Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?

[Logik]

And I put it clearly to you. ALL means: All contingent things that exist PLUS the First Cause

Well, that's what you want to say. I understand.

But my point is that you can't make the same claim about necessary beings you can make about contingent ones, so they don't form an "all" (a single group) at all. You can't really predicate the same things of them. (I guess you could put them all in the class, "things that exist," but that's minimally helpful).

There are statements about necessary beings that one can simply never make about contingent ones, and the reverse is also true. For example, "They perish" cannot be said about necessary entities, and "They last forever" cannot be said about contingent ones. Likewise, "They have a cause" cannot be said about necessary entities, and "They exist without cause" cannot be said about contingent beings.

I am not trying to make any points yet.

I am just trying to get us to agree on nomenclature.

Because you seem to be using the word "ALL" in whatever manner suits your argument. ALL swans are white except the black ones.

[Immanuel Can]

I am just trying to get us to agree on nomenclature.

Not a bad idea.

[Logik]

I am just trying to get us to agree on nomenclature.

Not a bad idea.

So then I ask again.

Do you agree that ALL means : universe + first cause

[Immanuel Can]

Do you agree that ALL means : universe + first cause

If you mean "all that exists," yes; if you mean "all that has a cause," then obviously no...that would be a contradiction in terms.

[Logik]

Do you agree that ALL means : universe + first cause

If you mean "all that exists," yes; if you mean "all that has a cause," then obviously no...that would be a contradiction in terms.

No, not ALL "that exists".

ALL.

Unquantified and Unqualified.

Things + Non-things.
Matter + anti-matter.
Concepts + Phenomena.

The notion of "God that doesn't exist" is total nonsense. At this very moment God exists. It's a concept. In your head.
And through conversing with you and comprehending that you mean "First Cause". It's a concept in my head too.

This is where we are at. We are talking about the MAP, not the TERRITORY.

[Immanuel Can]

If you mean "all that exists," yes; if you mean "all that has a cause," then obviously no...that would be a contradiction in terms.

No, not ALL "that exists".

Concepts + Phenomena.

Well, as you point out in your further comments, one has to be attentive to the meaning of "exists" as well.

To say "God exists" is one thing; to say "The concept of God exists," is quite another, obviously. In the first phrase, the noun is "God." In the second, the noun is "concept," (and "of God" is merely the adjectival phrase, modifying "concept"). I would certainly not be asking you to concede the first on the grounds of the second. And anybody who would is guilty of an amphiboly error there.

[Logik]

To say "God exists" is one thing; to say "The concept of God exists," is quite another, obviously.

That's a distinction without a difference.

It's one thing to say "First cause exists"
It's quite another to say "The concept of First cause exists".

Now obviously they are different sentences, and so on linguistic grounds "Saying A is quite different from saying B" is a boring truism.

There is absolutely no testable/falsifiable way to verify the first one, so it is only reasonable to assume that you are speaking about the CONCEPT of a first-cause all along.

In the first phrase, the noun is "God." In the second, the noun is "concept," (and "of God" is merely the adjectival phrase, modifying "concept"). I would certainly not be asking you to concede the first on the grounds of the second. And anybody who would is guilty of an amphiboly error there.

First you object to the meaning of "existence" AS IF it means something about external reality, but then you get hung up on language/grammar.

So am I to understand what you are implying here? "Existence" is a linguistic (or at most - semantic) notion and nothing more.

For me - I have a very very low bar for "existence". Conceptual existence is sufficient. Anything you talk about exists.

Unicorns exist.
Gods exist.
Ghosts exist.

Even null-pointers exist.

Now, you might object to that but hey.... that's your prerogative

Like I said - we are agreeing on nomenclature, and I see no reason to insist on linguistic prescriptivism at this point.

[Immanuel Can]

To say "God exists" is one thing; to say "The concept of God exists," is quite another, obviously.

That's a distinction without a difference.

Clearly not. Unless you think that to say, "The concept of Santa Claus exists" is the same as to say, "Santa Clause exists." Or, on the other hand, to say, "I don't believe in the concept of Eritrea, therefore Eritrea does not exist."

In which case, happy Christmas. Or Kwanzaa.

On the basis of empiricism and consequence they are equivalent.

No. See above.

There's no falsifiable way to verify the first one,

Are you trying to "verify" or "falsify"? You've mixed two epistemological models there. But as it happens, there is no way to "verify" or "falsify" the size of the universe itself. I don't suppose that that will lead you to conclude, "Therefore, the universe does not exist."

In any case, you'd need to show your evidence for there being no such possibility of proof (or maybe you mean disproof: giving your wording, I can't tell).

So am I to understand what you are implying here? "Existence" is a linguistic (or at most - semantic) notion and nothing more.

Heavens, no, man. I didn't imply that, nor does it follow by any logical path from what I said.

All I said was that the concept of a thing and the thing itself are different. See above.

[Logik]

Clearly not. Unless you think that to say, "The concept of Santa Claus exists" is the same as to say, "Santa Clause exists." Or, on the other hand, to say, "I don't believe in the concept of Eritrea, therefore Eritrea does not exist."

In some conceptual frameworks they are the same.
In other conceptual frameworks they are different.

I am flexible. I can conceptualize the universe any number of ways. How does it work in YOUR head?

The point of negotiating nomenclature is SO THAT we don't have to obey existing conventions.

Are you trying to "verify" or "falsify"? You've mixed two epistemological models there.

No. I haven't They are one and the same epistemic model. My model.

To suggest any "mixup" is to claim mind-reading, but if you could read my mind you would've understood what I am saying already.

But as it happens, there is no way to "verify" or "falsify" the size of the universe itself. I don't suppose that that will lead you to conclude, "Therefore, the universe does not exist."

Until we agree on the meaning and use of "existence" in the context of this conversation I care not to make any conclusions about the existence of non-existence of everything.

As I already pointed out.

All I said was that the concept of a thing and the thing itself are different. See above.

And now you have to define "different". Because all your rambling so far appears to be a linguistic/metaphysical objections without any empirical difference.

[Immanuel Can]

In some conceptual frameworks they are the same.
In other conceptual frameworks they are different.

How does it work ...?

One is merely "a conceptual framework"'; the other is an actual thing to which the concept is applied. Vive la difference.

The point of negotiating nomenclature is SO THAT we don't have to obey existing conventions.

Au contraire: the point of negotiating nomenclature is clearly so that we end up using the same nomenclature to refer to the same realities and concepts.

Are you trying to "verify" or "falsify"? You've mixed two epistemological models there.

No. I haven't They are one and the same epistemic model. My model.

To suggest any "mixup" is to claim mind-reading.

"Verificationism" and "Falsificationism" are two different attempts to solve the problem of epistemology. The mixup is actual.

The universe does exist. It's a word.

Then our disagreement is very fundamental. I don't disagree with the word (or concept) existing; I just think it totally begs the question of whether or not the thing actually named in the word (or concept) exists.

I would have to add that the word "exists" is used somewhat differently in both cases too. In the case of concepts, more metaphorically or metaphysically; in the case of actualities, more literally.

[Logik]

One is merely "a conceptual framework"'; the other is an actual thing to which the concept is applied. Vive la difference.

Your mind has no access to "actual things" beyond phenomenology and so the process of categorization is fundamental, yet subjective.
It is very improbable that I draw the lines where you draw the lines.

Try again.

Au contraire: the point of negotiating nomenclature is clearly so that we end up using the same nomenclature to refer to the same realities and concepts.

1. The above is not a complete sentence. Same realities and same concepts in relation to WHOM or WHAT?
2. To make a claim about nomenclature is to already pre-suppose some agreement on the meaning of "realities" and "concepts"

I wouldn't have a clue what you mean by those things. Since I am perfectly happy to utter the phrase "real concepts", although it would be superfluous because I can fathom a conception of concepts and reality in which all concepts are real.

"Verificationism" and "Falsificationism" are two different attempts to solve the problem of epistemology. The mixup is actual.

Then I question your authority on epistemology. I am an epistemologist by virtue of being an applied scientist for 25+ years.
Convince me you are an epistemologist too.

I trust my practical intuition more than I trust your theory.

For every blob of information in my head that I would call "knowledge" I know what empirical evidence confirms it, and I know what it would take to falsify it. It's not verificationism OR falsificationism - it's both. They don't "solve" the problem of epistemology.

They reduce uncertainty. And by the Pyrrhonean account, knowledge is the absence of uncertainty.

Again - we disagree over black/white thinking whereas I prefer to think on continuums.

Then our disagreement is very fundamental. I don't disagree with the word (or concept) existing; I just think it totally begs the question of whether or not the thing actually named in the word (or concept) exists.


I would have to add that the word "exists" is used somewhat differently in both cases too. In the case of concepts, more metaphorically or metaphysically; in the case of actualities, more literally.

And I think that disagreeing over words and language is very petty. Language is just a tool.

What's the objective of the discussion? Let the language emerge organically and as needed from mutual understanding.

Like I told you - I am flexible. You want me to be a Christian? I'll be a Christian.
You want me to be a Muslim? I'll be a Muslim.

I am perfetly happy re-arranging my mind, conceptually and from first principle. In minutes.

The structure of my language is decoupled from the structure of my mind.
While conventionally philosophers value consistency - I don't.

This is also my pet-peeve with philosophers. So much time is spent on arguing over bullshit when you can just construct a taxonomy (conceptual model) of whatever it is that you are talking about in 30 seconds using a white board. There's really no need for the level of prescriptivism you insist or expect.

We already speak English. We can negotiate metaphysics and ontology on the fly.

[Immanuel Can]

One is merely "a conceptual framework"'; the other is an actual thing to which the concept is applied. Vive la difference.

Your mind has no access to "actual things" beyond phenomenology

That's assumptive and controversial. It's certainly not a "given."

Then I question your authority on epistemology. I am an epistemologist by virtue of being an applied scientist for 25+ years.
Convince me you are an epistemologist too.

I'm not. I'm an ethicist. But your argument is ad hominem, not substantial there. It does not follow that someone who is "an applied scientist," whatever you mean by that, is also an epistemologist.

Then our disagreement is very fundamental. I don't disagree with the word (or concept) existing; I just think it totally begs the question of whether or not the thing actually named in the word (or concept) exists.

I would have to add that the word "exists" is used somewhat differently in both cases too. In the case of concepts, more metaphorically or metaphysically; in the case of actualities, more literally.

And I think that disagreeing over words and language is very petty. Language is just a tool.

Even a "tool" must work for something. If it fails to function, then it's not a "tool." The question is, what is the function of language? But that's a different question from the present one.

[Logik]

That's assumptive and controversial. It's certainly not a "given."

You haven't reasoned yourself in that position yet?
I have.

The shortest argument I can offer is the discrepancy in experiencing colors between trichromats, tetrachromats and pentachromats. Yet all three will agree that the sky is blue.

What we say about things is not how we experience them.
What we say about things is not how things really are.

Your mind is a prisoner of your senses.

I'm not. I'm an ethicist. But your argument is ad hominem, not substantial there. It does not follow that someone who is "an applied scientist," whatever you mean by that, is also an epistemologist.

Great! As long as we don't fall for the ontological error philosophers tend to make we should be OK.
e.g Make sure we ask questions like: What does an ethicist/epistemologist DO?" and avoid questions like "What IS knowledge/epistemology/ethics".

I am in the business of systems/safety engineering. So I guess I am an applied ethicist too. I build systems fault-tolerant/fault-resistant systems.
I know what "errors" in reasoning are. I've made many.

What I DO as an epistemologist and how I use knowledge is summed up as: decision-making under uncertainty towards achieving one's goals. The art of making shitty trade-offs.

Even a "tool" must work for something. If it fails to function, then it's not a "tool."

If you have no criteria for success/failure you have no foundation from which to assert whether the tool has "failed to function".

Right now - I have absolutely no idea whether the tool is working or failing.
We are talking, but are we running in circles or getting somewhere?

The question is, what is the function of language? But that's a different question from the present one.

So as to avoid nitpicking here is what I use language for:

1. Communication (English)
2. Thought (Metalanguages - Mathematics, Programming languages etc)

[Immanuel Can]

That's assumptive and controversial. It's certainly not a "given."

You haven't reasoned yourself in that position yet?
I have.

It's not inevitable. It might be true that our minds have mediated access to reality. But that won't give us reason to know that that access in inadequate, or to believe it's not giving us access to anything real. For certain, we are not simply picking our all own perceptions...some are "forced" upon us.

I'm not. I'm an ethicist. But your argument is ad hominem, not substantial there. It does not follow that someone who is "an applied scientist," whatever you mean by that, is also an epistemologist.

Great! As long as we don't fall for the ontological error philosophers tend to make we should be OK.
e.g Make sure we ask questions like: What does an ethicist/epistemologist DO?" and avoid questions like "What IS knowledge/epistemology/ethics".

To hedge off ontological questions would be arbitrary. In point of fact, the ontological precedes the ethical...you don't know what "the good" is if you haven't established already in your mind, even suppositionally, what "the real" is. Humanly speaking, mentally furnishing the world comes first: deciding what to do with it is secondary...except in the mind of God, since for Him creating and assigning roles would be identical acts.

I am in the business of systems/safety engineering.

Interesting. It explains your preference for functionality over ontology. The difficulty, when one is immersed in a field, is realizing it's not the meta-paradigm through which all others are best seen. That's just a human tendency -- the physicist may come to believe that "All is physics," the scholar of literature thinks "It's all really narrative," the linguist "It's a language game," the technician, "It's a machine..."

The question is, what is the function of language? But that's a different question from the present one.

So as to avoid nitpicking here is what I use language for:

1. Communication (English)
2. Thought (Metalanguages - Mathematics, Programming languages etc)

Okay, but #1 needs some unpacking. One doesn't "communicate" merely with oneself. That act presumes both issuer and recipient of communication. So there has to be common interpretation, at least within a functional range of accuracy. However, that's a far different topic from what's at the top of this message, so lets revert to the main.

[Logik]

It's not inevitable. It might be true that our minds have mediated access to reality. But that won't give us reason to know that that access in inadequate, or to believe it's not giving us access to anything real. For certain, we are not simply picking our all own perceptions...some are "forced" upon us.

You speak of (in)adequacy without specifying criteria.

Yes. Physics "forces" a bunch of limits on us. All of those limits put us at a predicament colloquially called 'The Human Condition'.

To hedge off ontological questions would be arbitrary. In point of fact, the ontological precedes the ethical...you don't know what "the good" is if you haven't established already in your mind, even suppositionally, what "the real" is. Humanly speaking, mentally furnishing the world comes first: deciding what to do with it is secondary...except in the mind of God, since for Him creating and assigning roles would be identical acts.

Disagree. The first principle of ethics is first do no harm. "Harm" may be a function of ontology, but doesn't begin or end there.

What is real is the "I". And the ontological body (being a pre-requisite for the I's existence) is by extension that which is "real" e.g worth protecting.

Protecting from what? From other real things that can cause harm.

Interesting. It explains your preference for functionality over ontology. The difficulty, when one is immersed in a field, is realizing it's not the meta-paradigm through which all others are best seen. That's just a human tendency -- the physicist may come to believe that "All is physics," the scholar of literature thinks "It's all really narrative," the linguist "It's a language game," the technician, "It's a machine..."

Unfortunately, this is a product of our "mediated access to reality". I have no access to ontology beyond that which I DECIDE is ontological.

Classification is a function of minds - not reality.

Okay, but #1 needs some unpacking. One doesn't "communicate" merely with oneself. That act presumes both issuer and recipient of communication. So there has to be common interpretation, at least within a functional range of accuracy. However, that's a far different topic from what's at the top of this message, so lets revert to the main.

OK. Then I need to climb one abstraction higher: What do you use communication for?

To talk to others yes (duh), but why?

The problem of interpretation (as is all philosophers understand it) is one of prioritizaiton. Of all possible interpretations which one is right and which one is wrong?

So we are back to criterions for "rightness" and "wrongness".

We say: to avoid miscommunication. Why do we want to avoid miscommunication?

Why? is a human question. It's the question of intent behind ethics.

Why do we do whatever it is that we do?