Sorry I should have linked you a more in depth argument I use. I was in a rush. Your best bet is too read these two threads in which I answer objections to general thesitic arguments. The first has my reformulation of the cosmological argument in it.

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/rothbard-vs-hume/11959

Its the Rothbard vs Hume thread. My first substantive post starts on page 3.

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/praxeology-disproves-the-bible/6686

Does praxeology disprove the Bible? I begin on the first page.

@I Ryan

What is a “consistent metaphysical underpinning”? What does “metaphysical” mean to you?

Metaphysical means, to me, the study of essences- the nature of things. Consistent in the sense that epistemology is temporally prior to metaphysics. ie we find out what is true, the qualities of acting man, then study what gives rise to such a phenomena.

@I Ryan

How could I do those things?

I probably reference conscience in one of the threads. By introspection I meant reflecting on reality as we see it and what best explains it. As to prayer why not try it? Speak outloud in your head, whatever.