Mr Bobby E's circular reasoning
Mr Bobby E's circular reasoning
HU: A Being Cannot be Both Necessary and Conscious
BE: Hey Huey, were you conscious when you wrote that?
To the reader: I’m getting punchy. I feel like someone’s piping nitrous oxide into my office. The atheist arguments are so hard to take seriously, and to listen to with a straight face. Of course, theists agree with Huey that “the world itself… denotes something that exists independent, outside and apart from our own minds.” I am also happy to agree with Huey that “a ‘nothing’ does not and cannot exist by definition.”
To the reader: the theists arguments, and especially their misuse of scientific arguments, are in our views not anything less as nuclear attack, which makes Mr Bobby E's feeling of punchyness sort of peanuts...
But let us state first the positive facts:
I am very consent that Mr Bobby E here agrees with the fact that a 'nothing' is not and can not exist by definition, and I am also glad I can testify that I was consciouss when writing that particular part. The statement Mr Bobby E makes, is an unconstrained one, which is we do not have to assume the existence of anything for that to be true. With that statement, we can already state that
whatever there is that exist, there is necessary something, since a 'nothing' can by definition not exist.
Where in that conclusion, Mr Bobby E, do we or do you or does anybody else has to assume any mystical creation acts to have taken place, and any mystery creators, for that fact to be conceived of being true?
Answer:
we don't!
And that already means that we don't have to assume a Deity for the fact that there exists a world - in whatever form - in the first place. Even when we - apart from this discussion in which we will conclude that no such Deity exists - consider it an unanswerable question wether or not a Deity exists, we can already state that for the world itself, it is rather arbitrary for it's existence, wether a Deity exists or not. But since the existence of a Deity is precisely argued at the basis of the
necessity for the world to have been caused by a Deity, we can already agree here that that particular defined Deity does not exist, since the world itself and the argument with which Mr Bobby E agreed, already state that for there to be something instead of nothing the intervention of a Deity isn't a necessity. One could still argue for a non-necessary Deity, some specific form of consciousness residing somewhere in the universe, without us knowing that, but that is obviously not the Deity Mr Bobby E had in mind.
When deepening our question, and dig into the question of what is there, that is necessary there for there to be something instead of nothing, it is at the same time clear that there is
not any specific something, that qualifies for that (at least not that we are aware of or have knowledge of, and if Bobby E thinks that to be the case, he can come up with the proof for that).
We can question all known things, and ask ourselves, what the world would be like without the existence of that specific something. And the simple conclusion we draw is that the existence of any specific something ain't a necessary fact for the world itself to exist, since if that specific something would not have formed and not have existed at all - whatever specific something that we could have in mind - would not alter anything about the fact that the world itself exists.
We could ponder for example what the world would be like, without there being a planet Mars. It would be a different world, for sure, but still the world would exist. And wether we take Mars, Venus, the sun, the galaxy, or whatever enormous big or enormous small, does not matter. The world would be different, but would still exist.
And even more, in some of these cases, we would not be there, because the conditions which brought us here, didn't exist.
But even that, the inexistence of any human being or any life form, would not alter anything for the fact that the world itself exists, instead of not exists.
The only difference would be that in that case we would not be here pondering such issues. I would not state that such would be indifferent
to us (since it would differ the world to us wether we exists or not), I just concluded that it would not alter anything for the fact that the world exists.
The rest of his argument is based upon the following false assertion, for which he provides no evidence:
HU: The whole of existence consists of finite and temporal forms…
BE: Circular Reasoning #1: Here, Huey is assuming his conclusion. For if the whole of existence consists of only finite entities, then an eternal God cannot exist, and voila! Huey won the debate! Hey Huey, you claim that only finite entities exist, so you should have provided your evidence for that statement if you have any. And then Huey makes this conclusion which he bases on his assumption (which he later uses as the basis for another conclusion!) “A necessary being therefore cannot be anything less (or anything more) than the whole of existence.”
That is a seeminlgy hard statement, you make Mr Bobby E, but helas that hard sounding argument has not much concrete back up, and already dissolces into thin air by mere looking at it. According to you the fact that the world so far we know it only exists in the form of finite, temporal existence forms, is a false statement. Since my statement is correct and in line with all human knowledge, and we don't have any
observational proof for the opposite (the existence of infinite and eternal entities), it is not me who has to deliver proof for my statement, but Mr Bobby E has to proof his accusations and false claims.
His second conclusion is that my argument is invalid, because that would mean that his Deity does not exist. Well that may be a pitty for him, but such is of course not any valid rebuttal, since we can not merely assume the existence of his Deity on a belief basis, since the existence of THAT particular entity is the thing Mr Bobby E has to proof to us!
His false accusations of using circular reasoning, therefore don't affect my arguments, since the fact is that the only one using circular forms of reasoning, is...... Mr Bobby E himself!
And as an example of that, look at this:
Life could not have come from non-life. Why not? Because then my Deity would not exist. And why does your Deity exist? Because he created all life.
The universe (everything that exists) can not exist eternally. Why not? Because then my Deity would not exist. And why does your Deity exist? Because this Deity created the universe.
Etc.
Very splendid Mr Bobby E for pointing out and showing your own circular reasoning!
Back to the argument:
The world in so far we know and observe it, consists indeed of finite and temporal existence forms. That is the case for everything we know of so far, which means that that is just a statement of our knowledge, since we have never seen / observed directly something that has eternal existence or something that is infinite, neither will we ever observe that. Infinite and eternal things are not an observable fact of the world.
I can therefore state my assumption at the basis of the whole body of human knowledge, in which everything we know of, exists only within a finite temporal and spatial extend.
If my assumption ain't true, then please provide us with
the proof of the contrary! Mr Bobby E obviously can't, unless he uses here again his famous trick of circular reasoning, and proving God at the grounds of a reasoning that already assumes the existence of God. Which is of course not a valid proof.
And another point is this:
Where did I imply that the whole of existence itself is just finite and temporal?
I just stated that it
consists of temporal and finite existence forms, but this doesn't imply that the whole of existence is or can be itself finite and temporal. THAT would be a rather contradictionary fact, since THEN we would have to explain for instance:
When did the whole of existence start, and what came before that or cause that?
Since the whole of existence is already the whole of existence, it could then only have started from nothing. But nothing is not a begin. Nothing is only nothing. And in agreement with what Mr Bobby E has confessed here is also the position of theists, a 'nothing' can not exist by itself by definition.
This can only mean one thing: that the whole of existence did not start from 'nothing', but has existed always, that is in infinite time, and therefore eternal. And no alternative can exist, since every other explenation would require us to assume that apart from the whole of existence there would exist a particular something, that could have been the cause for the whole of existence. Which would just mean we poorly defined the 'whole of existence' and mistakenly left out that particular something.
And please consider the fact that, despite our initial statement that every individual 'thing' exists only in a finite and temporal way - at the basis of that - we can not conclude that the whole of existence therefore also is finite and temporal. Neither as we can conclude that, when every team member has a parent, that also the team itself must have a parent.
In conclusion: the fact that every individual thing we know of, exists as a finite and temporal existence form, does not lead to the conclusion that the whole of existence therefore must also have a finitite and temporal form of existence. And in fact, if we take into consideration other known properties of finite temporal things, we can argue in fact that the whole of existence can not be a finite and temporal form of existence.
But at the same time, neither do we have to assume that that would lead to the existence of God, since God not only has the property of an infinite and eternal existence form (if the definition of God would require us nothing else as that, we could already finish this discussion, and state that this infinite and eternal existence form does in fact exist), but has also other attributes. And as I have shown in my argument the combination of that attributed properties of God, of an infinite and eternal existence form and as a necessary being (which as we have seen can not be anything less or anything more as the whole of existence) can not be matched with a consciouss form of existence.
His rebutal must of course be of the form that a finite line cannot be lined up to form an infinite line, in the same way as a material existence form one formed and shaped out of previous existing material forms, and which will turn after a period of time into other material existence forms.
In the course of that process, matter/energy is known to be conserved. Which means that such temporal existence forms can be placed after one another, and form by themselves the infinity/eternity of time of the whole of existence. No other special assumptions are necessary to conclude that fact, and any other explenation, would have to explain a lot more.
The obvious (and also contradictionary) fact is that an infinite line, is made up of finite lines only. And so will all our time and spatial measurements always indicate only finite material existence forms.
Huey then confuses himself with another assumption:
HU: A conscious being can be conscious because it can have sensory awareness about things that exist outside, apart and independent of itself… To be self-conscious means that one can distinguish between oneself and something that exists outside of oneself.
BE: Circular Reasoning #2: Once again, these are self-serving assumptions designed to lead to Huey’s atheistic conclusion. It’s circular reasoning. Consciousness fundamentally is awareness of one’s self, i.e., self-awareness. Then, if something else does exist, a conscious mind may discern between itself and the other thing. We humans could have first hand knowledge of how this works if we were able to remember our earliest thoughts in the womb; but we don’t. We’re not sure if we were aware of our own existence prior to being aware of any external entities. Theism, the position Huey has volunteered to refute, claims that God alone existed forever into the past prior to any creation. So Huey’s assumption that nothing can be conscious if it existed all alone handily assumes his conclusion once again. (And he thought we wouldn’t notice!) So again, Huey makes an assumption without offering any evidence for it.
I can answer this by saying that they are not my assumptions that are in confusion here, but the one's that Mr Bobby E presents to is.
Mr Bobby E states that consciousness is fundamentally
only awareness of oneself. And where did Mr Bob E proof such a thing?
Nowhere. He just assumes and states that, because else he can not come up with his 'Self aware/ self consciouss' Deity, that has nothing to ponder or think about, except itself.
Has he come up with his 'amazing first life' experience from the whomb, in which he knew he existed, but when he did not yet have any sensory awareness about an outside reality? Does he know about any one else's 'whomb experience' that would make it possible to state such a fact?
Neither, and non whatsoever. In if he would have known such a fact, he would not miss to present that to us. Which means he just makes unprofound statements about reality, like he always does.
A more sound statement about reality is that our awareness about reality, and also our reflections (but in first instance only instinctive) on reality already started
before we were even consciouss about ourselves.
When we saw our first light, and were first breast feeded, our consciousness did react according to outside stimuli, but no memory of any consciousness has been left of us, reacting that way. We have only second hand knowledge about ourselves in that phase of our existence. We might encounter our first picture of our existence, and look at it, and state: yes, this was my at age 6 weeks. I know it is me, but I don't remember the fact that that picture of me was ever taken. My consciouss memory about that is not there.
So, this being the facts of our first life, Mr Bobby E, what now about your thesis that our life started out with self consciousness first? Why don't we have any memories about this part of our life, if your thesis would be correct? What fact is there to explain that we don't have any memories of our self-consciousness at a time in which we did exist as a human being, and did react to our natural environment, and at that basis it could be stated we had some form of consciousness about outside reality, but without us having conscious memories about that?
Is our memory about our self consciousness suddenly lost by a natural cause in our early childhood? What fact is that then, and what medical facts do you have to back that up?
And if you can not come up with any such fact, then the only possible explenation is to state that our self consciousness arises from our consciousness of reality, because at some distinct moment in our development, we come to realize that we are a distinct entity in reality.
Our personality and self awareness gets developed based on our first experience of outside reality. We learn to make a distinction between the things that exists outside and apart of ourselves, and our own mental awareness and self consciousness.
Based on these facts of life this urges us to conclude the opposite of your thesis, that our consciousness does not arise from self consciousness, but that self consciousness only arises in a later instance and at the basis of our first experience and consciouss awareness of outside reality.
The obvious thing is of course that something that
only has self-consciousness, can not be consciouss, because it can not be consciouss of something.
His Deity can neither be self consciouss, because the 'self' does not exist (by definition) in the case that there is nothing that exists outside of that.
The term 'self' already assumes that there are also things outside of self.
'Self' only exists
because there also exist not-self, which is something that is outside, apart and independend of self.
Which is as we have showed is impossible in the situation of the 'necessary being' (which is the whole of existence).
But then of course Mr Bobby E, questions the definition of God.
As we shall see, he not only questions the definition of God,
but he questions God itself, since the definition of God which I used and God itself are one and the same. That is a nice feature of this type of debate, that the one person that is trying to proof the existence of this remarkable entity, is brought into the position that he has to question the existence of the entity he tries to proof. Which is a good thing, Mr Bobby E!
And let me remark here that I am pretty sure that the definition I used, I did not make up arbitrariliy, but based that on the statements of the person defending the existence of such an entity, and the the definition I used is the only and unique and proper definition for that entity. And also I am pretty sure that after a fundamental analysis of that entity, we must conclude that this entity does not and can not exist.
And not only that, as a statement coming from me, but also that my opponent, who defends magical mystical creation acts by a mystical deity, in fact has no other alternative then to make that same conclusion, that such an entity can not possible have existence.
We already have him confessing partly that fact, since he:
- Conceives of the fact that the world itself can not
not exist (since whatever is there, there is always necessarily something instead of nothing), and this he states
independly of the (non)existence of any Deity. In other words, to explain that the world is there (in whatever form), instead of not there in first instance, does not require us to assume that a Deity exists that is responsible for that fact.
- Concieves of the fact that the world itself exists independend, apart and outside of his own consciousness, and that he can not conceive of that not being the case.
It comes down to make these 'confessions' a sound and well found argument, based on profound knowledge, in which the existence of his deity no longer and in no possible way can be stated. Since that is of course the very obvious conclusion to be made.
But let us suppose here - just for one moment - that the definition of God, which has the property of being both a necessary and a consciouss being (which as we have seen can not be the case simultaniously), is wrong.
This either means:
- God is not a necessary being, and therefore God is an unnecessary, a finite and temporal being.
- God is not a consciouss being.
So what definition should we use then Mr Bobby E. Please 'enlighten us' on this remarkable issue for once and for all!
What definition pleases and describes your God then best, if you don't like my definition of a necessary and conscious being:
An unncessary one or an unconsciouss one (or both)?
Further we can state that Mr Bobby E has some funny - if not straight out weird - ideas about consciousness, and the way in which consciousness exists. In the first alinea Mr Bob E has already brought a sound fact about reality: a 'nothing' does not and can not exist.
Based on what, does Mr Bobby E make that statement? Based on the inexistence and unknowability of the world, outside, independend an apart from his consciousness? Based on his self awareness alone?
How do we conceive, and how do you conceive of the fact that you are self-aware by the way? What concrete facts urge us to conclude that you have self awareness, and that you yourself can state your own self awareness?
In what way could you even state, if only for yourself, that you are 'self aware' if you would not have awareness and consciousness about there being a world outside, apart and independend of your consciousness?
Mere logic makes us conclude that his consciouss statement about reality, that reality as such exists, and exists apart, independend and outside of one's own consciousness, and that in no conceivable way the world itself could not exist, are based on the fact that his conscioussness is based on the real existing material world itself and nothing else.
About the issue of alienated (only being aware of oneself without being aware of something outside of oneself) consciouss:
Is Mr Bobby E's consciousnesss the same form of alienated consciousness which he has in mind for his Deity, or is his consciousness based on the fact that he acknowledges that there exists a world, outside, apart and independend of his consciousness?
What can we state about a supposedly consciouss entity that is facing the situation that it can not have any awareness, knowledge or sense perceptions about there being a world independend, apart and outside of it's own consciousness.
Suppose such a hypothetical consciouss being would exist. Then how could for instance this hypothetical consciouss being answer the question: Why is there a world, a universe, any something, instead of nothing?
We may assume that this hypothetical being has every possible reasoning capacity. It can however not in any possible way know that there is a world, that there is something instead of nothing.
And because it can not know that fact, neither it can answer the question, why there would have to be a world, instead of none.
Any reasoning, to explain that X is the case, needs an explenation in the form of: since B is the case. But from the 'point of view' of this hypothetical being, no such B exists that can form the ground for any reasoning that could lead to the conclusion that there is a world, instead of none.
Since therefore this hypothetical being does not know that there is a world, or has to be a world, this being does not know anything about the world.
And for that reason, neither does this being know that it itself exists.
For that reason, such a hypothetical consciouss being can not be a factual consciouss being, since:
- Neither can it itself state that the world exists or would have to exist, let alone 'itself' (since we have argued, that no such thing as 'self' can or does existence in that particular hypothetical situation).
- Not are there any other outside things, that could state it's existence.
That being the case, it is clear that there is no possible way in which anyone or anything could proof in an objective way the existence of such a hypothetical consciouss being.
And since we know that, the only possible argument Mr Bobby E can bring in, is that he nevertheless believes such a hypothetical consciouss being to exist, despite the factual knowledge, that such an assumption is baseless and without any proof.
Then he does the same circular reasoning thing (is anyone getting dizzy?) a third time:
HU: A conscious being… can state the existence of something that exists outside of… itself. There must also exist something outside, apart and independent of this conscious being…
BE: Circular Reasoning #3: Ditto my above points. Now, for a fourth ride on the merry-go-round:
HU: God is defined as… a necessary being… But a necessary being, since it is defined as the whole of everything that exists, cannot have anything that exists outside of itself.
BE: Circular Reasoning #4: Hey Huey, who defined a necessary being “as the whole of everything that exists?” You did. Based upon what? Based upon your assumption that God cannot exist because as you declared, “the whole of existence consists [only] of finite and temporal forms.” When you deny God, you commit yourself to the irrational, and then the more rigorously you attempt to support your position, the more you draw attention to your irrationality.
Let me give you an example of clear thinking and honesty, and then atheists can attempt to mimic this when considering Christian arguments. Here we go: If Heusden’s assumptions were correct, then his conclusion would be correct also, that the God I believe in does not exist; but I believe his assumptions to be false! Thus, if you can prove that “the whole of existence consists of finite and temporal forms,” I would concede the debate. Likewise, if you could prove that “there must also exist something… independent of this conscious being,” then I would admit defeat. Do you see how easy that is? All of you atheists? Taoist, Flipper, Huey, Zakath, and the rest of you? It is easy to recognize the form of an opponent’s argument, to admit (or disprove) it logical features, and accept (or reject) its factual basis. This is easy, and honest -- unless… unless you are afraid of your opponent’s position. And that is what characterizes the atheist response from the first rounds of Battle Royale VII through to this Post Game Show. Hey, if you are afraid to challenge what you believe, then you better challenge what you believe. My many Christian friends and I really LOVE to take on atheist arguments, honestly acknowledge them, and deal with them. Why don’t you try reciprocating? It might get you somewhere.
Mr Bobby E states that my conclusions are right if my assumptions are right. But, he says, my conclusions are not right because he
believes that my assumptions are not right.
Well, Me Bobby E, you can believe anything you want and as long as you wish, and I am certainly not holding you back on that one! Don't let me destroy your most precious beliefs...!
But for this discussion, you would have to do a
little more as just stating that you
believe my assumptions to be false, since I could in turn just state that I believe my assumptions are right. The belief issue therefore is no argument, since no definite position can be drawn from that, and that is why more sophisticated arguments and forms of reasoning, don't depend on issues of belief.
This means: If you state that my assumptions are false, then you would have to proof that. My assumptions are not out of the ordinary, they are just based on our ordinary experience and perceptions of reality. To state otherwise, and to state that such assumptions are false, therefore ask for a more sophisticated and profound explenation as the argument from belief.
I state that they are right, and have not been in the least persuaded by your
belief argument, that they are not correct, and in fact it is the case that I concieve of them to be correct.
By the way, I call Heusden “Huey” in honor of one of the Disney characters because of Heusden’s obsession on the boards with the existence of a talking mouse (by which he means Mickey).
Hee, Mr Bobby E. I didn't conceive of it that the Micky Mouse (by the way, factual I used Donald Duck, which is as we know a talking duck) argument made such an impression on you that you even choose to name me after a Disney figure (or can't spell my name properly)
However, I still didn't get a direct and straight answer from you, how it is that you presumably argue from the point that your Deity figure has any more existence as Donald Duck (or in the case of Mr Bobby E, who has an obssesion about talkince mice: Mickey Mouse)
The only answer I got, and presumably ever will get, is: 'Never mind'.
Which ain't much for an argument.
For that particular reason, maybe I could better call you Mr Never Mind as Mr Bobby E.
Finally, I’ll repeat Huey’s summation here underlining the supposed logical construction of his argument, and without further comment in order to illustrate the strength of my rebuttal:
HU: This necessary being cannot therefore exist in the objective sense, since there cannot be an objective relation between the necessary being and anything outside of it, as everything that exists is contained within the necessary being. Since the necessary being cannot be stated to have objective existence, then neither can it be a conscious being. The necessary being can therefore neither be conscious of something outside of itself, nor of itself. God therefore cannot be both a necessary being and a conscious being simultaneously. If God is said to exist, then either He is a conscious being that is not a necessary being, a finite and temporal form of existence or He is a necessary being which does not exist in the objective sense, and can therefore not be a conscious being. God therefore, in the way that He has been defined, does not exist.
I see this not as an argument, but as a critique on the forum rules, that have necessitated us to present our argument very briefly, and in very condensed form. My original argument I sent in as a contribution was a bit longer, but this did not please the forum administrators, and because of that, they were presented in a rather brief form.
Mr Bobby E: I advise you to sent in a complaint to the forum administrator, which has given your posts much more room then ours.
IN CONCLUSION:
1. Mr Bobby E conceives of the fact that a mere 'nothing' does not exist! And he conceives of that fact, without urging us to assume that such is the case only because of his Deity exists. So, since a mere 'nothing' does not and can not exist, he already confesses that for the universe to exist - which is the collection of all 'somethings' that exist at a specific time - no reason or cause other then that statement of utterly simple logic is necessary.
2. Mr. Bobby E protest however that God is defined as a Necessary and both a Consciouss being. He must be aware of the fact then that based on that argument, his God would not exist. So, he is given the alternative then to come up with a better definition in the form of EITHER an unnecessary being (which is a finite and temporal existence form) OR an unconsciouss being (or both) whatever Mr Bobby E pleases and prefers. So what will it be, Mr Bobby E? Does the unconscious universe (the whole of existence) qualify for your Deity, or does a temporal and finite existence form, a being of flesh and blood qualify for your Deity? Or perhaps you yourself?
3. Mr Bobby E is not consent with the fact that all things he knows of, including himseld, does not exist eternally, but had once come into being and will also once cease to be. We are very sorry however to state that even your life, since it had a begin (
without you being aware of that fact at that time!), also has an end. Life wisely, we should say, and don't get caught up in false beliefs!
4. Mr Bobby E presents us the fact that, while sitting and growing in his mom's womb, and even before he had any sensory perceptions of an outside world, he was
already self aware!. An amazing fact, which has no other explenation then he is God, I mean, that his God must exist, and also must be a being that is self consciouss, without having consciousness about anything that does exist outside of itself.
5. Mr Bobby E conceives of the fact that my conclusions are right if my assumptions are right. He states however that my assumptions are false, but does not present us any real argument why that would be the case. He only argues this: he
beliefs my arguments are false, since if they are true, then his Deity does not exist.
6. Mr Bobby E has every right to complain about circular argumenations. But perhaps he should first try to uncover and understand his own circularity of argumentation. The universe in his mind, could not have existed always. Why not? Well if that would be the case, no Deity would be necessary to assume. But why would we assume that Deity to exist? Because that Deity created the universe..
Life can not come from non life. Why not? Well if that would be the case, no Deity would be necessary to assume. But why would that Deity exist? Because that Deity created life from non life...
7. Does Mr Bobby E's Deity exist or not exist? Is this form of existence Objective or Subjective? Thus far, we simply miss out on
any objective proof for such a Deity. And the only 'proof' ever given to us is that a reasoned argument that - as a matter of belief - already assumes his Deity to exist, will of course draw us to conclude that such a Deity in fact exist.
But in the objective sense, our knowledge of and about the world, urges us to conclude the opposite fact. The Deity which Mr Bobby E has in mind in fact does not exist. So, the only form of existence grantable to his Deity, is a form of subjective existence which this Deity has to share with for instance ..... Donald Duck.
