Ham -- Wittgenstein gave the following example: You can stipulate the length of 1 foot as so-&-so; you can stipulate the length of 1 inch as such-&-such; but you can't then logically stipulate that 1 foot = 12 inches. So too you can stipulate that everything that exists came into existence; that every effect has a cause; but not that everything that comes into existence has a cause. Craig
> If we "do not have any empirical knowledge of what gives > rise to being", why presuppose there is something that gives > rise to being? It just pushes the question back to where > does the alleged primary cause or source come from? Indeed, why assume that the primary source must have a beginning? Alpha and omega are the beginning and end of finite existence because they represent the limits of experiential perception. To assume that the source of creation must itself be limited to the conditions of finitude is what our friend Pirsig might have called "low quality intellection." I asked you what you believe gives rise to being. Since you apparently have no answer to the question, I'll offer my own. It's based on three fundamental metaphysical principles: 1) Nothing can come from nothingness. 2) Everything that exists is differentiated (by noth ingness). 3) Essence is the absolute integration of all difference. Since existence is differentiated awareness (experience), its primary source is Essence. But since we do not experience essentially but differentially, nothingness is the universal "differentiator". Therefore, in order to experience being, it must be "reduced" from Essence by nothingness. This implies an apparent division of Essence which itself is indivisible. Instead of proposing a complex hierarchy of levels, one of which is Intellect (or mind), my hypothesis is that Essence negates nothingness to create difference. Multiplicity begins with "two", and I define existence as the "actualized" dichotomy of two mutually dependent contingencies, Sensibility and Otherness, both of which are derived from an uncreated source (Essence). This negational division of Oneness into a dichotomy establishes the primary difference whereby i ndividuality and relations are possible. Value-sensibility is the primary attribute of proprietary awareness (self) by which the value of otherness is objectivized as differentiated being. Just as experience is the differentiated mode of awareness which does not impugn the integrity of the subjective agent, the negational mode of Essence does not impugn the integrity of its undifferentiated source. Moreover, since realization of Value (by the autonomous agent) ultimately counters the effect of negation, it may be viewed as the teleology of Essentialism. I know you will complain that I have no empirical justification for such a cosmology, have made it up out of whole cloth, have resorted to that dreaded "supernaturalism", etc., etc. I can only say that it is an answer--I think a plausible one--to the enigma you've posed. And while metaphysical answers are by fiat beyond empirical proof, I would suggest that considered belief is better than presumptive denial. Besides, this is what philosophy is all about. Anyway, thanks for the opportunity, Craig. --Ham > My question, then, can be reduced to: What...gives rise to being?> ...we do > not have empirical knowledge of what gives rise to being. > Coming into being presupposes a primary cause or source.we do not have > empirical knowledge of what gives rise to being. My question, then, can be reduced to: What do you believe gives rise to being? > Coming into being presupposes a primary cause or source. we do not have empirical knowledge of what gives rise to being. My question, then, can be reduced to: What do you believe gives rise to being? That's what we're looking for -- the something that "produces the bang". > What are the possibilities: > I) Everything that exists has existed since the beginning of time > or was created from something that did. > II) Some things come into existence after others but are > not created from them. > III) Some things are created, but not from other things. I will critique your assertions, as you did mine, and say that [II] and [III] are not at issue. What is relevant is [I] and the question it implies: What is it that has existed since the beginning of time? I know of nothing in existence whose being does not have a beginning. Do you? So, if every existent (being) has a beginning, your question "what if you have something that you can't find what it was created from?" actually applies to ALL existents, since we do not have empirical knowledge of what gives rise to being. My question, then, can be reduced to: What do you believe gives rise to being? You can choose to answer this question or not; but I see no point in drawing this discussion into an endless word game. --Ham [Ham, reconctructed] >1) If a particle is [not] a figment of your mind, it must come into > existence. >2) If it exists in your mind, then you must have come into > existence in order to possess a mind. >3) A particle is either a figment of your mind or is not. > 4) :. In either case, whatever exists has to be and being (at least in the > finite sense that we experience > it) cannot arise from nothing. > That's the logic of 'ex nihilo, nihil fit". Craig -- After "reconstructing Ham" to turn my assertions into a syllogism (I did not mean them to be), you not only deny the validity of my logic but claim my conclusion is "not at issue". > If that's the logic, it is invalid. The valid conclusion would be > 4') A particle (that exists) must come into existence. > 4'), however, is not at issue. As I see it, the issue is that whatever exists must come into being. Therefore, a particle that exists comes into being as does a Big Bang. Coming into being presupposes a primary cause or source. You say: > If it all starts with a Big Bang, then there can't be something that > produces the bang: otherwise, it would start with that something. Exactly. That's what we're looking for -- the something that "produces the bang". > What are the possibilities: > I) Everything that exists has existed since the beginning of time > or was created from something that did. > II) Some things come into existence after others but are > not created from them. > III) Some things are created, but not from other things. I will critique your assertions, as you did mine, and say that [II] and [III] are not at issue. What is relevant is [I] and the question it implies: What is it that has existed since the beginning of time? I know of nothing in existence whose being does not have a beginning. Do you? So, if every existent (being) has a beginning, your question "what if you have something that you can't find what it was created from?" actually applies to ALL existents, since we do not have empirical knowledge of what gives rise to being. My question, then, can be reduced to: What do you believe gives rise to being? You can choose to answer this question or not; but I see no point in drawing this discussion into an endless word game. --Ham If that's the logic, it is invalid. The valid conclusion would be 4') A particle must come into existence. If it exists in your mind, then you must have come into existence in order to possess a mind. In either case, whatever exists has to be, and being (at least in the finite sense that we experience it) cannot arise from nothing. That's the logic of 'ex nihilo, nihil fit". [Craig]: &g t; I don't see it as a matter of logic, much less anything irrefutable, > Latin notwithstanding. [Ham]: > So, where does your positive particle come from? [Craig]: > Where, indeed? That's the question that needs to be investigated. > We say that a statue is created from a lump of clay or that two bosons > collide to create an electron-positron pair. But what if you have > something > that you can't find what it was created from? Will you take th at as a > counter-example or will you insist that there must be a source as yet > undiscovered (& on what basis)? I don't understand the point of this line of questioning. I'm asking where existence comes from. What is your "counter-example"? A lump of clay? Two bosons? Everything in existence comes into being at some point in time. If it all starts with a Big Bang, something had to produce the ban g. (I hope you're not going to tell me that Quality created it.) --Ham [Craig]: > I don't see it as a matter of logic, much less anything irrefutable, > Latin notwithstanding. [Ham]: > So, where does your positive particle come from? [Craig]: > Where, indeed? That's the question that needs to be investigated. > We say that a statue is created from a lump of clay or that two bosons > collide to create an electron-positron pair.&a mp;a mp;nb sp; But what if you > have > something > that you can't find what it was created from? Will you take that as a > counter-example or will you insist that there must be a source as yet > undiscovered (& on what basis)? I don't understand the point of this line of questioning. I'm asking where existence comes from. What is your "counter-example"? A lump of clay? Two bosons? Everything in existen ce comes into being at some point in time. If it all starts with a Big Bang, something had to produce the bang. (I hope you're not going to tell me that Quality created it.) --Ham [Ham] > Nothing comes from nothingness. [Craig] > How did you determine this? Isn't it possible that every time a > positive particle comes into existence.a negative one does too? [Ham] > Coming into existence is the problem for philosophy, not what happens to a > particle. But is coming into existence something that happens to a particle? [Ham] > The irrefutable logic first expressed over 2000 years ago is: 'ex > nihilo, nihil fit' -- nothing comes from nothingness. I don't see it as a matter of logic, much less anything irrefutable, Latin notwithstanding. > So, where does your positive particle come from? Where, indeed? That's the question that needs to be investigated. We say that a statue is created from a lump of clay or that two bosons collide to create an electron-positron pair. But what if you have something that you can't find what it was created from? Will you take that as a counter-example or will you insist that there must be a source as yet undiscovered (& on what basis)? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
