The God argument: energy lacking counterpart that constitutes the continuum of differentiated spacetime. In order for spacetime to continue, it is reproducible. The further from Origin, the lesser truth.

Is all truth, since removed from Origin, thereby gradual, or, "degreed"? And if this is 'true', is there a God Math, such as a pliable, Objective Equation, that Subjects can better know themselves, and the consequent effects each has, on unified Cause (see: Objective Equation)?

Knowledge only comes from truth, and truth only comes from being open to it when it is presented to you. Seeking the truth means always being ready to dismiss it when you discover it is a mistake. Without the openness to correct mistakes that you had adopted as truth, you are also void of the openness to acquire further truth when it does come before you. That openness of mind must work both ways in order to be effective, otherwise we become religious about what we have adopted.So whether religion is inherited, or we are lured into its promises, the key to all wisdom will never be in the messages, the true key will be in the determined openness to reject what we have adopted for new ideas that could be corrections to our mistakes. I would rather live life correcting mistakes than to settle on one untruth and remain there.

We are all reaching out. We are all creatures of curiosity with an immeasurable playground in which to to discover secrets. To believe that you know anything, means that you have already learned nothing. If all of the great prophets' teachings are untruths, than ten years of accumulating them will not compare with the wisdom of one sentence of truth.

---------- Post added 10-03-2009 at 09:11 PM ----------




Time is neither cyclical or linear so it is illogical to assign any sort of mathematical component to it. In physics infinity is immeasurable because there is no point of origin or end point to measure from. How can a thing be referenced without points of reference?

The continuum is simply the continuing saga of which we are a part and therefore any truth regarding our reality or the time that passes as we exist remains a constant factor of the continuum, not a fluctuating element. Nothing is being reproduced with regard to the passage of time and existence, it is just reality continuing to exist within the continuum.

Madame Blavatsky created a great structure of this same sort as Plato's. I think these intellectual people wander off into metaphysics and lose their way. They don't realize that they are lost in just one more dream. "Oh, what webs we weave." : ^ ) This was the school that Krishnamurty turned his back on.

I think that by choosing death with honor, over life with his tail between his legs, Socrates became archetypal, or bigger than life. If he had simply died of old age, maybe the lesson of his life wouldn't have been as pointed even if Plato did memorialize him.

It is quite easy to get lost when developing ideas as people seem to want to add importance to the work they have been developing, but that forces them to accept their original premises as accurate, often without them realizing it.


And what makes it more bigger than life is he had to deliver the death blow himself, keeping to his word.


The circularity of logic seems to be its biggest problem. I know with Kant's analytic statements, it seems really difficult to result at anything beyond the definition of the original premise. But one thing I haven't thought that deeply of is how logic and reason differ, academics use them often as one and the same. How would you differentiate the two?

What do you mean by, "the circularity of logic"? In which way is logic circular?

Reason is a faculty that we have, with which we can draw inferences from what we know, to what we do not know. For instance, when I see snow on the ground in the morning when there was no snow when I went to bed the previous night, I can infer that it snowed overnight.

Logic is the study of the correct rules of inference. For instance, the rule exemplified in the argument: 1. If there is no snow when I go to bed, and there is snow when I arise in the morning, then it snowed overnight. 2. There was no snow when I went to bed, and there was snow when I arose in the morning. Therefore, 3. it snowed overnight.

The rule of inference exemplified is know as, modus ponens, and in of the form: If P then Q. P. Therefore, Q. There a many such rules of inference, and discovering them, and validating them is a large part of the business of logic.

But, I repeat: why is logic "circular"?

It's not necessarily circular, seems circular, remember I am a skeptic . But from what I have seen one cannot sufficiently argue any point logically over a contrary idea without begging the question. Also Kant's definition of analytical statements from his critique of pure reason do not seem (unless you know of some examples) to say anything more than the premises themselves. And actually the papers written by Markus Lammenranta (I can upload one to a site if sufficiently interested and post a topic on it as it is an interesting paper he provides) seems to show that logical arguments seem to result in begging the question when debating against contrary points.

So you are saying having reason is the ability to infer? But logic is the correct way to infer. So having reason does not always mean one infers correctly?

Being a skeptic does not mean you are not correct. Only that you believe you do not know you are correct.

But from what I have seen one cannot sufficiently argue any point logically over a contrary idea without begging the question.

I am sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by that. Could you give an example of what you mean? And why you think that (if you were right) that would constitute circularity?
You do not think that we can argue against (say) Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust without begging the question? Why?

IBut from what I have seen one cannot sufficiently argue any point logically over a contrary idea without begging the question.

I agree. It happens all of the time on this forum. Ultimately, nothing can be proved without restating the initial assumption at some point.



Rich

How is that begging the question? The initial assumption may be clearly true, or it may be easily shown to be true.

1. All dogs are animals.
2. All spaniels are dogs.

Therefore, 3. All spaniels are dogs.

This argument begs no question.

All you have pointed out is the "profound" truth that all arguments need premises. Of course. That is by definition of "argument". The premises need not be controversial, or doubtful. A question is begged (as Aristotle pointed out) when the premises are not better known than the conclusion. But, in the argument above, the premises are better known than the conclusion. (And, in my argument above, how is the initital assumption restated? And it it were, why would that matter?)

Pathfinder,
I can remember saying to a spiritual friend, "Sometimes I feel like 'Spirit/Self' is downloading vast amounts of (what is the word?), wisdom down into me, which my brain has not yet process into words. (Almost like it was on the tip of my tongue.), or what some have called preconscious.

Which leads me to ponder on the difference between wisdom and knowledge.

To me knowledge is what comes out of our brain, an end product of which we have gone about accumulating and building upon....

But what exactly is wisdom. ....
Particular truths are IMO more like the many pieces of a jigsaw puzzle scattered about. Knowledge is assembling those various pieces, and the beginnings of reassembling them in order to understand. Wisdom, on the other hand, is more like the puzzle (itself) with all, or most of its pieces, put back into their proper places. (What some have called Unity.)

I liked what you said about religion. I agree that, if religious thought is not receptive, then religion, itself, is a dead thing.

Subjectivity9

This is simply you naming things that you know of as though there is no need to know anything more than what you already know of them.

The question as you see it should not be what is a dog, as you have already chosen to define it as you see it.

The questions that however remained to be begged are where did the first dog come from? And who claims the authority to define them and categorize them?

How is that begging the question? The initial assumption may be clearly true, or it may be easily shown to be true.

1. All dogs are animals.
2. All spaniels are dogs.

Therefore, 3. All spaniels are dogs.

This argument begs no question.

All you have pointed out is the "profound" truth that all arguments need premises. Of course. That is by definition of "argument". The premises need not be controversial, or doubtful. A question is begged (as Aristotle pointed out) when the premises are not better known than the conclusion. But, in the argument above, the premises are better known than the conclusion. (And, in my argument above, how is the initital assumption restated? And it it were, why would that matter?)

At some point, one has to claim that they know the truth about some initial proposition whatever the initial proposition is. It is inevitable.



Rich

I have added a forum topic, where I present a paper we can discuss on the apparent irresolvability of debates. You can find it here!

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/secondary-branches-philosophy/philosophy-politics/6100-apparent-irresolvability-debates.html

I know people often say, "I am being logical," but they might better say it, "I am being consistent with my present beliefs."



Subjectivity9