The only theory that can explain this is the existence of God theory.
That's not quite true. As in, not even a little bit. The Cosmological argument is one of the three 'proofs of god's existence' that Kant pulls apart in the book 'Critique of Pure Reason' (which I am now struggling through). His response is as follows:
[Before we discuss a position, it is helpful to know what that position is. Here's one site:
(link)
It uses a general pattern of argumentation (logos) that makes an inference from certain alleged facts about the world (cosmos) to the existence of a unique being, generally identified with or referred to as God. Among these initial facts are that the world came into being, that the world is contingent in that it could have been other than it is, or that certain beings or events in the world are causally dependent or contingent. From these facts philosophers infer either deductively or inductively that a first cause, a necessary being, an unmoved mover, or a personal being (God) exists. The cosmological argument is part of classical natural theology, whose goal has been to provide some evidence for the claim that God exists.
Staying with Kant, here's how he described the argument:
It runs thus: If anything exists, an absolutely necessary being must exist. No I, at least, exist. Therefore an absolutely necessary being exists.
[...]
The proof then proceeds as follows: The necessary being can be determined in one way only, that is, by one out of each possible pair of opposed predicates. It must therefore be completely determined through its own concept. Now there is only one possible concept which determines a thing completely a priori, namely, the concept of the ens realissimum. The concept of the ens realissimum is therefore the only concept through which a necessary being can be thought. In other words, a supreme being necessarily exists.
This is the concept that we are dealing with: We exist. Things that exist have a cause. Therefore a first cause also had to exist. This first cause would necessarily have certain attributes. Therefore: GOD.]
Kan'ts Objections to the Cosmological Argument:[list=1]
[*] The proof takes a stand on experience, rather than using only a priori concepts, but its greatest assertions, those about the nature of God, are derived only from a priori concepts. No empirical test can tell us the attributes of God.
[*] Because of this departure from experience (the assertions of this argument not actually supported by experience, only by a priori concepts) the proof relies upon the Ontological argument to be true.
[*] Kant has already objected (successfully) to the Ontological argument:[list]
[*]Conflict arises (please google the argument itself) when one of the attributes is rejected.
[*]No conflict arises if both parts of the being are rejected.
[*]By rejecting 'subject and predicate', not internal contradiction can result.
[*]Thus the being is not absolutely necessary.[/list]
[/list]
So Kant pulled apart the underlying assumptions behind the Cosmological proof and showed that the existence of a God is beyond empiricism to determine.
Tl;dr version: The phrase 'Things are, therefore God is' relies upon an already defeated argument, and is invalid on its own terms.*
(As with all of my attempts to synthesize a philosophical argument, I have to add an 'I THINK' to the end; I am working this out from the source material, not formal schooling. so:
*I think.)
@radu and Red: I wasn't actually being serious with the Darth Bane example, I just hadn't seen his name on a computer screen in a while and felt that it was time. I also like to make constant references to his UNPRECEDENTED display of precision that other characters such as Yoda and Darth Sidious and Count Dooku haven't come close to displaying. It's good for my state of happiness.
My point was to illustrate that my argument wasn't limited to graphs drawn up by humans with human levels of comprehension, but graphs done on the very smallest of scales (indivisible unitary scale). For instance Red brings up zero volume points, which is essentially what an indivisible unit of matter/space is, and that is something that can be accurately represented by a graph. Not by human drawn graphs of course, but graphs of such a precise scale would be capable of representing them. Asymptotes are of an entirely different nature though, they simply cannot be supported by the finite, discrete variable of space which is why as graphical concepts they simply don't work. As for the fact that graphs cannot support the infinite nature of the number line for those reasons, we appear to be in agreement, and my issue lies with the non mathematical application of graphs that are reliant on aspects of the graph of a fully spacial nature (proximity, intersection etc.).
@ radu: I wasn't really feeling patronised (is that even a correct usage?).
Kant has already objected (successfully) to the Ontological argument:
* Conflict arises (please google the argument itself) when one of the attributes is rejected.
* No conflict arises if both parts of the being are rejected.
* By rejecting 'subject and predicate', not internal contradiction can result.
* Thus the being is not absolutely necessary.
This above is the conclusion right?
Not sure if i actually understood Kants position (my english is still not perfect, and philosophical talk isn't making things easier) .
What i understood is that : something exists if nobody objects to it's existence. If nobody exists to object, then nobody will object, therefor that "something" may exist without somebody to accept it's existance . Did i understand well ?
Eitherway these are philosophical belifs and arguments. My state is simple and more common. We have only one resolve to a problem. This resolve has not been proven, nor dismissed, so until:
1)another resolve appears(that is not dismissed, it doesnt have to be proven)
2)the current resolve is dismissed
We can conclude that the present resolve is the only one that stands, the one with the heighest probability to be right and thus the one we consider right (at least i consider it >.> )
When a competition has only 1 competitor, and that competitor has nothing to do with the competition(as in he doesn't know anything about the topic of the competition) , nor does he meet the criteria to be disqualified, he is the winner.
I wasn't actually being serious with the Darth Bane example[...]
Man, you didn't understand my position. I agreed to the example and added that we take a specific moment of time. The example is good to eliminate the "lame human precision " consideration, but i, in addition, stated that it's not human precision, but rather lame reality precision which isn't contested by the example.
I wasn't really feeling patronised (is that even a correct usage?)
Patronised means you felt like i was talking to you from a heigher ranked position(googled it to be sure).
Then all is good.
So again, to admit that something could be split infinetly means admitting the existence of infinity in our reality.
Because the characteristics of infinite disprove our existence, and the existence of everything around us, means infinite doesn't exist and so matter started from an indivisible particle with a certain size created by... single contestant : God.
This turned into a religious discussion , let's return to the science one.
So it doesn't matter who created the indivisible particle, but that particle exists. I don't know if that particle is one of the atom components (electron/neutron/proton).
Also the asymptote is an abstract matter that includes the notion infinite, notion inexistent in reality so we can't actually compare it with reality...my oppinion, opened for discussion.
lol, in the other thread we turned an Imperial atk into a scientific discussion of what would happen to a bullet that passed through a lightsaber, if the blaster bolt has any force and other side topics and now we turn this thread into a scientific discussion about asymptotes, abstract/real, indivisible unit of matter, things that have no tie to the actual topic.
Is this normal on this forum ?
Yes.
We're going back to religion. Now. (There's one rule: no one can report anyone and we can't be cliquish or hostile to anyone else posting. 😐)
something exists if nobody objects to it's existence.
I was feeling lazy so I'll back up a bit and not be lazy.
Cosmological argument: We exist. Things that exist have a cause. Therefore a first cause also had to exist. This first cause would necessarily have certain attributes. Therefore: GOD.
Ontological Argument: "The argument examines the concept of God and argues that if we can conceive of God he must exist."
Kant's Objection to the Cosmological Argument:
1. Even allowing the assertion of 'First Cause,' there is no empirical (scientific/worldly) test that will determine the nature of this being.
2. Because of this inability (of worldly experience to determine the nature of a god) the second portion of the proof is, in effect, the same as the Ontological proof (which he deals with first).
Kant's objections to the Ontological Proof:
1. Asserting that something exists does not automatically translate to its existence. Similarly defining something so that it exists (independent of our experience of it) does not mean that it exists.
2. If we include 'existence' in the definition of [anything] then saying it exists is a tautology and does not add anything to our knowledge.
3. [At this point I am just looking at Wikipedia]
it begs the question by assuming what it purports to prove.
I think that this quote of yours is the best way to illustrate our differences:
Because the characteristics of infinite disprove our existence, and the existence of everything around us, means infinite doesn't exist and so matter started from an indivisible particle with a certain size created by... single contestant : God.
Originally posted by stevieg
I'm a legend, you're not!!
Let's all worship this guy. *points at the legend*
He at least takes the time from his outgoing get laid life to 'stumble' on this forum and even sacrifices his own awesome life to make an account here and posts how we should live to his wickedly cool ways.
I've already learned so much, I need to say win twice and sensor the word bastard.