No Nothingness

[Scott Mayers]

Goto viewtopic.php?f=16&t=31231

[Veritas Aequitas]

"You start with very contentious terms like absolutely, nothing, existence, as assumptions.
I don't see how can any argument be sound if the first premise is merely an assumption. Can you show me how it can be sound if we start with an assumption?"

All sensory data is assumed and interpreted through the mind. Empiricism, and its by products, are assumed.

Nope.

All empirical verification and justification, say within the scientific framework are not assumed but are based on direct observations.
When has any one claimed scientific theories are assumed?

Truth occurs in grades and as existing in grades necessitates empirical elements being intertwined with abstract elements. The necessity of grades as having simultaneous true/false values necessitates all phenomena as having grades where they exist as both abstract/empirical natures. Abstractions, as emergent phenomena, cannot be completely separate from the physical.

1. The opposite of one thing existing, existence as whole, is nothing.
2. Nothing cannot be observed as a thing in itself except through multiple phenomena.
3. The opposite of one existence is many existences thus existence occurs in grades.
4. Being is thus subject to gradation thus resulting to many truth/false values where truth and falsity occur simultaneously as being is subject to context.

Rhetoric.
Your argument is not valid.

A thing-in-itself does not exists are real empirically and philosophically.
Only the empirical are observable
Therefore a thing-in-itself cannot be observed at all!

[Eodnhoj7]

"You start with very contentious terms like absolutely, nothing, existence, as assumptions.
I don't see how can any argument be sound if the first premise is merely an assumption. Can you show me how it can be sound if we start with an assumption?"

All sensory data is assumed and interpreted through the mind. Empiricism, and its by products, are assumed.

Nope.

All empirical verification and justification, say within the scientific framework are not assumed but are based on direct observations.
When has any one claimed scientific theories are assumed?

False, the framework is built upon abstractions,

Truth occurs in grades and as existing in grades necessitates empirical elements being intertwined with abstract elements. The necessity of grades as having simultaneous true/false values necessitates all phenomena as having grades where they exist as both abstract/empirical natures. Abstractions, as emergent phenomena, cannot be completely separate from the physical.

1. The opposite of one thing existing, existence as whole, is nothing.
2. Nothing cannot be observed as a thing in itself except through multiple phenomena.
3. The opposite of one existence is many existences thus existence occurs in grades.
4. Being is thus subject to gradation thus resulting to many truth/false values where truth and falsity occur simultaneously as being is subject to context.

Rhetoric.
Your argument is not valid.

A thing-in-itself does not exists are real empirically and philosophically.

Matter as moving through itself as itself is a thing in itself thus empirical.

Only the empirical are observable
Therefore a thing-in-itself cannot be observed at all!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Nope.

All empirical verification and justification, say within the scientific framework are not assumed but are based on direct observations.
When has any one claimed scientific theories are assumed?

False, the framework is built upon abstractions,

Whatever the framework, the conclusion of empiricism, e.g. scientific truths are at best polished conjectures. No empiricist is seeking for absolute proofs and answer.
What is critical with empiricism is whether the conclusions are testable, repeatable, falsifiable and most important, it is holistically useful to the well-being of humanity.

You on the other hand is seeking something beyond empiricism which is not provable at all, i.e. it is an illusion.
You keep talking about 'that which is beyond man' but refuse to prove and convince others such a thing exists.
I say such insistence is delusional with illusions.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nope.

All empirical verification and justification, say within the scientific framework are not assumed but are based on direct observations.
When has any one claimed scientific theories are assumed?

False, the framework is built upon abstractions,

Whatever the framework, the conclusion of empiricism, e.g. scientific truths are at best polished conjectures. No empiricist is seeking for absolute proofs and answer.
What is critical with empiricism is whether the conclusions are testable, repeatable, falsifiable and most important, it is holistically useful to the well-being of humanity.

You on the other hand is seeking something beyond empiricism which is not provable at all, i.e. it is an illusion.
You keep talking about 'that which is beyond man' but refuse to prove and convince others such a thing exists.
I say such insistence is delusional with illusions.

The totality of being is untestable yet exists as self evident.

Empiricism as a phenomenon is no thing in itself, as expressed through your reasoning, therefore there is truth beyond empiricism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

False, the framework is built upon abstractions,

Whatever the framework, the conclusion of empiricism, e.g. scientific truths are at best polished conjectures. No empiricist is seeking for absolute proofs and answer.
What is critical with empiricism is whether the conclusions are testable, repeatable, falsifiable and most important, it is holistically useful to the well-being of humanity.

You on the other hand is seeking something beyond empiricism which is not provable at all, i.e. it is an illusion.
You keep talking about 'that which is beyond man' but refuse to prove and convince others such a thing exists.
I say such insistence is delusional with illusions.

The totality of being is untestable yet exists as self evident.

You cannot even demonstrate the totality-of-being is even empirically possible.

Empiricism as a phenomenon is no thing in itself, as expressed through your reasoning, therefore there is truth beyond empiricism.

How do you verify that truth beyond empiricism?
Note Science is the standard bearer of truth.
Demonstrate your truth-beyond-empiricism can be verified scientifically.

Note my usual example.
Anyone can speculate 'human-liked aliens exists in a planet 1 light year away from Earth' is empirically possible because all the bolded variables had been proven to be true empirically.
So it is a matter of bring the empirical evidence of those human liked aliens to prove their reality.

Demonstrate your truth-beyond-empiricism is empirically-possible thus can be verified scientifically.

[Eodnhoj7]

Whatever the framework, the conclusion of empiricism, e.g. scientific truths are at best polished conjectures. No empiricist is seeking for absolute proofs and answer.
What is critical with empiricism is whether the conclusions are testable, repeatable, falsifiable and most important, it is holistically useful to the well-being of humanity.

You on the other hand is seeking something beyond empiricism which is not provable at all, i.e. it is an illusion.
You keep talking about 'that which is beyond man' but refuse to prove and convince others such a thing exists.
I say such insistence is delusional with illusions.

The totality of being is untestable yet exists as self evident.

You cannot even demonstrate the totality-of-being is even empirically possible.

Yet being is a subset of tests. Being must exist for a test to occur, yet the test itself must be proven as "being". Being is subject to being.

Being is untestable yet accepted as is.

Empiricism as a phenomenon is no thing in itself, as expressed through your reasoning, therefore there is truth beyond empiricism.

How do you verify that truth beyond empiricism?
Note Science is the standard bearer of truth.
Demonstrate your truth-beyond-empiricism can be verified scientifically.

Because science cannot be the standard bearer of truth as it does not exist in and of itself.

Note my usual example.
Anyone can speculate 'human-liked aliens exists in a planet 1 light year away from Earth' is empirically possible because all the bolded variables had been proven to be true empirically.
So it is a matter of bring the empirical evidence of those human liked aliens to prove their reality.

And how do you prove humans and planets exist? What is the scientific test to prove such things?

Demonstrate your truth-beyond-empiricism is empirically-possible thus can be verified scientifically.

Demonstrate how science is a standard bearer given it requires some truth beyond it in order to be justified.

To ask for a truth beyond empiricism as empirically possible is to ask for a contradiction given if some empirical proof exists for a truth beyond what is empirical results this proof is empirical and there is no truth beyond empiricism. Yet because empiricism is not a thing in itself the proof for something beyond empiricism is the intrinsic conditional nature of empiricism as making it intrinsically empty in itself.

Your responses are full of contradictions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The totality of being is untestable yet exists as self evident.

You cannot even demonstrate the totality-of-being is even empirically possible.

Yet being is a subset of tests. Being must exist for a test to occur, yet the test itself must be proven as "being". Being is subject to being.

Being is untestable yet accepted as is.

Empiricism as a phenomenon is no thing in itself, as expressed through your reasoning, therefore there is truth beyond empiricism.

How do you verify that truth beyond empiricism?
Note Science is the standard bearer of truth.
Demonstrate your truth-beyond-empiricism can be verified scientifically.

Because science cannot be the standard bearer of truth as it does not exist in and of itself.

Note my usual example.
Anyone can speculate 'human-liked aliens exists in a planet 1 light year away from Earth' is empirically possible because all the bolded variables had been proven to be true empirically.
So it is a matter of bring the empirical evidence of those human liked aliens to prove their reality.

And how do you prove humans and planets exist? What is the scientific test to prove such things?

Demonstrate your truth-beyond-empiricism is empirically-possible thus can be verified scientifically.

Demonstrate how science is a standard bearer given it requires some truth beyond it in order to be justified.

To ask for a truth beyond empiricism as empirically possible is to ask for a contradiction given if some empirical proof exists for a truth beyond what is empirical results this proof is empirical and there is no truth beyond empiricism. Yet because empiricism is not a thing in itself the proof for something beyond empiricism is the intrinsic conditional nature of empiricism as making it intrinsically empty in itself.

Your responses are full of contradictions.

Science is the current standard bearer of truths of reality.
Show me what other basis of truths of reality are more reliable than Science.
[logic, mathematics based on thoughts are not applicable].

I have explained in the other threads while empiricism and Science with their recognized and accepted limitations are still the best and optimal basis of the truth of reality.

Your claims are merely noises.
Demonstrate your claims of God exists or that-is-beyond-man as real is credible?

[Eodnhoj7]

You cannot even demonstrate the totality-of-being is even empirically possible.

Yet being is a subset of tests. Being must exist for a test to occur, yet the test itself must be proven as "being". Being is subject to being.

Being is untestable yet accepted as is.


How do you verify that truth beyond empiricism?
Note Science is the standard bearer of truth.
Demonstrate your truth-beyond-empiricism can be verified scientifically.

Because science cannot be the standard bearer of truth as it does not exist in and of itself.

Note my usual example.
Anyone can speculate 'human-liked aliens exists in a planet 1 light year away from Earth' is empirically possible because all the bolded variables had been proven to be true empirically.
So it is a matter of bring the empirical evidence of those human liked aliens to prove their reality.

And how do you prove humans and planets exist? What is the scientific test to prove such things?

Demonstrate your truth-beyond-empiricism is empirically-possible thus can be verified scientifically.

Demonstrate how science is a standard bearer given it requires some truth beyond it in order to be justified.

To ask for a truth beyond empiricism as empirically possible is to ask for a contradiction given if some empirical proof exists for a truth beyond what is empirical results this proof is empirical and there is no truth beyond empiricism. Yet because empiricism is not a thing in itself the proof for something beyond empiricism is the intrinsic conditional nature of empiricism as making it intrinsically empty in itself.

Your responses are full of contradictions.

Science is the current standard bearer of truths of reality.
Show me what other basis of truths of reality are more reliable than Science.
[logic, mathematics based on thoughts are not applicable].

I have explained in the other threads while empiricism and Science with their recognized and accepted limitations are still the best and optimal basis of the truth of reality.

Your claims are merely noises.
Demonstrate your claims of God exists or that-is-beyond-man as real is credible?

Yet science is empty in and of itself and dependent upon other phenomenon, such as mathematics, that are not empirical. The best methodology is to accept all phenomenon as having some degree of truth, this includes mathematics, science and pure reason (metaphysics).

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yet science is empty in and of itself and dependent upon other phenomenon, such as mathematics, that are not empirical. The best methodology is to accept all phenomenon as having some degree of truth, this includes mathematics, science and pure reason (metaphysics).

So what??
What is critical with scientific knowledge is its objectivity, promised of repeatability and consistency and other positives.

It is scientifically proven to be true, a certain amount of cyanide will kill any human being.
You don't trust this scientific truth?
You can test this on your family members.

Do you really understand what is meant by "Pure Reason" and the basis of how it works?
If you want to bank on Pure Reason, then you must read and understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's Critique of Pure Reason before you rely on Pure Reason for your conclusions.

I have no issue with Science and Mathematics but not Pure Reason.
Note Kant's severe Critique of Pure Reason, where pure reason abstract away whatever is empirically real and hastily jump to conclusion to claim illusions [things-in-themselves] are real, e.g. God, a soul and the whole-totality-of-things.

I have listed this link a '1000' times on this where Pure Reason drives the human mind towards, i.e. to an inevitable illusion, [mine]

There will therefore be Syllogisms [pseudo] which contain no Empirical premisses,
and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

You are deluded by Pure Reason to reify an objective reality from what is an illusion.

It is like you are in the middle of a desert and you insist the 'oasis' you 'see' that is half a mile away is a 'real' oasis. Subsequent verification and justification proved you were deluded in insisting what you saw is really real.
Empirical related illusions can be verified and justified.

In contrast to the easier to verify empirical illusion, the illusion involving thing-in-itself derived from Pure Reason which is merely a thought is very difficult to verify and justify.
This is why theists and others are so dogmatic their God-in-itself is very real.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yet science is empty in and of itself and dependent upon other phenomenon, such as mathematics, that are not empirical. The best methodology is to accept all phenomenon as having some degree of truth, this includes mathematics, science and pure reason (metaphysics).

So what??
What is critical with scientific knowledge is its objectivity, promised of repeatability and consistency and other positives.

It is scientifically proven to be true, a certain amount of cyanide will kill any human being.
You don't trust this scientific truth?
You can test this on your family members.

Do you really understand what is meant by "Pure Reason" and the basis of how it works?
If you want to bank on Pure Reason, then you must read and understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's Critique of Pure Reason before you rely on Pure Reason for your conclusions.

I have no issue with Science and Mathematics but not Pure Reason.
Note Kant's severe Critique of Pure Reason, where pure reason abstract away whatever is empirically real and hastily jump to conclusion to claim illusions [things-in-themselves] are real, e.g. God, a soul and the whole-totality-of-things.

I have listed this link a '1000' times on this where Pure Reason drives the human mind towards, i.e. to an inevitable illusion, [mine]

There will therefore be Syllogisms [pseudo] which contain no Empirical premisses,
and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

You are deluded by Pure Reason to reify an objective reality from what is an illusion.

It is like you are in the middle of a desert and you insist the 'oasis' you 'see' that is half a mile away is a 'real' oasis. Subsequent verification and justification proved you were deluded in insisting what you saw is really real.
Empirical related illusions can be verified and justified.

In contrast to the easier to verify empirical illusion, the illusion involving thing-in-itself derived from Pure Reason which is merely a thought is very difficult to verify and justify.
This is why theists and others are so dogmatic their God-in-itself is very real.

1 repeats itself through further number yet cannot be proven empirically. Empiricism is grounded in unprovable phenomena and these phenomenon are required for empirical measurements. A pure form a reasoning exists beyond what is empirically proven.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yet science is empty in and of itself and dependent upon other phenomenon, such as mathematics, that are not empirical. The best methodology is to accept all phenomenon as having some degree of truth, this includes mathematics, science and pure reason (metaphysics).

So what??
What is critical with scientific knowledge is its objectivity, promised of repeatability and consistency and other positives.

It is scientifically proven to be true, a certain amount of cyanide will kill any human being.
You don't trust this scientific truth?
You can test this on your family members.

Do you really understand what is meant by "Pure Reason" and the basis of how it works?
If you want to bank on Pure Reason, then you must read and understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's Critique of Pure Reason before you rely on Pure Reason for your conclusions.

I have no issue with Science and Mathematics but not Pure Reason.
Note Kant's severe Critique of Pure Reason, where pure reason abstract away whatever is empirically real and hastily jump to conclusion to claim illusions [things-in-themselves] are real, e.g. God, a soul and the whole-totality-of-things.

I have listed this link a '1000' times on this where Pure Reason drives the human mind towards, i.e. to an inevitable illusion, [mine]

There will therefore be Syllogisms [pseudo] which contain no Empirical premisses,
and by means of which we conclude from something which we know to something else of which we have no Concept,
and to which, owing to an inevitable Illusion, we yet ascribe Objective Reality.

You are deluded by Pure Reason to reify an objective reality from what is an illusion.

It is like you are in the middle of a desert and you insist the 'oasis' you 'see' that is half a mile away is a 'real' oasis. Subsequent verification and justification proved you were deluded in insisting what you saw is really real.
Empirical related illusions can be verified and justified.

In contrast to the easier to verify empirical illusion, the illusion involving thing-in-itself derived from Pure Reason which is merely a thought is very difficult to verify and justify.
This is why theists and others are so dogmatic their God-in-itself is very real.

1 repeats itself through further number yet cannot be proven empirically. Empiricism is grounded in unprovable phenomena and these phenomenon are required for empirical measurements. A pure form a reasoning exists beyond what is empirically proven.

Note humans have been able to reach the moon and understand much of the Universe based on empirically and philosophically justified knowledge of reality. The resultant is a net-positive contribution to the progress of mankind.

What has your approach based on Pure Reason achieved that has contributed much to humanity?

The only thing that is useful from the basis of Pure Reason is that it has driven the majority of humans to reify an illusion as a consonance to soothe an inherent unavoidable dissonance.
At the same time such a consonance has also contributed to drive evil prone humans to commit terrible evil and violent acts upon humanity, e.g. the evilness from theistic religions.

What else has your approach based on Pure Reason achieved that has contributed net-positively to humanity?

[Eodnhoj7]

So what??
What is critical with scientific knowledge is its objectivity, promised of repeatability and consistency and other positives.

It is scientifically proven to be true, a certain amount of cyanide will kill any human being.
You don't trust this scientific truth?
You can test this on your family members.

Do you really understand what is meant by "Pure Reason" and the basis of how it works?
If you want to bank on Pure Reason, then you must read and understand [not necessary agree with] Kant's Critique of Pure Reason before you rely on Pure Reason for your conclusions.

I have no issue with Science and Mathematics but not Pure Reason.
Note Kant's severe Critique of Pure Reason, where pure reason abstract away whatever is empirically real and hastily jump to conclusion to claim illusions [things-in-themselves] are real, e.g. God, a soul and the whole-totality-of-things.

I have listed this link a '1000' times on this where Pure Reason drives the human mind towards, i.e. to an inevitable illusion, [mine]



You are deluded by Pure Reason to reify an objective reality from what is an illusion.

It is like you are in the middle of a desert and you insist the 'oasis' you 'see' that is half a mile away is a 'real' oasis. Subsequent verification and justification proved you were deluded in insisting what you saw is really real.
Empirical related illusions can be verified and justified.

In contrast to the easier to verify empirical illusion, the illusion involving thing-in-itself derived from Pure Reason which is merely a thought is very difficult to verify and justify.
This is why theists and others are so dogmatic their God-in-itself is very real.

1 repeats itself through further number yet cannot be proven empirically. Empiricism is grounded in unprovable phenomena and these phenomenon are required for empirical measurements. A pure form a reasoning exists beyond what is empirically proven.

Note humans have been able to reach the moon and understand much of the Universe based on empirically and philosophically justified knowledge of reality. The resultant is a net-positive contribution to the progress of mankind.

What has your approach based on Pure Reason achieved that has contributed much to humanity?

The only thing that is useful from the basis of Pure Reason is that it has driven the majority of humans to reify an illusion as a consonance to soothe an inherent unavoidable dissonance.
At the same time such a consonance has also contributed to drive evil prone humans to commit terrible evil and violent acts upon humanity, e.g. the evilness from theistic religions.

What else has your approach based on Pure Reason achieved that has contributed net-positively to humanity?

Those achievements are grounded in pure mathematics, and number, which are not empirically provable. Prove the number 1 empirically, you can't, yet it is used for empirical studies. Empiricism is empty in itself and dependent upon abstractions which are pure thoughts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Those achievements are grounded in pure mathematics, and number, which are not empirically provable. Prove the number 1 empirically, you can't, yet it is used for empirical studies. Empiricism is empty in itself and dependent upon abstractions which are pure thoughts.

You are arguing merely for arguing sake without realizing that is making you stupid practical wise.

Let say it is proven by the authorities on an empirical basis there is 1 [one] real time bomb which will explode in 1 hour inside your house, would you ask the authorities to prove to you the number 1 empirically?

Empiricism is not imperatively grounded on pure mathematics and numbers.
What empirical knowledge is grounded on is the credibility of the framework and system of Reality, e.g. the framework and science which do not need pure mathematic or numbers in every case of empirical proofs.

[Eodnhoj7]

Those achievements are grounded in pure mathematics, and number, which are not empirically provable. Prove the number 1 empirically, you can't, yet it is used for empirical studies. Empiricism is empty in itself and dependent upon abstractions which are pure thoughts.

You are arguing merely for arguing sake without realizing that is making you stupid practical wise.

Let say it is proven by the authorities on an empirical basis there is 1 [one] real time bomb which will explode in 1 hour inside your house, would you ask the authorities to prove to you the number 1 empirically?

Empiricism is not imperatively grounded on pure mathematics and numbers.
What empirical knowledge is grounded on is the credibility of the framework and system of Reality, e.g. the framework and science which do not need pure mathematic or numbers in every case of empirical proofs.

"You are arguing merely for arguing sake without realizing that is making you stupid practical wise" is an ad hominum and diverts from the point being made. Ad hominums only show a weakness in the argument.


No it proves some knowledge is not grounded in an empirical nature, and that some phenomenon are taken as provable a priori. The concept of 1 bomb in the house necessitates a dependence upon some knowledge, the number 1, as existing prior to the knowledge of the bomb in the house. Some knowledge requires pure knowledge which exists outside the empirical framework given the empirical framework is empty in itself. This emptiness of empirical framework necessitates pure reasoning as existing beyond the empirical framework.


One of these a priori concepts is God.