False. It begs the question by presuming an ontology which has not been shown, even with the conditional.
Neither. It’s nothing more than an updated version of shadows/forms. It’s GARBAGE. It’s a Pythagorean Hangover. Silly garbage about what we see vs. some “ultimate reality” or “Big Mac Reality” (reality with special sauce) or thing-in-itself has no place in metaphysics. It’s mysticism. It’s not rational. It is garbage. Period.
Never said it was, and I have no idea how you could possibly think that I think it is.
Please demonstrate how it presumes anything of the sort.
When you say “mysticism,” can you humor me by saying “meesticism”? Transcendental idealism is built on the idea that the only access we have to the material world is through the senses, and we can therefore only perceive them through mind-dependent properties (e.g., shape, color, smell, sound, etc.). Accordingly, we can’t directly experience the mind-independent nature of material entities. That’s categorically different from the idea that there is a “world of forms.”
If you acknowledge that the principle of parsimony is not a metaphysical fact, then your points about epistemological rules of thumb have absolutely no bearing on anything.
Your asking that shows that you don’t understand the concept of begging the question.
No, it’s not. It’s the same thing. There is a world we see (shadows) and a world as it really is apart from our senses (forms). Same thing. Not my fault that you’re stuck in some backward mode of thought, nor that you confuse the fact that our senses developed from reality with our senses imposing categories upon reality. The former is reality, the latter is mystic fantacrap.
Entropy doesn’t describe complexity of any sort, in fact if you knew anything about physics you wouldn’t make that assertion. Entropy describes the total unusable energy in any closed system. Period and end of story.
Also, it’s been proven to be statistical in nature first by Maxwell with his thought experiment of a demon in a partitioned box in which it would close and open a door as air molecules would pass by the door of the partition in the middle of the box. In essence, the thought experiment suggested that all physical states were reversible at some level. Physicists later on suggested Maxwell’s Demon has an added level of entropy, but in itself would be very small in the magnitude compared to the classical interpretation of entropy. Thus, the demon showed that entropy is statistical (in as much as it describes the probability that energy will become unusable at any given time).
Wall of text doesn’t prove anything. I’ve read your website, too, it’s not valid research. So, unless you got some experimental data to back it up, I suggest you pack it up.
Umm…no. If Judaic ontology is incomprehensible or false, then the relevant antecedent is false, making the premise true.
The analogy to formalism breaks down in the suggestion that token objects are not forms themselves. There is no implication in Kant that phenomena are necessarily separate from noumena, or that phenomena are somehow imperfect or flawed. Also, I don’t think the idea of transcendental idealism includes the categories of knowledge, but if it does, then consider my support limited to the transcendental turn. And please, not mystic; “meestic.”
Are you calling non-sequitar on yourself or me? I’m not the one who brought up parsimony, you are. My point is that it has no bearing on this conversation because we’re discussing a metaphysical position. Unless parsimony has metaphysical relevance (which it doesn’t), then it’s irrelevant.
You know, that does nothing to alleviate the begged question.
Yeah, there is. Since the mind (or senses, if you want to go that way) imposes categories upon reality, we only have that. We don’t have ding-an-sich. We don’t have The Form. We don’t have Reality As It Actually Is. We don’t have Ultimate Reality.
And such a concept is no different in essential “substance” from Plato’s forms or Pythagoras’ notion that Ultimate Reality is numbers. Seriously, this is basic stuff.
Your statements contradict. Theistic existentialism implies that a knowledge of something as inescapable truth defeats the purpose of faith. The imperative of God being if there is to be existance is not a recognition of faith.
Okay, so apparently my understanding of the fallacy is incorrect. You’ll have to show me where my error falls. I want to get this out of the way so that we can stop talking about it and move on to your other points. My statement took the following form:
Bxy: Individual x believes that system of beliefs y provides a true account of the nature of existence.
Tx: System of beliefs x provides a true account of the nature of existence
Gx: System of beliefs x includes a claim that God created the universe
Cx: Individual x holds a set of beliefs which provide a true account of the nature of the universe.
U: God created the universe.
A1: If (Tx & Gx), then U.
A2: If (Cx & Bxy), then Ty.
A3: There exists a system of beliefs a such that Ga.
A4: There exists an individual p such that Bpa
If Cp, then by A2 and A4, Ta.
If Ta, then by A1 and A3, U.
Therefore, by (1) and (2), if Cp, then U.
I take all four assumptions to be entirely uncontroversial (though I acknowledge that the second one isn’t structured very well, I hope you can grant me the point so I don’t have to try to figure out the correct articulation). So please, show me how the argument begs the question.
They presume existence apart from existence, even with the conditional. Existence apart from existence has not been demonstrated. Ergo, begging the question. It’s simple.
KoB, Danny went through the trouble of writing up his argument in symbolic form. The least you can do is show him where he is being fallacious, or else admit you made a mistake and continue on.
EDIT: I must have started this comment before you responded. Sorry.
If they propose that they are correct about there being a god (“if it were true”), and that necessarily the rest of their proposals are correct, they’re still begging the question of existence apart from existence, i.e. that the universe was created.
Are you being purposefully dense? This is basic Logic 101. It’s not difficult.