I didn’t come across such complete bollocks in a long time!!!
Not even a conceptual artist would sign his name to such unadulterated nonsense!!
No wonder the general public is contemptuous of philosophy!
In your hands philosophy would soon become utter foolishness.
The argument here is “that which is inconceivable does not exist.”
But we have not define what it is to exist? What to you is existence?
We have also not define several other key terms, which I will attempt now:
Conceivable: That which a human being can think of, at one time or another.
Inconceivable. That which is beyond any human imagination for all times.
Perception: The human ability to be aware of things other than himself.To be sure you, although you cannot perceive it, you can conceive of what the centre of the sun can be.
However how can you be absolutely sure or rationally certain that your conceptions are all that can possibly exist in the centre of the sun?
Even if I can sum up all the conceptions of every human being dead, alive and yet to be, for all times, I will not be sure I will not be surprised if one day I can indeed perceive the centre of the sun.
You have asserted that “EVERYTHING inconceivable is rationally impossible”. But this is merely tautological, as it simply defines inconceivables as that inaccessible by reason or rational, and not as if it is derived from some fundamental/axiomatic rational imperatives.
And again is being “rationally impossible” the same as not capable of existing? Unless, again you are defining existence merely as that which is rationally possible? Are you? If so then again it is a tautology, and your argument above is true, by definition, but we are no closer to knowing anything at all.
Hey, bud. I was the one who said that perceptions and concievability are of no relation. Even if you COULD percieve the center of the sun, it has no bearing on this argument. Right? So… what’s your point?
I fail to see how this is a tautology. In fact, I disagree whole heartedly with you on that. This is an axiom in and of itself. It neither defines that which is inconcievable nor does it define that which is impossible. It is a simple premise for arguments that eschews all irrational thinking from happening. It is the miracle killer. This is a very strong and important statement. It means that we should no longer worry about that which we cannot conceive of. We should focus directly on that which we can conceive of and whether or not it is impossible. It means that we are transcending mystical evidence and looking at what we can rationalize and its validity. It means that there are no more invisible men.
It means that if god is to exist, he must show himself to our reasons.
You still fail to see the circularities in your arguments. But ignoring it, just as you did, let me just focus on one question I have asked: what do you mean to say something exist?