The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[FlashDangerpants]

ChatGPT:-
(Me)Can you please write a short explanation how thought and extension are coordinated by God for the online discussion group where the problem lies in the Cogito.

(ChatGPT)
How Thought and Extension Are Coordinated by God (in response to the Cogito problem)

Descartes’ Cogito (“I think, therefore I am”) establishes the certainty of thought, but it immediately raises a deeper problem: if mind (thought) and body (extension) are entirely distinct substances, how can they interact or correspond?

Given what Seeds wrote, and Willy B's response to Seeds, I suspect you gave GPT the wrong problem there.

I thought it may be unclear. What it is, is that for Descartes the thinker IS mind i.e. that which thinks, Res Cogitans : and extension is the thinker's body and tables and stuff; so how can mind and body communicate with each other. And it's the communication problem that Willy B, points to

It wasn't unclear, I am entirely familiar with the question you put to GPT. I believe you gave you gave GPT the wrong question. Willy was probably using a question that was actually relevant to what Seeds wrote and you are not.

So I suggest you check out the criticism levelled by Pierre Gassendi against the cogito which directly contradicts Seeds, making it relevant to the conversation rather than just you butting in with your unrelated idea.

[Immanuel Can]

Descartes failed to prove anything other than that there is thought.

Not quite. What he proved is only that we can't know with absolute certainty (that is, under the heuristic demand that we only believe that which is beyond even the most extreme possibilities of doubt) that there is anything other than a thought.

So you agree that your infinite regress argument doesn't prove that there must have been a transcendent origin for the universe.

I agree that the argument proves that there was an origin. That's what the argument really does. But it comes with a corollary point, which is tacitly entailed by it, and which corresponds to the transcendence issue.

In phase two of the argument, having seen that an origin point is inescapable, we have to deal with the question of what kind of origin is plausible to posit for that origin, and you'll find out that there are no candidates for anything that is not eternal, transcendent, immensely powerful, efficacious in the material world, and capable of injecting massive amounts of order into a system. So it is at that point, after the second phase, that you'll realize it had to be an intelligent, ominipotent, transcendent Being that is the only reasonable hypothesis.

Anyway, back to the piint:

What are your grounds for asserting that whatever you believe is more probable than idealism?

You'll have to explain why you think Idealism is even plausible. I don't find that obvious. But you can glean some reasons from the above, surely.

[seeds]

Descartes failed to prove anything other than that there is thought.

Far be it from me to interrupt your attempts to set IC straight,...

(and making it clear that we're being quite generous by using the word "prove" here)

...but, no, Descartes did not prove the existence of "thought," he proved the existence of the "thinker" of thought, or the "I Am."

Well, the standard objection to Desacartes is that it doesn't follow from 'there is a thought' that there is a thinker.

Present to me a situation or scenario where there can be the existence of a thought minus the existence of the thinker (and owner) of the thought.

I do concede that thoughts...

(take, for example, the planets, and stars, and galaxies, of which I [and Berkeley] personally believe are the thoughts of a higher consciousness)

...do not necessarily require the "immediate presence" of the original thinker (and owner) of those particular thoughts in order for those particular thoughts to continue to exist as fields of coded information that alternate thinkers (such as ourselves) can decode and experience.

However, in stark contrast to what you are calling the "standard objection," it most certainly does follow that those particular thoughts (again, the stars and galaxies) would not even exist were it not for the existence of the original thinker who initially thunk those thoughts into those highly ordered forms.

In other words, your so-called "standard objection" makes no sense.
_______

[Will Bouwman]

I agree that the argument proves that there was an origin.

I don't agree. The main objections are: firstly maths proves nothing about ontology. You can divide 1 into infinitely many numbers, you cannot therefore divide an apple into infinitely many parts. And secondly, the claim that our universe is strictly causal is seriously challenged by quantum mechanics.

In phase two of the argument, having seen that an origin point is inescapable...

You're getting ahead of yourself.

What are your grounds for asserting that whatever you believe is more probable than idealism?

You'll have to explain why you think Idealism is even plausible. I don't find that obvious.

Well, the concensus among actual philosophers is that idealism is plausible.

The burden of proof in philosophy lies with the person who makes a claim, especially one that contradicts a generally accepted position or challenges the status quo.

What then is your argument that idealism is not plausible.

[Immanuel Can]

I agree that the argument proves that there was an origin.

I don't agree.

You can't really "disagree" with maths. You can understand it, or you can fail to understand it; but you can't change it. There is no infinitely-regressive sequence of prerequisites or causes. That's just a mathematical fact.

In phase two of the argument, having seen that an origin point is inescapable...

You're getting ahead of yourself.

No, but I seem to be leaving you behind. So I'll slow down and try again.

Test it yourself. You can try to do it empirically, and you'll get the same result. Just try to write a number down for which an infinite set of prerequisites is required. Get back to me when you get to write your number...or realize you never will.

You'll have to explain why you think Idealism is even plausible. I don't find that obvious.

Well, the concensus among actual philosophers is that idealism is plausible.

That's not the case at all. If it were, there'd be only one philosophical school: Idealism. But in fact, Idealism is much less common than, say, Materialism, or Common Sense Realism, or regular Realism, or Empiricism, or Mysticism, or quite a number of other schools. So again, what makes Idealism "probable"?

The burden of proof in philosophy lies with the person who makes a claim, especially one that contradicts a generally accepted position or challenges the status quo.

What then is your argument that idealism is not plausible.

The claim was yours, actually. You said that Idealism was "plausible." I asked you to show why you thought that. You said that it was "consensus," but there are two problems with that: firstly, consensus isn't an argument but a fallacy; and secondly, and crucially, no such consensus exists. So I'm still waiting to discover why you think Idealism is an obvious option.

[Belinda]

I don't agree.

You can't really "disagree" with maths. You can understand it, or you can fail to understand it; but you can't change it. There is no infinitely-regressive sequence of prerequisites or causes. That's just a mathematical fact.

In phase two of the argument, having seen that an origin point is inescapable...

You're getting ahead of yourself.

No, but I seem to be leaving you behind. So I'll slow down and try again.

Test it yourself. You can try to do it empirically, and you'll get the same result. Just try to write a number down for which an infinite set of prerequisites is required. Get back to me when you get to write your number...or realize you never will.

You'll have to explain why you think Idealism is even plausible. I don't find that obvious.

Well, the concensus among actual philosophers is that idealism is plausible.

That's not the case at all. If it were, there'd be only one philosophical school: Idealism. But in fact, Idealism is much less common than, say, Materialism, or Common Sense Realism, or regular Realism, or Empiricism, or Mysticism, or quite a number of other schools. So again, what makes Idealism "probable"?

The burden of proof in philosophy lies with the person who makes a claim, especially one that contradicts a generally accepted position or challenges the status quo.

What then is your argument that idealism is not plausible.

The claim was yours, actually. You said that Idealism was "plausible." I asked you to show why you thought that. You said that it was "consensus," but there are two problems with that: firstly, consensus isn't an argument but a fallacy; and secondly, and crucially, no such consensus exists. So I'm still waiting to discover why you think Idealism is an obvious option.

Idealism (immaterialism) is an obvious option because it carries scepticism further than does physicalism. Scepticism is the modern method by means of which we sort out what we can know from what we cannot know.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't agree.

You can't really "disagree" with maths. You can understand it, or you can fail to understand it; but you can't change it. There is no infinitely-regressive sequence of prerequisites or causes. That's just a mathematical fact.

You're getting ahead of yourself.

No, but I seem to be leaving you behind. So I'll slow down and try again.

Test it yourself. You can try to do it empirically, and you'll get the same result. Just try to write a number down for which an infinite set of prerequisites is required. Get back to me when you get to write your number...or realize you never will.

Well, the concensus among actual philosophers is that idealism is plausible.

That's not the case at all. If it were, there'd be only one philosophical school: Idealism. But in fact, Idealism is much less common than, say, Materialism, or Common Sense Realism, or regular Realism, or Empiricism, or Mysticism, or quite a number of other schools. So again, what makes Idealism "probable"?

What then is your argument that idealism is not plausible.

The claim was yours, actually. You said that Idealism was "plausible." I asked you to show why you thought that. You said that it was "consensus," but there are two problems with that: firstly, consensus isn't an argument but a fallacy; and secondly, and crucially, no such consensus exists. So I'm still waiting to discover why you think Idealism is an obvious option.

Idealism (immaterialism) is an obvious option because it carries scepticism further than does physicalism.

You'll have to explain that. It's not at all obvious. What is "further," in your mind. Where do you think you're getting?

Scepticism is the modern method by means of which we sort out what we can know from what we cannot know.

How well did that work for Descartes?

[Belinda]

You can't really "disagree" with maths. You can understand it, or you can fail to understand it; but you can't change it. There is no infinitely-regressive sequence of prerequisites or causes. That's just a mathematical fact.

No, but I seem to be leaving you behind. So I'll slow down and try again.

Test it yourself. You can try to do it empirically, and you'll get the same result. Just try to write a number down for which an infinite set of prerequisites is required. Get back to me when you get to write your number...or realize you never will.


That's not the case at all. If it were, there'd be only one philosophical school: Idealism. But in fact, Idealism is much less common than, say, Materialism, or Common Sense Realism, or regular Realism, or Empiricism, or Mysticism, or quite a number of other schools. So again, what makes Idealism "probable"?

The claim was yours, actually. You said that Idealism was "plausible." I asked you to show why you thought that. You said that it was "consensus," but there are two problems with that: firstly, consensus isn't an argument but a fallacy; and secondly, and crucially, no such consensus exists. So I'm still waiting to discover why you think Idealism is an obvious option.

Idealism (immaterialism) is an obvious option because it carries scepticism further than does physicalism.

You'll have to explain that. It's not at all obvious. What is "further," in your mind. Where do you think you're getting?

Scepticism is the modern method by means of which we sort out what we can know from what we cannot know.

How well did that work for Descartes?

Scepticism is the method we use for discovering how we can know anything. It's sometimes called the method of doubt. Of the empiricists Hume is usually reckoned to be the most sceptical.
Idealism carries scepticism concerning perceptions further than physicalism, because it questions not only the accuracy of perception but also the independence or existence of an external reality itself.

[Immanuel Can]

Idealism (immaterialism) is an obvious option because it carries scepticism further than does physicalism.

You'll have to explain that. It's not at all obvious. What is "further," in your mind. Where do you think you're getting?

Scepticism is the modern method by means of which we sort out what we can know from what we cannot know.

How well did that work for Descartes?

Scepticism is the method we use for discovering how we can know anything.

How did it work for Descartes? What did he end up "knowing" by using that method?

[Belinda]

You'll have to explain that. It's not at all obvious. What is "further," in your mind. Where do you think you're getting?


How well did that work for Descartes?

Scepticism is the method we use for discovering how we can know anything.

How did it work for Descartes? What did he end up "knowing" by using that method?

Descartes ended up knowing that there was both mind and extension. He never had a satisfactory theory of how mind and extension communicate with each other.
He did understand that clear and distinct ideas/thought are from God, as God is trustworthy

[Immanuel Can]

Scepticism is the method we use for discovering how we can know anything.

How did it work for Descartes? What did he end up "knowing" by using that method?

Descartes ended up knowing that there was both mind and extension.

And nothing else.

“You can’t go on “seeing through” things forever. The whole point of seeing through something is to see something through it. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

[Age]

You'll have to explain that. It's not at all obvious. What is "further," in your mind. Where do you think you're getting?


How well did that work for Descartes?

Scepticism is the method we use for discovering how we can know anything.

How did it work for Descartes? What did he end up "knowing" by using that method?

That the only thing that you can know, for sure, is that thoughts exist and what they entail.

[Age]

Not quite. What he proved is only that we can't know with absolute certainty (that is, under the heuristic demand that we only believe that which is beyond even the most extreme possibilities of doubt) that there is anything other than a thought.

So you agree that your infinite regress argument doesn't prove that there must have been a transcendent origin for the universe.

I agree that the argument proves that there was an origin.

Once more, what 'we' can see, here, is that 'these people', back when this was being written, would pick 'an argument', 'sny argument', and as long as 'that argument' appeared to coincide, or work, with the 'current' belief, then they would just repeat and use 'that argument' as though it solved, or resolved, things.

LOL Either 'an argument' is sound and valid, in which case there is absolutely no one who could refute it. Which means that every one, logically, 'has to' agree with it and accept it. Or, 'an argument' is not sound and valid. Which means that there is no use even repeating it, unless of course to use as an example of not what to do in formulating and presenting arguments.

Now, if absolutely any one of you human beings believe that there has been 'an argument', which is sound and valid, that proves there is some so-called 'infinite regress', which proves that the Universe, (when defined as all there is), began, the just present 'that argument', and then allow 'us' to see that it is actually sound and valid.

If a sound and valid argument is not presented, here, then there is no argument that proves that there was an origin to the Universe, Itself. Full stop.

Obviously there can not be sound and valid arguments that work for one or some people, only, and not for all people.

That's what the argument really does.

What 'we' have, here, is a prime example of when one thinks or believes that 'an argument' appears to 'fit in with' their 'current' views or beliefs, then they will 'grasped onto' 'that argument' and use it to confirm, and/or reaffirm, their own already obtained belief. They do not seek out to check if 'that argument' is actually sound and valid, or not. Confirmation bias did not allow them to 'check', and 'find out' if the premises are actually True, and Right.

To them, the argument appears to 'work', so they just 'run with this', as some say.

. But it comes with a corollary point, which is tacitly entailed by it, and which corresponds to the transcendence issue.



In phase two of the argument, having seen that an origin point is inescapable, we have to deal with the question of what kind of origin is plausible to posit for that origin, and you'll find out that there are no candidates for anything that is not eternal, transcendent, immensely powerful, efficacious in the material world, and capable of injecting massive amounts of order into a system. So it is at that point, after the second phase, that you'll realize it had to be an intelligent, ominipotent, transcendent Being that is the only reasonable hypothesis.

Talk about 'this one' presenting a prime example of one who only 'looks at' and 'see' things from their own already obtained views and beliefs, instead of doing what is actually Right, and good, in Life.

Anyway, back to the piint:

What are your grounds for asserting that whatever you believe is more probable than idealism?

You'll have to explain why you think Idealism is even plausible. I don't find that obvious. But you can glean some reasons from the above, surely.

But, you expressed only 'your beliefs' above, you obviously and certainly never proved 'your beliefs' True, Right, Accurate, nor Correct.

[Age]

I don't agree.

You can't really "disagree" with maths. You can understand it, or you can fail to understand it; but you can't change it. There is no infinitely-regressive sequence of prerequisites or causes. That's just a mathematical fact.

In phase two of the argument, having seen that an origin point is inescapable...

You're getting ahead of yourself.

No, but I seem to be leaving you behind. So I'll slow down and try again.

Test it yourself. You can try to do it empirically, and you'll get the same result. Just try to write a number down for which an infinite set of prerequisites is required. Get back to me when you get to write your number...or realize you never will.

"Immanuel can" you present the perfect example of why one would be best off not believing things. 'your beliefs' prevent you from seeing what is actually True, and Right, in Life.

you are a prime example of being closed, and thus of stupidity itself.

You'll have to explain why you think Idealism is even plausible. I don't find that obvious.

Well, the concensus among actual philosophers is that idealism is plausible.

That's not the case at all. If it were, there'd be only one philosophical school: Idealism. But in fact, Idealism is much less common than, say, Materialism, or Common Sense Realism, or regular Realism, or Empiricism, or Mysticism, or quite a number of other schools. So again, what makes Idealism "probable"?

What makes a Universe creating 'male' 'possible', let alone 'probable'?

No healthy mature human being even thinks 'this' is possible, let alone thinks 'this' is probable. So, you are obviously 'the one' contradicting the generally accepted position, or challenging the status quo.

The burden of proof in philosophy lies with the person who makes a claim, especially one that contradicts a generally accepted position or challenges the status quo.

What then is your argument that idealism is not plausible.

The claim was yours, actually. You said that Idealism was "plausible." I asked you to show why you thought that. You said that it was "consensus," but there are two problems with that: firstly, consensus isn't an argument but a fallacy;[/quote]

Even 'this' you can not get Accurate, and Correct.

and secondly, and crucially, no such consensus exists. So I'm still waiting to discover why you think Idealism is an obvious option.

'I' am, still, waiting for 'you' to inform 'us' of how a 'bearded creature with a penis' created the whole Universe, Itself, and that 'this' is the 'only option', to 'you'.

How much longer do 'we' have to wait "immanuel can"?

[Age]

You'll have to explain that. It's not at all obvious. What is "further," in your mind. Where do you think you're getting?


How well did that work for Descartes?

Scepticism is the method we use for discovering how we can know anything.

How did it work for Descartes? What did he end up "knowing" by using that method?

'This one' is 'trying to' justify the method of using 'faith', instead of the method of being 'sceptical'. Which really is hilarious, especially considering that 'this one's' faith is that a 'Thing with a penis' created every thing. LOL The reason why "immanuel can", still, has not yet recognized and seen the obvious contradiction with 'just that' would have escaped me if I did not already know, for sure, why "Immanuel can" is so absolutely deaf, blind, closed, and stupid, here.