/lit/ - Literature

>>15328596
can you say anything other about God than his being non-contingent?

>>15328608
That's my definition of God.

>>15328596
I reject the number 1

>>15328620
do you understand non-contingency as in "doesn't depend on anything other than itself to exist"?

>>15328657
You can't, it's the premise.
Do atheists really think that reality doesn't exist? Haven't they heard about some guy called Descartes who refuted them like four centuries ago?

>>15328661
Yes. Yes, God is the first reality.

>>15328596
>3. The characteristic "real" is non-contingent, since if it weren't so, reality wouldn't exist
Reality can very well exist as a contingency

>>15328596
Posthumously refuted

>>15328679
Not reality as a characteristic

>>15328596
>>15328620
>5. God, the non-contingent being, exists
it would be
> 5. Reality, endowed with the real attribute of being non-contingent, exists.

this is not even an innocent tautology, it is a clear converse error.

>>15328596
1. Reality exists
2. The characteristic "real" exists
3. The characteristic "real" is non-contingent, since if it weren't so, reality wouldn't exist
4. If non-contingency exists, it is a non-contingent being's attribute
5. A faggot OP, the non-contingent being, exists

>>15328596
>retroactively refutes you

>>15328596
Retroactively refuted by Parmenides and even if it wasn’t your fourth claim does not follow from the third and your first three claims are all flawed in their own right

>>15328596
>1. Reality exists
Proof?

>>15328596
1. Everything that is is
2. If god is then he either is (a) the absolute of things (this characteristic is in itself speculation and can't ever be provable), or (b) outside of being. Anyway you can't prove any so god can only 'be' through a leap of faith
3. Being is open to the universe, and is a limit to the universe

>>15328596
> 1. Reality exists
> 2. The characteristic "real" exists
until now, the characteristic "real" applies to reality alone.
> 3. The characteristic "real" is non-contingent, since if it weren't so, reality wouldn't exist
since non-contingent = real, you are basically saying: The characteristic "real" is real. that is the same as 2. (The characteristic "real" exists)
> 4. If non-contingency exists, it is a non-contingent being's attribute
again, since non-contingency = reality, you are repeating 1. in the protasis, while in the apodosis you are saying "reality is real".
> 5. God, the non-contingent being, exists
that is : god, the reality, exists. which is proposition 1.

congratulations, your IQ is that of a subsaharan nigger (NOT that of an african-american mutt).

>>15328711
No. Non-contingency cannot exist by itself. It exists because it's an attribute of something. Non-contingency is the attribute of real, which is the attribute of reality. But reality is contingent. Therefore, the attribute real must rest in something else. It can't rest on non-contingency because that's an attribute of something else (God).

>>15328967
Reality is contingent.

>>15329205
> Non-contingency is the attribute of real, which is the attribute of reality
that is, reality is non-contingent. hence proposotion 5. = proposotion 1. , becuase god = non contigent being.
the argument is extermely wrong. it is basically a words pun.

>>15329389
Reality is a composition of contigent things. Reality therefore is contingent. What is non-contingent is the action of making things real, the attribute "real".

>>15329433
you fucking retard.
> Non-contingency (a) is the attribute of real (b) , which is the attribute of reality (c)
=
> a is implied by b, b is implied by c
therefore c is implied by a
therefore , by your own (wrong) definitions, reality is non-contingent.

>>15328596
>4. If non-contingency exists, it is a non-contingent being's attribute

X

>>15329475
> Non-contingency (a) is the attribute of real (b) , which is the attribute of reality (c)
=
> a is implied by b, b is implied by c
Yes, a isn't implied in c. Non contingency is not implied in reality.

>>15329510
are you baiting?
i didm't reality is implied by non-contingency , i said non-contingency is implied by reality. you can call non-contingency "god" if you like, that would just be equating god to reality, that is NOT proving that god is real, just stating it.

>>15329571
God being non-contingent doesn't imply that his creation is. Why would the non-contingent attribute of "real" imply that reality is non-contingent? Do you know what contingence means? That relies on another to be created.

>>15328596
first of you need to define reality and existance. Otherwise this is sophistry. Claim 1-3 say literally nothing. It is pure tautology. Reality is reality.

About point 4: again what is a "being" and why should non-contingency only "exist" in it. If it is non-contingent it is not dependent on a being. Otherwise it would contradict the very definition of non-cotingent. Point 5 falls automatically flat, there is no logical basis for this conclusion.

>>15329935
I'm not going to define basic level premises. Reality exists and it's my premise, if you don't accept the premise of course the argument is nothing, pure smoke.
>1-3
Reality isn't non-contingent, the attribute "real" is.
>4
The attribute "non-contingent" is an attribute applied to something. Something is non-contingent. It can't be based on "real" because that is an attribute based on reality which is contingent. So it must be based on something else that gives "real" its non-contigency. The ground of non-contigency, which is God.
>5
implied by the 4 previous points.

>>15328596
Why can't the universe be a non-contingent being?

>>15330131
Because it is composed of contingent things. An apple can be eaten and therefore stop being an apple. The non-contingent cannot consider other states even hypothetically, it's unique in its own.

What do you mean by "contingent"?

>>15330045
Reality is contingent on the attribute "real" in your train of thought. Something is only "reality" if it is "real" which is a tautology. Saying reality would not exist without it having the attribute "real" is a tautology as well, friend. This is dismanteling point 1-4. But concerning point 4: where does this being come to play? If some being gives "real" its non-contingence than non-contingence itself is not non-contingent. Now something needs to give non-contingence its non contingence and you have a paradox (how can the contingent grant itself non-contingence). Saying there is a being which is non-contingent and therefore the act of granting the attribute "non-contingence" is an exception to contingency is cheating. It is a circular argument

>>15330279
That can or can't exist. That depends on something to exist, therefore it can be or it can't be as a hypothesis or a state.

>>15330318
I don't mind if it's evident. I know it's evident. But it must be said. I could have started saying "the attribute real exists". That doesn't dismantle anything, it's just a matter of style.
> But concerning point 4: where does this being come to play? If some being gives "real" its non-contingence than non-contingence itself is not non-contingent. Now something needs to give non-contingence its non contingence and you have a paradox (how can the contingent grant itself non-contingence). Saying there is a being which is non-contingent and therefore the act of granting the attribute "non-contingence" is an exception to contingency is cheating. It is a circular argument
No being gives real its non-contingence, no being creates "the real attribute", that real attribute is eternal because he is real. The same for non-contingency. I use "give" not as "create" but to point that attributes must be based on something to exist or they are properties of something.

>>15330368
This does still not explain why a being is needed. Why cant reality itself be non-contingent? It makes a lot more sense as well because then the definition of non-contingent stays intact. Reality itself is non-contingent and inside the framework of reality only contingence exists (chain of causality yadda yadda). Obviously in day to day speech relative non-contingence can exist but the archetypal true non-contingence is execlusively an attribute of reality itself. Which is basically what you argue for but just without god. Actually it works much better without god. You run into no paradox. It is unsatisfying because our human mind loves causality but it is logically sound

>>15328668
Pretty sure Locke, Hume, and then wittgenstein went on to refute Descartes

>>15330497
Cogito ergo sum? never ever refuted

>>15330472
>Why cant reality itself be non-contingent?
Because it's not. It is composed of contingent things. An apple disappears and becomes another thing. A star disappears and becomes another thing. If everything is contingent, the sum of the terms is contingent as well.

>>15330580
Pretty sure you're wrong

>>15330599
If there is this entity, non-contingence loses all meaning because of my previous argument (non-contingence would be contingent paradox)

>If reality itself is non-contingent then it can not contain any causality

I dont buy that. Realities genesis must not be dependend on anything (non-contingent). Internally it can be deterministic.

Also your god would run into the same problem, you just pushed it one step further back. It is the age old "who created god" dilemma that can only be answered by an infinite chain which is absurd

>>15330693
> (non-contingence would be contingent paradox)
Non contingence is a property, is eternal as long as God (the non contingence being) is eternal. It's part of his essence, it is not created!

>>15329205
>reality is contingent
if reality is contingent than the attribute of real is contingent too. reality is nothing more than the existence of things which are real. you can't separate the concept of real from reality and more than you can dance from dancer. or is dance non-contingent either?

>>15329433
>>15329475
this is why you faggots shouldn't try to do original philosophy, you can't even form a syllogism

>>15331145
If the attribute "real" were contingent, reality wouldn't exist. It would be irrational that reality appeared in a certain form according to certain properties.

>>15330580
LOOOOL ill refute it right now. ill be the first to refute it. i think therefore i am. umm NOPE. who is thinking? who is am? BRO THIS IS BASIC SHIT AND YOUR STUCK IN THE SIXTEEN HUNDREDS. Most people who work at grocery stores are smarter than descart

>>15331145
>reality is the amount of real things.
No, reality is the amount of things that are but they could can't be. If they could be and they could not be, why do they are? because of >>15331228 , the attribute "real" is non-contingent

>>15331247
>nothing is real bro
>then truth is not real
>then the affirmation "nothing is real bro" isn't true
>then fuck off

>>15330580
The Buddha did

>>15331674
and then Shankaracharya came along and demolished Buddha's claims, vanquishing Buddha's dilapidated and ill-begotten cult once and for all from India

>>15331228
>If the attribute "real" were contingent, reality wouldn't exist
why?

>>15331250
You didn't even quote the post you replied to

>>15330045
>I'm not going to define basic level premises
>I'm not going to do any ontology in support of my ontological argument
anon ontology is very difficult and getting all kinds of definitions to work together is truly hard and nobody truly has their shit together in that department not even professional philosophers, but what in the actual fuck do you think you're doing lmao

>>15328596
ahem...your words require reference...through those specified reference you seek to derive meaning...you use affirmatives to relay your words persuasively...we communicate through a language of "shared" reference....we emphasis those attached meanings subjectively and contextually.....there is nothing more to affirm....linguistic concepts are the domain of emphasis within communication.....we only really verify items with reference....we can consume media...and elaborate scientific theorems and seek to edify logic and positivism....but we can only meaningfully affirm an item we have experienced (an item with position)...this is where empiric domain has been emphasized....move past your worship...understand there is no got to be proven....you can't (this is a basic notion)...there is very little to actually speak of...with the meaning you seem to prop up...Go read a primer to Russell

>>15332209
Because things need to agree certain rules to exist. If the attribute "real" were contingent, there wouldn't be a causality between the rules and the existent things, it would be random as some rules would exist, or they wouldn't. But there is a causality between rules, because reality actually exists and it's not a failed attempt.

>>15332248
Yes, this is not an argument for proving reality.

>>15328596
>2. The characteristic "real" exists

Reality, just like existence, is not a predicate.

>3. The characteristic "real" is non-contingent, since if it weren't so, reality wouldn't exist

Motivate this claim. A skeptic might argue that reality might at some point stop existing.

>4. If non-contingency exists, it is a non-contingent being's attribute

Not necessarily true, it could be a brute fact.

>>15332496
>Motivate this claim. A skeptic might argue that reality might at some point stop existing.
And he would be right, because reality is contingent.
>Not necessarily true
No.
see >>15329205

>>15328596
Nah, I don't like it. I much rather this one.

1. God is the all perfect-being
2. Existance is neccesary for perfection
3. Therefore, God exists.

>>15331262
TOP kek based spaniard poster

>>15332349
this is an argument from the nature of reality this is some lazy bullshit

>>15332496
>Reality, just like existence, is not a predicate.
existence or reality are entailed by every predicate on my semantics
what kind of dark magic are you operating on

>>15332341
>If the attribute "real" were contingent, there wouldn't be a causality between the rules and the existent things
why? support your premises anon, make an argument

>>15328596
>>15328596
1) Reality exists - as what? An epistemological category or an ontological one? What differentiates it from non-reality? Can non-reality "exist" at some level, as well (i.e. as fancy or conjecture)?
Your premise is too nebulous to build such an ambitious argument on it.

2) The state of being real is something which can be ascribed to beings and things - by whom? Is the person ascribing in a position to do so? On what grounds?

3) Non contingent upon what? You need to define what it is that you're defining reality *in opposition to*, otherwise it's just a concept that floats around in your mind and in your sentences without any real meaning.

4) If the notion of non-contingency, which is the basis of your understanding of the nature of the real, exists, then it must be the attribute of a certain being. --> 5) QED that being is God

Sorry, you lost me there: even if it were proved that the first three premises of your argument were both flawless and grounded (which is impossible, they are simply too opaque and broad to follow from each other, i.e. they solicit too many questions) I think the last two are even worse. In fact, it seems that your argument would work even better BACKWARDS (God exists, Jeebus came down to earth, thus embodying non-contingent reality, thus reality must exist as the attribute of that being, thus reality exists). It'd be a theological argument, but I think that there is no philosophical substance to any iteration of it. If you want I could go into the details of why 4 & 5 are flawed in terms of following from premises but my finger are tired hehe. Also sorry if I sound too harsh, it is still an interesting argument that must have required rigorous thought, so I'm curious what you'll think about my little critique.
t. phil major

>>15332538
>Existance is neccesary for perfection
this doesn't imply that perfection is necessary for existence though. idk whose formulation you were going for, Descartes? sounds like the rationalist argument from perfection but you fudged it

>>15332578
It's just math bro.
The set of all of God's traits G equals the set of all perfect traits P
1. G = P

Existance e is a neccesary trait for perfection, therefore an element of P.
2. e ∈ P
3. Therefore, e ∈ G

>>15332575
>1) Reality exists - as what? An epistemological category or an ontological one?
>phil major
more like philBAB hahahaha

>>15332854
I don't get it

>>15332854
when we say something is real, we mean that its existence is tangible and undeniable. Therefore there must be some domain where the evidence of the existence of the real is observed. Therefore it is fair to ask whether that evidence is epistemological (relating to human knowledge) or metaphysical (relating to the ultimate nature of everything).

>>15332854
I hope you're not behind the original post bc if you are you, such a laconic and dismissive response is just pathetic.

>>15330580
>I think therefore I am
Define 'I'

>>15333321
the definition is literally "cogito ergo sum". Exactly thought is "I". You did not even understand what you try to refute

1. All OPs are faggots
2. Thread OP is OP
3. Thread OP is a faggot

>>15333321
bro how the fuck u gon b on /lit/ and not comprehend cogito ergo sum

>>15331250
>reality is the amount of things that are but they could can't be
so existence depends on what is not essentially existence to exist? contingency depends on contingency so what is contingent could also be necessary?

>>15328596
I don't understand, what is "reality" and how do we define it's existence? Is reality the corporal forms and objects that 'concrete nouns' refer to, is it the objects themselves or the space those objects exist in?
What is the characteristic "real", I mean there's more aesthetic judgements of "real" being a contradiction to "fake" which has a meaning somewhere in between "true" and "lie" and "original" with "copy". What is this characteristic? What does it refer to, give me an example of something with this characteristic and how it varies from things that have other "non-real" characteristics.
Is Disneyland, despite being a theme park manufactured to resemble fictional intellectual properties "real" since it is concrete and tangible, while statements of truth "unreal" because they lack any concreteness?
>>15333455
Now this, THIS, is some concise, intelligent, easily understood thinking that I can agree with.

>>15332569
>what kind of dark magic are you operating on
Im mentioning Kant's argument. Existence and reality don't add any particular determination to a concept, admitting that would imply that there is no correlation between the concept itself and its object (because the concept I would use, unlike its object, wouldnt have the predicate of existence, which would preclude me from using it to refer to said existing object).

>>15332510
>And he would be right, because reality is contingent.
A skeptic could object to this option too. How would you argue for your claim?
>>15329205
What do you mean by non-contingency? Necessity?

>>15332571
Because the property REAL happens ALWAYS that there are rules. It only needs one (1) time where the property real doesn't exist to eliminate all creation, because from the nothing nothing comes. Existence would be irrational because the chances for something to be real are so low if the attribute "real" is contingent.

>>15332575
1. I don't mind how "reality" exists. I'm only interested in the property "real".
2. If reality exists, the property real exists. This is tautological and it's derived from the own existence of reality. Reality to be must be real.
3.In opposition to contingent. Isn't obvious?
4.i have explained this like ten times in this thread
see >>15329205

>>15333878
Tell me, you don't believe in reality?
You actually made a good point (well, everyone has made one in this thread so far) so next time I will work in a definition of fucking reality, because I see that some people just can't accept a premise that is self-explanatory, axiomatic shouldn't need any further development.