(August 13, 2009 at 5:42 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: I was dealing merely with the conceptual signification of "transcendent", which you hadn't understood by temporally limiting it.I understand that you have failed to provide evidence for something transcendent. That's what I understand.
Quote: It's the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it - Aristotle.Yes. I entertain the notion of transcenence, of there being some 'objective mind' that you speak of, that somehow 'transcends this universe', but you have failed to provide evidence for it. And I have done just that, entertained an idea without having to accept it, and I haven't accepted it - because there's no evidence.
That's one of my favouite quotes by the way, it's awesome.
Quote:I have provided evidence, the argument from potentiality/actuality, and the several forms of transcendental argument, both the orthodox TAG and my own versions of a transcendental argument which builds on knowledge of the natural world after the effect.
There is evidence for the universe. Where is the evidence for God? I've heard these semantics again and again.
Quote:The more complex issuing forth from the less complex is not a problem, anyway; even in naturalistic metaphysics, most cosmogonies ultimately suggest (for instance, in quantum physics) that the universe issued forth from something much smaller and simpler than what exists now, which had the potence to produce everything in existence now.Yes, something simple....not a mind. Blind random forces, (near) impotence not a mind! It's only (much more) potent over a long course of time when the stuff gets together. You get minds from blind random forces, you don't have intelligence, minds from the beginning, right from the outset. In the beginning there is just blind processes, any intelligence just comes forth like from an algorithm, not from an intelligent mind, never mind a superintelligent so-called 'objective' one.
EvF
