Workable systems of god

[deathrhapsody]

I've never heard of anyone able to debunk Cogito Ergo Sum within its own Logic, this is despite the fact that I read SEP regularly. I suppose some threads in here are inhabited by the most powerful minds around, would you mind linking me to some of them?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I've never heard of anyone able to debunk Cogito Ergo Sum within its own Logic

Hmm, cogito ergo sum is an ontological proof of god?
Wouldn't a strict application of cogito ergo sum actually be closer to a "disproof"?

I suppose some threads in here are inhabited by the most powerful minds around, would you mind linking me to some of them?

Have you bothered looking at all?
Without going back more than a month we have discussed (in this sub-forum alone):
Aquinas' proofs for God
Can our imagination concieve of something that doesn't exist?
While, I admit, these aren't about Descartes' argument as such they are related and do have a direct bearing.

 

[deathrhapsody]

Cogito Ergo Sum is the basis of Cartesian Dualism which you allege as faulty.

As for Descartes' Ontological argument, it is a report of intuition.
This is of course, must be understood within the context of Cartesian Dualism itself.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Cogito Ergo Sum is the basis of Cartesian Dualism which you allege as faulty.

Um, no. You failed to read again.

As for Descartes' Ontological argument, it is a report of intuition.

Intuition? So it's not actually based on "the principles of valid inference and correct reasoning."

This is of course, must be understood within the context of Cartesian Dualism itself.

Right. I know I exist because I think. I can't prove anything else exists, only me. Therefore god must exist because I think he does.

Brilliant.
Can he prove penguins are chocolate mint chip flavour? I have a business idea I want to try...

 

[deathrhapsody]

Oh, it is validly inferred and correctly reasoned - a priori.
This is simply true since the Epistemological basis for Descartes's argument is "doubt".
As for penguins and chocolate mint chip flavored, they are both a posteriori-ly perceived, therefore we can't say for certain that Penguins exist, let alone to proves that they are chocolate mint chip flavored.

 

[chimpkin]

mmm, perhaps mint chocolate could be taken as proof of a beneficent deity, if not necessarily an all-powerful one....

 

[Dywyddyr]

Oh, it is validly inferred and correctly reasoned - a priori.

You keep saying so, but haven't shown it.

This is simply true since the Epistemological basis for Descartes's argument is "doubt".

Yup. I doubt anything exists, therefore god must. Even more brilliant. I bet that means there's wafers with the mint chocolate chip-flavoured penguins.

therefore we can't say for certain that Penguins exist

Can we not?
You're certain of things you can think of but not certain of things that can be shown?
Do you know what "true" means? What a "fact" is?

 

[deathrhapsody]

To make it simpler;
God is known apriori-ly via a doubtless intuition, in the same intuitively inferred way - our own existence is acknowledged.

Wafers with the mint chocolate chip-flavoured penguins are - once again - a posteriori-ly perceived, and therefore fall into Hume's Problem of Induction. They does not qualify as absolute proof for anything.

While the meaning of "truth" can differ according to our interpretations, "facts" are nothing more but consistence results from repeated observations - neither of these two bear any absolute value in them.

 

[Dywyddyr]

To make it simpler;
God is known apriori-ly via a doubtless intuition

Oops. Assumption. Fail.
I doubt, therefore my intuition is doubtlessly correct.
This gets better.
Maybe there's a free cup of coffee to go with that oh-so-yummy penguin.

They does not qualify as absolute proof for anything.

Pfft, wait 'til you taste one.

While the meaning of "truth" can differ according to our interpretations

Wrong.

"facts" are nothing more but consistence results from repeated observations - neither of these two bear any absolute value in them.

Yeah?

Um, slightly off-topic question: what's your native language?

 

[deathrhapsody]

Your confusing things here as well. Remember, we are arguing from Cartesian Dualism logic. You are somewhat repeatedly and haphazardly contesting a priori inference with a posteriori observations.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Your confusing things here as well.

Nope. You're maybe just not following.

Remember, we are arguing from Cartesian Dualism logic.

And your point would be...?

You are somewhat repeatedly and haphazardly contesting a priori inference with a posteriori observations.

Nope (again).
Maybe you should read what I'm writing as opposed to reading what you think I'm saying.

 

[deathrhapsody]

Cartesian Dualism put a priori inference as the basis of its absolute logic. A posteriori observations simply has no meaning to Descartes' Ontological argument for God.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Cartesian Dualism put a priori inference as the basis of its absolute logic. A posteriori observations simply has no meaning to Descartes' Ontological argument for God.

So what?
You're still no closer to showing Descartes is valid and solid logic.
Maybe you're missing the point.

 

[deathrhapsody]

Oh, I have.
But you just didn't understand it because you still seeing it with reference to the outside world.

 

[Dywyddyr]

But you just didn't understand it because you still seeing it with reference to the outside world.

And that sentence alone shows that you ARE missing my point. Or still making assumptions. Or both.

Keep trying.

 

[deathrhapsody]

There are no assumptions in a priori inferences.
There are only self-evident axioms.

 

[Dywyddyr]

There are no assumptions in a priori inferences.

I bet you're wrong.

There are only self-evident axioms.

There's one for a start.

 

[Yazata]

God is logically valid (depending on what logic one used)

'Validity' is a logical term that that applies to arguments (such as arguments for and against the existence of god), not to objects themselves (god).

but by the very definition is scientifically invalid (at least for anthropomorphic Abrahamic God). But then again, the definition of God is so obscure, it can even be scientifically valid if one is to define It in an extremely unorthodox way.

It's conceivable that a Stoic-style immanent god might potentially fall within the scope of science.

Something pantheistic and wholistic, that equates god with the sum total of physical reality. The Stoics imagined reality as an organism of some kind with a governing mind analogous to the minds of our individual bodies. I know of no scientific reason to assume the reality of such a thing, but it wouldn't be beyond science's scope simply by definition, the way that trnscendental deities would be. It's possible to imagine science-fiction scenarios in which future science discovers that we are within, and perhaps even functioning components of, some vastly larger cosmic-scale sentient being

 

[Yazata]

Well, since you appear to be so fond of asking questions, how about you answer one.
You have claimed that it is valid, logically.
So which system of logic are you using?

Cartesian Dualism

Cartesian dualism isn't a logic. It's an ontology.

 

[Yazata]

I've never heard of anyone able to debunk Cogito Ergo Sum within its own Logic, this is despite the fact that I read SEP regularly. I suppose some threads in here are inhabited by the most powerful minds around, would you mind linking me to some of them?

I think => I am

The 'I' part of the 'Cogito' seems to be circular. Descartes trimphantly pulls 'I' out of one side as if he had just proven its existence, without any visible concern that an 'I' in the form of 'I think' was already explicitly assumed in the premise on the other side.

But I => I is a tautology.

If we remove the 'I' from both sides, the 'cogito' reduces to --

thinking (exists or happens) => something (exists or happens)

Which is just a particular instance of --

anything (exists or happens) => something (exists or happens)

Which isn't very controversial and is actually rather trivial.

I'll add that Descartes seems to have thought that his initial intuition 'I think' was absolutely fundamental and indubitable. But interestingly, Buddhist philosophy denies precisely what Descartes believed couldn't be denied. The Buddhists question whether there's any substantial 'I' (or self or soul) that contains or performs the thinking.