Breaking down the "God sees argument"

[Whateverist]

Or even "the existence of our enduring sense of self is a poorly understood mystery". Its 'objective' existence can only count as a very weak premise in an argument.

[Mystic]

It's simple premise.

Either A or notA.

If A is true, then not A is false. if NotA is true, then A is false.

I think I have to break it down this way, because, people often like muddying the issue, instead of dealing with the argument.

There is an objectively measured you. For example, a moon you may have no idea what size it is, but it's size exists objectively regardless. You too exist regardless.

I am saying your traits, etc, you may not realize them all, for example, but they objectively exist. You may not realize your scale and measurement but it exists. That is to say, you don't know the degree of your intelligence for example but it exists. The same is true of your goodness, praise, or evil or inner beauty or inner ugliness.

I am saying it's the case we either objectively exist or we don't objectively exist.

[chimp3]

This is an ignorant argument. If you did not exist you would not be typing words on a keyboard and posting them online. Where does this declaration of the obvious intend to go?

[Whateverist]

It's simple premise.

Either A or notA ... but we're in no position to know which is 'objectively' true if for no other reason than we can at best only say what is subjectively true about ourselves as such.

I think this is the rest of the story.

[Mystic]

It's simple premise.

Either A or notA ... but we're in no position to know which is 'objectively' true if for no other reason than we can at best only say what is subjectively true about ourselves as such.

I think this is the rest of the story.

Going ahead of the horse! Whether we in a position to know which is true is another argument.

I am stating a simple premise, it's either this or that.

[Edwardo Piet]

What is the difference between we "objectively exist" vs. "we exist" ? Why the embellishment?

Exactly my point!

[Edwardo Piet]

It's simple premise.

Either A or notA.

Yes. But not A isn't really an option. There is no either about it. We do exist.

Even if you are all just existent as figments of my imagination you still exist in that sense. You still have phenomenological existence.

[Edwardo Piet]

See, existence and reality doesn't need to be noumenal at all. Far from it. The reality and real world that we live and function only requires positing the phenomenal world... whether there's any noumenal existential reality is moot and unnecessary for postulation.

We all absolutely must objectively exist within the phenomenal world at the very least. Fuck noumenal reality. There is no thing-in-itself besides the law of identity and would you even call that a 'thing'? If you would then it's true to say that there is noumenal logic and it's tautologically based entirely upon the foundations of the law of identity/non-contradiction "A=A"... and it's noumenal because it's truth is independent of the minds that create what the label "A=A" refers to. The point of reference exists independent of the referer because what it refers to is absolutely tautologically true regardless of how the label is phrased... and it's a truly absolutely sound premise.

So meh, we do all objectively exist dude, at least in phenomenal reality phenomenologically and if there's any noumenal existence it's the noumenal existence of the logical absolutes such as the Law of Identity/non-contradiction. Ok?

[Mystic]

I give up.

People here love to argue for the sake of arguing. And as long as you are like that, you will never arrive at the truth.

Alistair, again, I'm not arguing two are possible.

The argument I presented in the other thread is not only valid, but all it's premises are true and can be proven.

I don't have time really to do this anymore. If people can't acknowledge such a simple premise, it shows people are not here to learn, they want to argue and refute.

[ApeNotKillApe]

It's simple premise.

Either A or notA.

Says who?

If A is true, then not A is false. if NotA is true, then A is false.

Or they're simultaneously true and false but only a little bit..

I think I have to break it down this way, because, people often like muddying the issue, instead of dealing with the argument.

Damn them and their perfectly logical questions.

There is an objectively measured you.  For example, a moon you may have no idea what size it is, but it's size exists objectively regardless. You too exist regardless.

Regardless of what, whether or not a moon knows my size?

I am saying your traits, etc, you may not realize them all, for example, but they objectively exist. You may not realize your scale and measurement but it exists. That is to say, you don't know the degree of your intelligence for example but it exists. The same is true of your goodness, praise, or evil or inner beauty or inner ugliness.

I am saying it's the case we either objectively exist or we don't objectively exist.

Phrasing.