Circular.
How is that in any way circular? 
If one defines God as consistency, then God is proven simply by the attempt to be consistent - which is already implied in the process of definition.
The conclusion of “God” is assumed in the premise. This is the very definition of circular reasoning. I thought this observation was obvious.
The statement had nothing to do with a proof. It was a statement - an assertion - “God = Consistency”. And nothing at all circular about it unless 1=1 is somehow circular.
It’s more complicated than that.
Even James was aware of the proof that if everything is exactly the same that existence can’t exist.
1 /= 1 perfectly. It’s just a good enough approximation. (It’s utilitarian)
Because statements/assertions don’t need proving?
If one defines “1” as equal to 1, then of course 1=1. That would be circular. Fortunately proofs of the statement/assertion “1=1” are more fundamental than that - but even they rely on assumptions. There is always a set of assumptions at the base of any proofs built on further proofs - otherwise they are circular (like a dictionary). But this is the birth of Postmodernism, when the more interesting thing is that these things can work in practice, and consistently too. So there is truth after all, Postmodernism. If you were a philosopher you would know about all this - always a pleasure to debate with you, obsrvr…
No.
If I said - “IF 1=1, and 1=20.5, and 20.5=1 then 1=1” - that would be circular. There has to be more than one statement to make a circle - a statement that leads to a statement that leads back to the original statement. A straight line or a single point does not a circle make.
Otherwise you become imbiguous and have to claim that every equation is circular.
Iambiguous isn’t wrong, his philosophy is just uninteresting in the same way Postmodernism doesn’t really tell us anything - notably that truths can consistently work for everyone in useful ways, regardless of their own dasein.
You don’t seem to be showing appreciation that “1=1” isn’t simplistically a standalone statement. It’s not like somebody simply said “let 1=1, and 1 equalled 1 and it was good” - peripheral cognitive work went into that that is too easy to take for granted, especially if as a child you learn truths by rote and you don’t learn to think for yourself. When you learn to think for yourself, you realise that every statement is implicitly based on another - and that is where statements can reveal themselves as circular to some extent. It’s akin to no longer seeing a circle from the side such that it no longer appears as a straight line, but curved afterall with the application of another dimension. “1=1” isn’t proven by “1*0.5” by the way, it’s proven by a further layer of abstraction (logic). We have nothing more fundamental than logic, which is taken to be self-evident, and without which we cannot prove anything from mathematics to anything at all beyond it. Everything at a lower level of abstraction than logic is not simply a statement, but based on something more fundamental whether you realise it or not - “1=1” included.
It’s evident that “God = consistency” is uncomplicatedly circular with no value added simply by the implicit assumption that we just defined it that way. What reasoning goes into “God being consistency” that’s embedded in empirical observation rather than merely stated?
We are in agreement on all of the above. Not on the following:
So you have literally just said: I’m saying we cannot even conceive of that which has to be by definition beyond our finite conception of “somethings”. Do you see why I have chosen to focus on infinity (which you say is irrelevant to your core argument)?
Again, if I show you that we necessarily understand infinity, your argument about our finite and imperfect conception being such that we do not understand the Infinite or the Perfect, falls. To you the finite cannot conceive of the Infinite. If I show you that we necessarily conceive of the infinite, your argument falls does it not? So for now, let’s focus purely on this point as I feel that is the most efficient way for us to move forward. You say:
Right, I will try and be clearer in what it is that I am asking of you. Call existence ‘x’. Call not existence or non-existence ‘not x’ or ‘non-x’. Was there ever not x or non-x? Or was there always x?
Also: Is that which you call ‘nothing’ an instance of ‘not x’, or is it an instance of ‘x’?
You are right in that it is circular. That is a triangle because it has only three sides is also circular, but it is a truth. As in it is circular but sound. Why is it sound? Because semantics are the way they are. Why are semantics the way they are? Because Existence is the way It Is. These are just brute/glorious facts (whichever way you want to look at it).
If one persists with reason in a consistent and sincere manner, they will see that what Obsrvr is saying is actually spot on. If you are truly conceiving of Existence, you are conceiving of the Infinite. This is also circular but sound because as I will hopefully show you, if you persist in this debate, you cannot believe in Existence without acknowledging Its Infiniteness. This is because it would be paradoxical to view Existence as not Infinite just as it would be paradoxical to view non-existence as infinite or an existent thing. Or to equate nothing with existence. When you contradict semantics, or use semantics in a contradictory manner, you know that you are saying what is not true of Existence. You know you are saying what is false. Some people are ok to do this, others are not. My hope is that you are not ok to accept these sorts of standards for yourself. My hope is, that you will opt for standards that are reasonable, understandable, sensible, intelligible and not absurd/irrational/unreasonable/nonsensical/paradoxical. My hope is that you will favour truth over falsehood, even if you don’t like the way it looks at first glance (which would be odd given that nothing could look or sound or feel better than a perfect existence. It not existing, would surely be a shame.).
For something to be a circular argument it must first be an argument.
Is the statement “1=1” a “series of statements”?
If not then it is not an argument.
If not an argument then it cannot be in the set of circular arguments.
By analogy a single statement is a point. It is a single entity. If not conditional, it is a stand alone entity. Whether a true or false statement, it is but one point.
How do we make a circle out of a single point? A circle requires at very least 2 separate points and that is only if we accept bendy lines that equate the first and third points as the exact same point. To define a particular circle requires 3 separate points.
So why on Earth would either of you think that the statement “1=1” or “A=1” is circular?
Bendy is sufficient for light before You become aware of it.
The third is an unintended premise.
May I not be wrong.
Good point. Thank you for making it.
Triangles have three sides. Triangles have four sides. That is a triangle because it is a triangle. Jack is happy because he is smiling. The latter two are circular, the former two are not. I viewed triangle = triangle as being circular because I wrongly thought it amounted to the statement ‘that is a triangle because it is a triangle’ (which I see as being circular but sound).
Don’t confuse tautology with circularity.
And the statement “God = Consistency” is neither tautological nor circular.
It is a single assertion of fact - whether true or false.
Except when circularity takes a back seat to the awareness of it
I suspect I only began qualifying human conception as “finite” in response to your focus on the infinite - but this just makes it a “you did it first” argument, which is a bit beneath us I’m sure you agree.
I’ll just apologise for using the true but non-core term when, as I’ve been making clear this whole time - the crux of my argument is that human conception falls short of the divine. Sorry for being so misleading.
If you could validly do so then sure it’d fall. But you cannot, so it doesn’t fall.
And even if you could, it wouldn’t get to the core of my argument about the problematic gulf between what makes something divine vs the constraints of human conception.
We really can leave this whole “infinity” debate alone, it really is extraneous as I keep pointing out and explaining.
So this is completely pointless, as I keep saying. At this point it’s one of the least efficient ways for us to move forward. We already know the only issue is your classical definitions, which you won’t change so there’s nowhere new for us to go.
If I have to keep being forced into the something/nothing debate when it’s not relevant to my argument, I’m not accepting the absolute mutual exclusivity and the false binary. That would be the classical model that doesn’t take into account quantum mechanics and better information of what actually happens at really small scales, however “absurd” the empirical evidence may seem to be when evaluated with outdated definitions. I’d rather not accept outdated conceptions - though this doesn’t mean I fully accept current quantum modellings by default - I just acknowledge that to act like the “something/nothing” argument is clearcut is to act like we know more than we do, when things look like they are far more complicated than simplistic classical intuitions would suggest.
So not only is it irrelevant to my argument, it’s not even a good argument to claim certainty about anyway.
Sillhuette says:
"I’d rather not accept outdated conceptions - though this doesn’t mean I fully accept current quantum modellings by default - I just acknowledge that to act like the “something/nothing” argument is clearcut is to act like we know more than we do, when things look like they are far more complicated than simplistic classical intuitions would suggest.
“So not only is it irrelevant to my argument, it’s not even a good argument to claim certainty about anyway.”
-------------------------->
The form of argument You are wary of using may certainly be beneath us, yet to argue denoting prior assumptions, may not be, if we note priority not in the conventional spatio- temporal sense. In this way, we avoid the calculations inherent in connecting with smaller derived, meta languages
,while disposing the different qualitative aspects surrounding the ‘bandiness’ of the third, middle term.
We are finite and imperfect and Perfection and Infinity are the ‘beyond us’ that you talk about that you say we have 0 understanding of (because we are finite/imperfect and can’t comprehend beyond finite and imperfect).
This isn’t about who did it first or what is beneath us. This is about me trying to understand your reasoning. Too see if it is consistent or not. You claimed Perfection is beyond the mind of an imperfect being to understand it. To which I then sought to see if you maintained the same standards with regards to Infinity by highlighting to you the problem of something coming from nothing. You were consistent in this (as in you rejected that we understand Infinity just as you rejected that we understand God/Perfection for the same reason…‘they are beyond us’). I am now trying to show you that this rejection leads to paradoxes (something coming from nothing), whereas its acceptance avoids this paradox (something did not come from nothing). Just look at it again ‘something did not come from nothing’. It’s so simple and paradox-free is it not? You suggest that we instead believe in something between nothing and something. As far as I can see, you are sacrificing reason and semantics in the name of ‘science’. Embracing absurdities in the name of unknowns. Like a devout ‘religious person’ sacrificing reason and semantics in the name of God. Such ‘religious’ people (I know you are not religious) seem to think that God can create something from nothing. Perhaps they think that there is a thing between nothing and something. I suspect, they are not thinking much…about Existence/God. They just want to conform to what their mullahs and priests say. It is not God/Truth or guidance they seek. It is self-justification irrespective of truth they seek. They do not care much for Truth.
You did not answer my question. I narrowed it down to the simplest point for you. Easy to answer if one wants to answer it. Yet you did not answer. Are you sure you have no horse in this race?
Again, I have clearly shown you how it is relevant to your argument. Again, you claim Infinity is beyond us. This logically implies the existence of non-existence. This is absurd. You tell a child the universe is expanding, if he is sharp, he will ask what’s it expanding into. If the ‘teacher’ is misguided, he will say it is expanding into something that is nothing but not absolute nothing, but also not something, but not absolute nothing. The child will say this is absurd/madness/insanity. The ‘teacher’ will say your understanding of nothing is outdated. It’s too complicated for you. It’s literally like watching a priest or mullah tell a man/child to sacrifice reason, semantics, sincerity to truth…in the name of God/Existence or religion/science. Such individuals, they make my blood boil. Do they not make your blood boil?
Do you not see that language labels semantics? Semantics do not become outdated. Existence will always mean Existence and triangle will aways mean triangle. To say there was not x (Existence) and then there was x (Existence) is to be absurd. If we claim Existence has always existed, this is not absurd. If we understand Infinity, then your argument of ‘the finite mind can’t understand Infinity’ falls and with it ‘the imperfect mind cannot understand Perfection’.
What’s your priority? What horse do you have in this race?
Is it your priority to be reasonable and free of paradoxes/absurdities/irrationalities, or to reject that you understand Infinity?
My priority, my horse in this race, is to get back to my actual argument.
I’m tempted to just leave this post there.
Every time I respond to the extraneous tangent, it takes up the whole of your response back to me, and we never actually end up covering the only thing I was trying to say in the first place.
Yes, it’s wonderfully simplistic to say something did not come from nothing, if only it didn’t lead to the paradox of finite conception encompassing infinity, and if only experiment didn’t show “something coming from nothing” happening all the time at the quantum level - and I know we agree that if something actually happens in the real world, it’s not a paradox or contradiction. I’m not sacrificing anything to simply point out what happens in the real world - which is all science is (at a simplistic level). If you think pure reason is being compromised when reality doesn’t concord with it, then your premises need revising. That’s the thing about pure reason - soundness requires both validity AND true premises, and if what’s true about the world is different to how you thought, reality isn’t “wrong” for not conforming to your reasoning based on outdated premises. And yes, casual terminology can and does get refined for technical use that requires more precise definition compared to how it might have been used before. “Nothing” and “something” just aren’t as good terms as we used to think they were when it comes to describing the beginnings of the universe - unless of course you use the refined technical definitions that are different to how you like to use them, even though they describe what actually happens in the real world much better. This is what science does - you literally can’t sacrifice reason to it, because sound premises and valid logic is all existence can allow. If pure reason isn’t concording to reality, it’s flawed reasoning. And if the validity isn’t at fault, then it’s the premises that are at fault - so update them. This is literally the opposite of devout religiosity, to which you seem to want to compare it. Scientists are nothing like priests and mullahs, I’m literally telling you to go out there and find it all out for yourself - as this is what science allows. Religion is just credulity.
How many times do I need to restate these facts for you to understand my reasoning? I’m just repeating myself and then you repeat yourself in return and we get nowhere.
I say it again, I’m not even saying that science is infallible (by definition it’s in a continuous process of improvement so never perfect), I’m just saying that it’s all we have - especially when pure reason leaves us either with the paradox of nothingness or infinity. When that’s all you’re left with, you aren’t forced to accept one paradox because the only other option is a paradox too - that’s just absurd. You have to think outside the box - find another way to define things that reflects the real world, with which you can reason validly. That’s my priority. I know it’s inconvenient that reality isn’t as simple as we thought, but the consolation is that it’s way more interesting than we thought. And yes it’s hard to get your head around - you seem only willing to accept easy conceptions, even if they end up “forcing” you to accept absurdity just to avoid another absurdity. Apparently figuring out the best way to describe the world is kinda complex, who woulda thought? Sorry to kids and all other students who want easy answers to their questions, when the truth is complicated, and in all honesty beyond pretty much everyone - if not everyone.
But fortunately that’s not even my concern, because as opposed to the origins of the universe, the question of God is way easier to resolve.
Now if we’d just stick to my actual argument and get away from the above finally, maybe we can at least get that far. I know you think it’s relevant, but it’s just not. Even if they were, and we could conceive of infinity and/or absolute nothing, these things would be within our human conception and therefore no different from anything else mundane of which we can conceive. What would be divine about them? That’s the whole problem - as soon as we can conceive of it, it’s not special, and it’s only divine if it is special by virtue of being at least a little bit beyond our conception. So as soon as you prove anything is within our human conception, it doesn’t qualify as divine - if you succeed, you fail.
- sounds like me talking to you. Maybe now you know what it feels like.