A Defense of Immaterialism: The Debate - Page 16 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14942922
ingliz wrote:Since theistic religions throughout history and their gods have ultimately come to be regarded as untrue or incorrect, all theistic religions, including contemporary ones, are therefore most likely untrue/incorrect by induction.


Composition Fallacy.

Like all inductive inferences, in point of fact (probably some popular appeal, post hoc, and false equivalency in there as well, but its hard to keep track of all your breaches of reason).

;)
#14942928
Composition Fallacy.

No.

Note the 'most likely to be' clause.

Put another way:

1. Most religions of the past have been shown to be false
2. If the vast majority of religions are false, then probably every religion is false
3. Therefore, every religion is probably false

The argument is valid.
Last edited by ingliz on 28 Aug 2018 22:38, edited 1 time in total.
#14942933
ingliz wrote:1. Most religions of the past have been shown to be false
2. If the vast majority of religions are false, then probably every religion is false
3. Therefore, every religion is probably false


1. Still assuming religions to be in a like class or of the same class. I would actually regard polytheism to be anthropomorphic naturalism rather than a form of theism. So, still false equivalency.

2. Still Post Hoc, if religions of the past are false (X) then future/current religions are false (Y).

3. Still composition fallacy (inductive fallacy); as you are arguing from whole to part.

You are still arguing from whole to part; if all past religions are false, then this particular religion must also be/is like to be false.

The fact that you extrapolate (what is good for the gander is clearly good for the goose) as your line of logic should be all that you need to know in regards as to why your reasoning is flawed.

Why past religions were false may no translate into valid criticisms of current religions because of real qualitative differences.
#14942934
ingliz wrote:1. Most religions of the past have been shown to be false
2. If the vast majority of religions are false, then probably every religion is false
3. Therefore, every religion is probably false


1. Still assuming religions to be in a like class or of the same class. I would actually regard polytheism to be anthropomorphic naturalism rather than a form of theism. So, still false equivalency.

2. Still Post Hoc, if religions of the past are false (X) then future/current religions are false (Y).

3. Still composition fallacy (inductive fallacy); as you are arguing from whole to part.
#14942945
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Still assuming...

Still assuming God's mind to be in a like class or of the same class as a human's?

:lol:
#14942950
Victoribus Spolia wrote:They are both minds

They, Christianity and polytheism, are both religions.
Last edited by ingliz on 28 Aug 2018 22:45, edited 2 times in total.
#14942977
Victoribus Spolia wrote:argument

You have no consistent or coherent argument.

You assume God's mind is knowable by anthropomorphising God and reject a religion because it is anthropomorphic naturalism.


:lol:
#14942989
ingliz wrote:You assume God's mind is knowable by anthropomorphising God and reject a religion because it is anthropomorphic naturalism.


No anthropomorphising on my part, only proper categorization based on necessary inference. :)

ingliz wrote:You have no consistent or coherent argument.


Sure I do, its right here if you remember? Care to actually debate it for a change? :lol:

[VS- Debate Post: One of Eight]

In therefore laying out my general purposes and definitions, I shall now give my first official post (1/8).

The argument is broken into four sections that are overlapping, that is, the latter enumerated sections rely upon the ones previously established, This shall be a compounded case, the establishment of #2 being the main point of the debate, which if accomplished, is a guarantee of the pre-agreed to terms as to what would constitute a victory. Everything following number 2, is not the main substance of the debate, but shall be defended nonetheless by request of my opponent.

Here now is the argument:

1. THE AXIOM OF HUMAN MENTALITY:

Claim: Human Mentality is Axiomatic.

Since my primary objective in this debate is to establish the existence of the mental as non-physical (not physically reducible), and since I cannot stop merely there, but also wish to establish the mental as the ONLY reality (contra physicalism), which likewise necessitates the existence of God, it is important in such a complex debate to lay down my first principle in the proof(s) that now follows.

I am going to posit the mental, both minds (consciousness) and their content (percepts/phenomena, et al.) together as a single axiom.

Now before some cry foul and say that this is begging the question regarding the contention of the debate, keep in mind that the debate is not merely whether or not the mental exists, but whether it is physically reducible or not.

I am arguing that it is NOT physically reducible, but in regards the axiom, I am only arguing that it cannot be denied as existing in general without committing a performative contradiction. This is because this axiom is an a priori synthetic proposition.

Let me explain what is meant by this axiom being an a priori synthetic statement and the significance of this claim to my argument:

If one were to merely observe the behavior of humans in the external world, one would not be able to induce the existence of consciousness or the mental from it; all one would observe would be certain outward movements of human bodies. Sensory observation of others alone does not allow one to conclude that consciousness and its content exists (to say otherwise is a non-sequitur).

Nor is formal logic sufficient to arrive at a proof that the mental exists as independent of the physical. While it is necessary to reason logically about the existence of the mental, there is no set of starting premises from which the mental can be strictly deduced. Rather, any logical analysis of consciousness (the mental) and mental content (the phenomenal) already presupposes its existence.

External observation is not necessary to conclude the existence of such a mental reality, and logical analysis is not sufficient. Nonetheless, any thinking human knows that consciousness exists and that he is in fact thinking and aware. How can this be? It is so because of the fact that consciousness and conscious-content together make an a priori synthetic proposition in their formal affirmation. While it cannot be proved from more fundamental starting premises, it can be validated beyond possibility of refutation. Every attempt to refute a fundamental a priori synthetic proposition implicitly confirms its validity. This is so because every attempted refutation is itself a demonstration of the fact being denied.

The axiomatic quality of this statement (The mental exists) is demonstrated in that any argument made to its contrary is a performative contradiction. That is, in attempting to deny the actuality of the mental one must engaged in thought or some form of sensation to engage in the debate.

If consciousness (the mental) is denied, then the debate is over, for in that case I am not debating with anyone conscious, rather my opponent is nothing more significant than an unthinking rock or piece of wood and their words could then be dismissed as such with equal weight. Thus, Human Mentality Affirmed As Actual Is Confirmed As A Transcendental Necessity.

However, this alone does not and cannot resolve the debate at hand, but what is implied by such will below under the next heading.


2. THE IRREDUCIBILITY OF THE AXIOM OF HUMAN MENTALITY (Contra Physicalism)

Claim: The Axiom of Human Mentality is not physically reducible. (This claim is the crux of this entire debate).

The axiom above qualifies as my assertion of human mentality, and it cannot be reduced to what are commonly known as physical properties without a fallacy. This is because the subjective states which constitute the fundamental elements of conscious content (sensations/qualia) can only be related in correlation or sequence to what are affirmed as physical. Thus, to assert a causal relationship (which is necessary to establish reduction) would be fallacious in its very asserting (Either cum hoc ergo propter hoc or post hoc ergo propter hoc, respectively).

Hence, the axiom cannot be reduced in terms of physical (third-person-access) properties because all such can only be demonstrated as occurring in relation to the axiom itself via correlation or sequence, since one cannot infer causal (reductive connection) to such properties (to say otherwise is fallacious), then the irreducibility of the axiom remains valid.

Thus, the existence of the mental remains as actual and it cannot be physically reduced (and is therefore different than the physical). Hence, Physicalism Is Refuted.

[If the assertion just made cannot be refuted, I win the debate given the terms agreed to, and will do so as a definitive victory].


3. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PHENOMENAL IDEALISM

Claim: All that is commonly called physical is reducible to the Axiom of Human Mentality.

The existence of the physical cannot be known apart from human experience, hence any assertion of the existence of a physical reality that is independent of the axiom's content must be established independent of using the axiom's content.

Since this is impossible (a performative contradiction), no reality can be said to exist independent of consciousness or an awareness of such content (qualitative states).

Hence, there is no conceivable mind-independent reality and the contrary claim is contradictory by definition. Phenomenal Idealism is Therefore True and Proven.


4. THE NECESSARY EXISTENCE OF THE TRINITARIAN GOD

Claim: That God exists necessarily and that God must necessarily be Trinitarian.

This argument is connected intimately with the aforementioned reasoning regarding the mental nature of reality.

The claim of this section shall be that the demands of plain reason require not only that God exists, but that He exists in a Trinitarian form necessarily. This implies that all other conceptions of God, if claiming him to be omnipotent, are self-contradictory if not also asserting Him to be Trinitarian. Furthermore, this proof establishes not merely some vague notion of deity as in other theistic proofs, but that the God of Christianity specifically is necessitated by plain reason and the axiom of human mentality.

What follows are some semi-formal categorical syllogisms (I am not being overly strict regarding propositional form, for the sake of easy-reading).

Syllogism One

P1: All Physical Reality is Conscious-Content.

[Established Previously Under Heading Three]

P2: All Conscious-Content is Supreme-Mind-Originating.

[Demonstrated Below]

C: All Physical Reality is Supreme Mind Originating.


Premise Two Demonstration: The physicalist or materialist assertion that a mind-independent reality might exist as the source of conscious content cannot be established because of the corollary to the old principle of reason know as, Ex Nihil, Nihil Fit. (out-of-nothing, nothing comes), the corollary being: Something cannot give what itself does not have.

Hence an unthinking, non-perceptible, who-knows-what (that some call matter) cannot be the source of conscious-content as held under the axiom, for an unthinking non-percept is not a mind and only a mind can have mental content.

A man cannot be the source of his own perceptions (as that would imply omniscience), hence, these perceptions must originate from some other mind. The objectivity presumed in human intelligibility necessitates (as a transcendental condition) that this mind be singular in essence as the source of all mental content (or else the laws of identity would become subjective or relative, which is impossible). This mind is called a Supreme Mind. This Supreme Mind, being the source of all mental content (knowledge) is therefore affirmed as being omniscient consistent with the definitions given in this thread.

Now, If the Supreme Mind is the source of all knowledge (mental content) and reality reduces to mental content, and all finite minds rely on such for both intelligibility and a meaningful (epistemologically) existence, this Supreme Mind as the source of such is therefore perfectly independent (contra mental content/reality and all finite minds which are dependent on Him). The Supreme Mind is therefore omnipotent; furthermore, that all space-time relations reduce to human mentality, and since such originates in the Supreme Mind, then this Supreme mind exists independently of, and in fact contains, all space-time relations. Hence, The Supreme Mind is also omnipresent. The Supreme Mind is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent. The Supreme Mind is God. Therefore, God Exists.

Syllogism Two

P1: All Supreme Mind (God) is Self-Satisfaction-Having.

Corrolary to P1: All Self-Satisfaction-Having Is Independence-Having (See Maxim Below)

[Maxim: To Have Satisfaction Outside Of Oneself Is Inconsistent With Independence]

P2: All Self-Satisfaction-Having is Trinity-Necessitating (Trinitarian).

C: All Supreme Mind (God) is Trinitarian (Trinity-Necessitating).


Premise One Explanation:

As was argued earlier; to originate, or owe existence, to some source is to be dependent on that source. Since all things (minds and mental content) owe their existence to the Supreme Mind, it follows that all things are dependent upon this other Mind, the Supreme Mind called God.

This being the case, that which is the source of all dependency is not and cannot be regarded as dependent. To not be dependent is in fact to be independent. Since the Supreme Mind (God) is the source of all dependency, God is therefore perfectly independent (this was all proven above when discussing omnipotence).

Maxim and P1-Corrolary Explanation:

To have satisfaction outside of oneself is inconsistent with independence, for that would imply that one were dependent on something other than oneself for satisfaction. In the case of all finite beings, any object of thought or perception, as mental content, must necessarily come from God (the Supreme Mind), all human satisfaction is therefore clearly a case of dependency.

Since God is independent, he cannot be dependent on anything outside of Himself or other than Himself.

Thus, to be truly independent (as has been established) is to be self-satisfied (the corollary of P1).

Premise Two Explanation [The Psychological Argument For The Trinity]:

As was demonstrated above in the maxim and corollary to P1; the state of needing some object outside of oneself for satisfaction is a state of dependence, but God is only in an independent state. Since this is the case, God is never in need of some object outside of Himself for satisfaction; thus, God is His own object of satisfaction.

It must be kept in mind that it is impossible for any mind to comprehend pure-self (subject), for the thinking subject and object of thought are necessarily distinct (the subject-object distinction). That being said, an idea of one’s self (the object of thought) is still a reflection of one’s pure self (subject). Thus, it is true that an idea of one’s self is therefore the same and yet distinct from the pure self. Since this is the case, and He Himself must the Object of Satisfaction for God, it follows that God the Father’s idea of Himself (object of satisfaction) is the same and yet distinct from His pure self.

A wholly comprehensive idea (object of thought) of oneself, which reflects the pure-self (thinking subject), is necessarily a duplicate of the pure-self (thinking subject); however, God alone can have a wholly comprehensive idea of Himself due to his attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence (which have already been established). Thus, the Object of God’s self-satisfaction is fully God as God the Father (the thinking subject) is God, and is therefore the duplicated thinking subject of God, which shall now be referred to as the Son, being eternally generated and sharing a single essence. The Son is Therefore Eternally Begotten (Generated) of The Father.

Satisfaction in-and-of itself lacks any meaning apart from, and is therefore, in a sense, the same as the object of love or satisfaction, and yet this affection of satisfaction is distinct from the object of satisfaction (love) itself, in that love or satisfaction is not inseparably related to any particular object of love or satisfaction by reason of necessity. Hence, satisfaction or love is the same as, and yet distinct from, the object of love or satisfaction itself.

Since the Father and The Son share the same essence of independence which necessitates perfect self-satisfaction that can only be accomplished via having a perfect object of such, the Father and the Son (as the perfect thinking object of the Father’s thought) must share, by logical necessity, a mutual satisfaction (love) with each other, as each is the object of the other’s satisfaction. The mutual Love shared between the Father and the Son is the same, and yet distinct, from themselves (as was discussed in the previous paragraph); Thus, the Love of God is fully God as God the Father is God and God the Son is God, for to be the same as God is to share His essentia, but to be distinct is to be distinct in substantia or personae. The Love of God is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is Eternally Proceeding from the Father and The Son.

[Note: The Holy Spirit is often referred to as the love of God in Scripture as well]

Thus, the Conclusion Follows:

The Supreme Mind (God) is Trinitarian (Trinity Necessitating).

God Therefore Exists In Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.


CONCLUSION OF POST:

If Sensation (e.g. redness etc.); Then Trinity.

This is my position and this now concludes my first post of eight for this debate.
#14943009
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Phenomenal Idealism is Therefore True and Proven.

No.

You cannot say that when my hypothesis is simpler, explains the passivity of perception, the distinction between an idea in my mind and what is real, the nature of illusions and mistakes, the continued existence of physical objects when we aren’t perceiving them, better, and is pragmatically more useful when applied to the world than yours.
Last edited by ingliz on 28 Aug 2018 22:20, edited 3 times in total.
#14943013
ingliz wrote:You cannot say that when my hypothesis is simpler, explains the passivity of perception, the distinction between an idea in my mind and what is real, the nature of illusions and mistakes, the continued existence of physical objects when we aren’t perceiving them, better, and is pragmatically more useful when applied to the world than yours.


I have seen no such position. None of these claims have been demonstrated or even argued.

Go ahead and make you case if you have one; otherwise, my proof is plain and you haven't even attempted a critique as far as i have seen.
#14943016
Victoribus Spolia wrote:you haven't even attempted a critique as far as i have seen.

There is no need.

Once you reject the external object of perception, your argument, such as it is, relies on God's mind being knowable.

It isn't.

Your argument collapses.
#14943021
Victoribus Spolia wrote:It is, such is established in the proof, in point of fact.

No, you seem to have left that bit out.
#14943022
ingliz wrote:No, you seem to have left that bit out.


Section Four, Syllogism One.

Premise one of syllogism one is the same as section three, the other premises and conclusion have their explanations.

Now go forth and get knowledge. :lol:
#14943026
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Section Four...

That is not good enough when you assert man has direct access to God's mind, that there are no external objects of perception.

Also this is just plain wrong.

there is no conceivable mind-independent reality

I can conceive of a mind-independent reality, as has been demonstrated in this thread.
#14943027
ingliz wrote:That is not good enough when you assert man has direct access to God's mind, and there are no external objects of perception.


Its perfectly good enough if the conclusion follows from the premises. IT does, so the conclusion stands.

ingliz wrote:I can conceive of a mind-independent reality, as has been demonstrated in this thread.


If you can conceive of it, how is it mind-independent?

To conceive of something is to have it in your mind; thus, conceiving of a mind-independent reality is a contradiction in terms.

:lol:

You Lose.
#14943041
Victoribus Spolia wrote:is a contradiction in terms

No, it is not. It is a trick of language.

The fallacious character of the argument exposed.

It is only by substituting 'things in the first tautological sense of ideata for 'things' in the second non-tautological sense of physical objects that Berkeley/you can dismiss my claim.

I as a realist claim that my conception of a physical thing and the physical thing which I conceive are two different things, and though the difference is perfectly conceivable, its conceivability does not render it mind-dependent - unless of course one is prepared to go the whole Hegelian hog and insist that it is conceptual differences all the way down (or rather up). But then it will take more than Berkeley to establish the absolute idealist claim that reality consists entirely of concepts.
#14943052
ingliz wrote:No, it is not. It is a trick of language.


:lol:

Struck a nerve, the butt-hurt is real in this lame excuse.

ingliz wrote:I as a realist claim that my conception of a physical thing and the physical thing which I conceive are two different things,


Oh do explain, how do you know of unconceived thing apart from the thing-as-conceived?

ingliz wrote:its conceivability does not render it mind-dependent


Yes it does, unless you can demonstrate something as unconceived (mind-independent) without simultaneously conceiving of it; otherwise there is no reason to believe in your claim that there is such a distinction.

We agree on the conceived objects, its the unconceived you need to demonstrate.

Good luck. :lol:

ingliz wrote: But then it will take more than Berkeley to establish the absolute idealist claim that reality consists entirely of concepts.


I can subsume both Berkeley and Hegel's position in this sense; all of reality consists in minds and mental content; per my proof.
  • 1
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 22

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]