Posted: Tue Dec 15, 2009 6:12 am
Did I not say so?!? Over and over?!?rusmeister wrote:Anyway, if you don't understand GKC, as I maintain is the case, then there is no point disagreeing.
I knew from the start that we will not agree about him. What is the point in going back and forth? Of course, rebuttals to what you just said about him spring to mind immediately, but I'd rather not. What point?Our old posts don't matter. The impression you had of them - whether due to my expressing myself badly, or your misunderstanding me - is wrong. Now, perhaps, we're getting somewhere. And this is worth discussing. As I've said, it's a starting point.rusmeister wrote:Stubbornly insisting that such thoughts and the discussions that spring from them have objective meaning, and that any truth to be derived is, axiomatically, objective, or it is not truth, I can say that this is not a valid logic chain, at least as stated. The section I bolded is already an unproven assumption. Therefore it is not more logical. The fact that the universe exists does not in any manner make it more logical to assume that it was uncreated - a piece of fantasy at least on a level of the existence of God. (I have no idea on how to easily find our old posts on this.)But there is a universe. It is fact in all ways. OTOH, there is no evidence that a creator exists. It is merely something various people, for various reasons, believe exists. It is more logical to assume that the thing that exists was uncreated than to assume that the thing that does not exist was uncreated.
Yes, my position is more logical, because my assumption does not require proof. Ask a logician.
The universe exists. If there is only one thing that is truly self-evident, it is that the universe exists. The evidence of the universe's existence is nothing less than everything. Each component of everything, and all of those components combined. To doubt the universe's existence is, literally, insane.
On the other hand, there is no evidence for a creator. None. In fact, many, including you, claim it is - indeed, it must be - believed without evidence. And without evidence of a creator's existence, it is completely logical to believe the universe is the uncreated thing. Before it is logical to assume a creator is the uncreated thing (Except in the sense that, if there is no creator, it is certainly uncreated.
), there must be evidence that there is a creator.But none of that is even necessary. Even if my position did require proof in the formal rules of logic, it does not to me. It is a fact of my life that no creator exists. It is the result of perceiving everything I am able to perceive, and examining every moment of my life. There has never been the slightest reason for me to believe there is a creator, so I don't. Should I base my logic or beliefs on your life's experiences? That would be highly illogical. Therefore, it is illogical to assume that, given the hypothetical choice of universe and creator, a creator is the uncreated thing.
Using the formal rules of logic, or my own personal conclusions, it is more logical to believe the universe is uncreated. Therefore, some other line of thought will be needed to make me believe there is a creator. That's what this is about, if you'll recall. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I have no doubt you have evidence of a creator. It can only be of a personal nature, so I could not take it away from you. Nor do I want to. I have not attempted to, if you will look back. I only speak of what I know, and what I have experienced.
No, I understand your view of this. I understand how you can see it the way you do. But you are unable to see how it can be seen the way I see it. Angel's logic is perfect and brilliant. If nothing we do matters (in the objective sense that you think is important), then what we do is all there is. Surely, all there is matters! How can all there is not matter? I have this life, these decades on earth. Temporary? Yes. Paltry? No. My life is everything. Just because it will not be remembered when I and those who know me are dead, doesn't make it less. It is all there is. I mean it with all sincerity when I say it is the half-full/half-empty idea. You look at this view of life, and say, "Why bother? It means nothing." I look at this life, and say, "The meaning is every glorious moment!" And it doesn't matter how many times you tell me I am wrong to view it that way. I am right.rusmeister wrote:This is another example of not understanding my position. We hold this life to be incredibly important and valuable. If by "its own" you mean insisting on it being something with only subjective meaning and coming to a final end, though, then I would consider "my own" to be a very paltry and temporary thing, and I'd be very glad to discover that my life was more than merely "my own".Yours is making my life less important, because it is not truly its own. It is a... what's a good phrase... staging ground? It's purpose is what comes after it. It is not its own.
Angel's quote does express sentiments that we know to be good, but it is self-contradictory and illogical.If nothing we do matters, then it does NOT matter what we do. No logician could agree with Angel's statement and pretend to be logical. It's like saying, "What you eat does not matter because it matters what you eat.""If there is no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today....Because if there is no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness - is the greatest thing in the world."
I could also, by that logic, say that the smallest act of viciousness (or of anything) - is the greatest thing in the world. And that if nothing matters, by what criteria do we determine that it is great?
Nor is Angel's logic self-contradictory and illogical in the formal sense, or the construction of the sentence. You just haven't understood it yet. How to rephrase it... If the kind of meaning you believe exists, and that you insist must be embraced if one does not want to despair, does not exist, then what we do is the only thing there is. Which makes it the only thing that counts. It is deeply meaningful to do the right thing without believing there is a reward for doing it, or a consequence for not doing it. If you can understand that, then you understand what Angel said. Surely, if we can understand that "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo." is a proper sentence, we can get through Angel's using "matters" in different ways.
