This is the thread devoted to the debate that Mars and Chris have agreed to undertake after a bit of discussion in this Challenge Thread. The resolution to this debate will be: "Mars' argument that reality is god, as given, is cogent." Mars will be taking the affirmative while Chris will be taking the negative.

The rules for the debate are as follows:


1. This is a civil debate - there will be no insult hurling.
2. Mars will present the opening post, Chris will rebut.
3. Unfamiliar terms will be defined upon request.
4. All sources will be cited properly.

Thank you Jesse.


This debate will be solved on the basis of agreements with Chris and my understanding... not necessarily perfect cogency. i.e. someone of a different background may argue points which Chris may find irrelevent. So Chris may concede for example that he and reality exists as self-evident truths. Someone else may want to argue over the cogency of those propositions.

An important point which has not been put in the propositions but seems necessary is the idea of psionics. It will be important for Chris to concede to the existence of psionics for the theory of God which I present to be true. If he denies that psi exists then it does not mean the propositions will not literally be cogent they just will not seem so to him or to anyone else who denies psionics.

This is a very important point; God does not exist if psi does not exist.

Now my propositions prove the validity of it's existence but you will still need to accept the science to believe it's truth. i.e. if you do not believe the science neither will you find my propositions true... and you will think the propositions are invalid even if they are valid. For example... if you did not believe in the laws of energy... if you thought energy could be created and destroyed... i.e. you disagree with the science you will still think the propositions are invalid even though they are infact valid i.e. cogent.


Here are some links psi research;

http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/air2.html

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/bell.html

http://www.sheldrake.org/



PROP I; I exist.

To doubt that I presently exist is absurd as my existence is a requisite of my ability to doubt, therefore I presently necessarily exist.


PROP II; Reality exists.

My person has not always existed, therefore I am not the reason for the genesis of my own existence. I can die, therefore I am not the reason for the sustaining of my own existence. Therefore I am contained in that which is comprised of the generating and sustaining reasons of my existence. Therefore reality exists.


PROP III; The essense of reality is existence.

Reality is comprised of the reasons of that which exists, therefore the essense of reality necessarily is existence.

Corollary; It follows that the constituents of reality are necessarily eternal.

Corollary; It follows that I am necessarily made of that which cannot be created or destroyed.


PROP IV; Energy is a constituent of reality.

Everything that comprises my existence is made of energy. Therefore energy by necessity cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore energy necessarily is a constituent of reality.

Corollary; It follows that energy is necessarily everywhere present in reality i.e. omnipresent.

Corollary; It follows that reality necessarily contains all transformations of energy i.e. all power full i.e. omnipotent.


PROP V; The essense of reality is reasoning.

Reality is comprised of the reasons of that which exists, therefore the essense of reality necessarily is reasoning.


PROP VI; Intelligence is a constituent of reality.

Everything that comprises my reasoning is a form of intelligence. Therefore intelligence necessarily is a constituent of reality.

Corollary; It follows that reality necessarily contains all intelligence e.g. omniscient.


PROP VII; Reality is God.

Reality is eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Therefore reality is God.

Thank you Mars for agreeing to debate this topic with me. This ought to be fun.

I'm not sure how psionics ties into the argument here, as it doesn't really appear to relate to anything in the argument. I don't concede its existence, though. I've seen far too much scientific investigation into the subject demonstrating claim after claim as false, unreproducable, or trivial. I'd have to see some major scholarly work in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and no, references to the [i]Proceedings of the 38th Annual Parapsychological Association Convention[/i] certainly don't help the case. There's always claims of "this claim has been reproduced in tons of laboratories, I swear!" Yeah, how do we know? The articles you cited don't cite reports from those other laboratories. They seem to have no problem citing sources for the original investigations, but not so much about follow-ups. And how is a statistician qualified to write on paranormal phenomena as an expert?

But again, I don't see psionics as pertinent to the argument. I wasn't really planning on debating the existence or non-existence of psi here, and its certainly not something that was mentioned prior to the start of the debate (remember when I asked just to make sure we weren't forgetting anything from the resolution so it would all be clear before we started?). I don't think it's fair to bring it up here now.

Anyway, on to the argument itself.

Prop I looks to be an axiom. If I do no exist, then I cannot deny (or affirm) the proposition that I exist (I wouldn't be around to do it). Thus, if I deny the proposition that I exist, then it must be the case that I exist. Thus, denying the proposition results in contradiction.

Prop II is somewhat different. I do not understand your usage of "reason" here. A reason, in my understanding, is an explanation or description of a cause-effect relationship, but it is neither a cause nor an effect, nor is it the relationship itself. It would them seem trivial to me to say that a person is not a reason, because no concrete may be an abstract. However, this then makes the phrase "that which is comprised of the generating and sustaining reasons of my existence" meaningless. A concrete cannot be comprised of a set of abstracts--abstracts cannot be substantial nor may they be substances. I am perhaps misunderstanding you here, so I ask that you clarify your meaning of "reason". Perhaps you mean "cause"? But in that case, how can something be comprised of causes? What would that mean? Perhaps then I should ask you what you mean by "comprise"--maybe that's the problem. I can see that becoming an issue later, so would you mind explaining your meaning of the terms "reason" and "comprise"?

And how is a statistician qualified to write on paranormal phenomena as an expert?

A professor especially from the division of statistics would be qualified to anaylze the results of psi experiments as they are most often reflected in statistics i.e. from distrabutions that deviate from change.

Tell me who would be qualified to speak about paranormal phenomena? Remember there is no degree you can get as of yet in a regular university such that you can be called an 'expert' in the field.

Prop I looks to be an axiom. If I do no exist, then I cannot deny (or affirm) the proposition that I exist (I wouldn't be around to do it). Thus, if I deny the proposition that I exist, then it must be the case that I exist. Thus, denying the proposition results in contradiction.

Therefore you exist. lol, it's called a reduction. Reductio ad absurdum results in a contradiction by default. Therefore the opposite case is true; you exist. I think Descartes used Modus ponens but I think a reduction is funner.

It would them seem trivial to me to say that a person is not a reason, because no concrete may be an abstract.

Reason: An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence; i.e. An underlying cause that provides logical sense for an occurrence.

We can switch over to using only the word cause if for your convinence.

A 'concrete' that is it's own cause cannot be created or destroyed. Do you understand/agree?

If I type a message to you for our debate I am indeed the cause of the message.

"that which is comprised of the generating and sustaining causes of my existence"

I hope that makes sense to you now.

Comprise: "To consist of; be composed of; contain; constitute;"

There is no reality if there is no causation (i.e. reasoning).


Psionics demonstrate final causation and supraphysical knowledge and therefore supraphysical final causation i.e. teleology. It is important... just as if you denied the law of conservation of energy we would obviously have to examine the experiments that prove it.

A professor especially from the division of statistics would be qualified to anaylze the results of psi experiments as they are most often reflected in statistics i.e. from distrabutions that deviate from change.

I'd really rather talk about this psi stuff later if/when it finally relates to a proposition that is being discussed. That is, I will not discuss psi until that time.

Reason: An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence; i.e. An underlying cause that provides logical sense for an occurrence.

This then brings me back to the question on how something may be comprised of reasons, or even causes. Concretes may only be comprised of concretes, and abstracts may only comprise abstracts. By example, a term may be comprised of descriptors, but a cat can't be. So, in order for something to comprise the universe, it must be a concrete, something physical, like matter/energy. However, I don't see how concretes could constitute causes in and of themselves. Matter/energy all by itself does nothing. The laws of the universe are what makes things happen, but without matter, there's nothing to happen. So, matter/energy in conjunction with the laws of the universe is the cause of what happens in the universe. But matter/energy and the laws of the universe are two different kinds of things: one is concrete, the other abstract. Something cannot be comprised of both a concrete and abstract. What kind of thing would that even be? That seems nonsensical to me.

And I do not understand how a concerete can be its own cause. In order for something A to cause something B, A must precede B. That's just by definition of causality. Something certainly can't precede itself. Therefore, self-causation is a contradiction in terms.

I presume when you use the word 'matter' you do not mean atoms, subatomic particals or other forms of energy but energy itself i.e. substance or space*time. I used the term 'energy' in my propositions so I will quote you and remove the word 'matter' and replace it with energy.

The laws of the universe are what makes things happen, but without energy, there's nothing to happen. So, energy in conjunction with the laws of the universe is the cause of what happens in the universe.

But energy and the laws of the universe are two different kinds of things: one is concrete, the other abstract. Something cannot be comprised of both a concrete and abstract.

That which is a conjunction of two things is indeed comprised of both.

What kind of thing would that even be?

Consider reality is like a hologram... energy is the concrete hologram... cause (reason) is the abstract information of the hologram.

Cut a hologram in pieces... you still get the entire holographic image in every piece. i.e. every point in the universe contains the 'laws of the universe', just as every point on a hologram contains the entire information of the hologram.

The smaller you cut the pieces the more fuzzy the image will be. It's the same way with quantum level interactions... nomology is very fuzzy the smaller you look.

energy all by itself does nothing... And I do not understand how a concerete can be its own cause.

Energy all by itself exists, that is a major something. Do you understand that something which is eternal e.g. energy; has no external cause.

I presume when you use the word 'matter' you do not mean atoms, subatomic particals or other forms of energy but energy itself i.e. substance or space*time.

That's exactly how I meant it. Assume from now on that that's what I'm talking about if I say "matter" or "energy" or whatever. I was going to point this out, but I thought you'd understand, and you did, so hooray! Yeah.

That which is a conjunction of two things is indeed comprised of both.

I don't see how. If a driver works in conjunction with a car, do the two seperate objects form a single object comprised of both? No. Conjunction is not composition. And you failed to address my question: if something is comprised of an abstract and a concrete, what is it?

Consider reality is like a hologram... energy is the concrete hologram... cause (reason) is the abstract information of the hologram.

But in that case, the hologram is actually only comprised of energy, not the "abstract information of the hologram."

every point in the universe contains the 'laws of the universe'

I'm not sure what you mean. Every point within the universe is surely *subject to* the laws of the universe, but I wouldn't say that every point *contains* the laws of the universe. What exactly do you mean here?

just as every point on a hologram contains the entire information of the hologram.

This actually isn't true. Each point contains information for multiple viewing angles of that point, but only for that point and no other.

Energy all by itself exists, that is a major something.

That's an expression of a property, not an action. In fact, you're merely stating that the energy that exists has the property of existence. Well, sure, yeah, but so what? Again, without laws governing energy, energy can't *do* anything.

Do you understand that something which is eternal e.g. energy; has no external cause.

There's no such thing as internal cause, so this is a useless distinction to make. If something has no "external" cause, then it has no cause at all.

I don't see how. If a driver works in conjunction with a car, do the two seperate objects form a single object comprised of both? No. Conjunction is not composition.

If the 'work' is the 'object' in question it comprises both the driver and the car.

Comprise is a verb which means to contain. Containment is an important aspect of logical calculus.


Composition is not the noun of comprise rather it is the noun of compose.

poor form.

But in that case, the hologram is actually only comprised of energy, not the "abstract information of the hologram."

There is no hologram unless it contains a holographic image.

And you failed to address my question: if something is comprised of an abstract and a concrete, what is it?

A hology. Without being comprised of both the concrete and the abstract a hology does not exist.

every point in the universe contains the 'laws of the universe'

I'm not sure what you mean. Every point within the universe is surely *subject to* the laws of the universe, but I wouldn't say that every point *contains* the laws of the universe. What exactly do you mean here?

Every point on a hologram contains the image of the hologram... that is what I mean. If you mean that every point on a hologram is subject to having the image of the hologram, ok.

This actually isn't true. Each point contains information for multiple viewing angles of that point, but only for that point and no other.

Each point contains the image of the hologram... it does not contain every viewing angle of the 3D object if that is what you mean. So, each point contains a viewing angle of the entire image, not just a point on the image like a regular photograph would.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/optmod/holog.html

That's an expression of a property, not an action. In fact, you're merely stating that the energy that exists has the property of existence. Well, sure, yeah, but so what? Again, without laws governing energy, energy can't *do* anything.

Is one of those laws that it exists?

There's no such thing as internal cause, so this is a useless distinction to make. If something has no "external" cause, then it has no cause at all.

All causation in reality is internal to reality. Let me quote you again;

'energy in conjunction with the laws of the universe is the cause of what happens in the universe.'

This conjuction is the internal cause of itself i.e. all of what happens in it.

This post will be an effort to clearify and resolve issues;


(1) It looks like you have conceded the first proposition. Is that correct? If you're not sure if you exist let me know.


(2) We can let you concede to hology as containing both 'concrete' and 'abstract'... the 'concrete' topologically containing the complete image of the 'abstract' in ever single point.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/optmod/holog.html


(3)

If a driver works in conjunction with a car, do the two seperate objects form a single object comprised of both? No. Conjunction is not composition.

If the 'work' is the 'object' in question it comprises both the driver and the car.


USAGE NOTE The traditional rule states that the whole comprises the parts and the parts compose the whole.

http://www.answers.com/topic/comprise


The logical equivolence;

conjuction; 'and'
compose; 'is in'
comprise; 'contains'

energy and reason compose reality i.e. energy and reason is in reality.

reality comprises energy and reason i.e. reality contains energy and reason.


If you mean a conjunction of two things is not a composition of two things... it seems your mistaken.


(4) 'Self-cause' seems irrelevent. I find no reason to continue discussing this issue unless you have a reason which makes it important.

without laws governing energy, energy can't *do* anything.

Is one of those laws that it exists?

There's no such thing as internal cause, so this is a useless distinction to make. If something has no "external" cause, then it has no cause at all.

All causation in reality is internal to reality. Let me quote you again;

'energy in conjunction with the laws of the universe is the cause of what happens in the universe.'

This conjuction is the internal cause of itself i.e. all of what happens in it.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=663545618

http://groups.myspace.com/TerminalLegions