(October 13, 2019 at 7:13 pm)Acrobat Wrote: P2-If reality possess value and meaning, we can use logic to infer a cause, from an effect. I.E. That which possess values and meaning, indicate intentionality, authorship, design, etc..That is quite a big IF. Why should reality have value and meaning except that which WE intentionally assign to it. Reality need not have any meaning at all. Any such value and meaning is intentionally assigned by minds, ours.
(October 13, 2019 at 7:13 pm)Acrobat Wrote: P3-Determinism is true. To ask for proof of determinism, implies it’s true. The question itself requires determinism to be true, preceding factors to reach x conclusion, the conclusion is drawn from previously existing causes.I suspect this premise is mere filler to separate P2 from the HUUUUUGE leap in P5.
Besides, we already know that determinism does not always hold. Thus P3 is false. Given any premise is false, then the entire argument is falsified.
(October 13, 2019 at 7:13 pm)Acrobat Wrote: P4-All preceding factors, have preceding factors of their own, until one reaches a point which posses no preceding factors, i.e a first cause, or a type of uncaused singularity, that’s the ultimate determining cause of all causes, all knowledge, all past and future, events, all values and meanings, etc..Except it has been determined that this is not the case for the same reason as P3.
(October 13, 2019 at 7:13 pm)Acrobat Wrote: P5- Since reality possess values and meanings, that are ultimately rooted in the first cause, reality is an intentional work, authored designed, a novel.False. Since reality does not possess "values and meanings" except those assigned by a mind or minds, and we also know that human minds are assigning "values and meanings" to reality ALL THE TIME, no other mind is necessary. Parsimony and Occam apply. Note how a leap of logic happened between P2 and P5, where P2 stated "If reality possess value and meaning" a conditional, straight to P5 "Since reality possess values and meanings" as a certainty with NO ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY SUCH A WILD LEAP.
The intervening P3 and P4 added nothing to such a leap and were lumped in to give the appearance that this unjustified leap had been made. It has not.
A logical argument falls if ANY of it's premises fails. P2, P3, P4, and P5 fail.
No soup for you.
