At Least One Unconditioned Reality

If you're a believer, looking for a debate or attempting to make a correction - this forum is just for you!

At Least One Unconditioned Reality

Postby GrammarOfAssent » Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:58 am

I will present an argument from the book, "New Proofs for the Existence of God" (by Robert J. Spitzer). It will be simplified as much as possible. Please analyze and tell me what you think. First is the premise and definitions:

Definition:

A reality: A thing that is.

All Reality (R): All realities (edit 10/3)

Conditioned reality: any reality that is dependent upon another reality for its existence or occurrence.

Conditions: any reality upon which a conditioned reality depends for its existence or occurrence.

Unconditioned reality: any reality that does not depend on any other reality for its existence or occurence.

Propositions:

1) In all reality (R), R could have either no unconditioned reality (Hypothesis ~UR), or one or more unconditioned realities (Hypothesis UR), not neither, not both.

~UR = No unconditioned reality is included in R.

UR = At least one unconditioned reality is included in R.

UR and ~UR cannot both be true. If one is true, then the other is false. If one is false, the other must be true.

I'll stop there and consider any critique, clarifications, etc.
Last edited by GrammarOfAssent on Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
GrammarOfAssent
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:14 pm

Re: At Least One Unconditioned Reality

Postby sepia » Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:29 am

Seems to become an argument, that rejects any concept of atheistic reality because of the Münchhausen-Trilemma while accepting a special theistic one despite the Münchhausen-Trilemma.

Reality: A thing that is.


A thing that is might in some contexts be real. But this means that it belongst to reality, not that it is reality. I can't think right now of a good definition for reality, so I won't give you an alternative now.

This is the only mistake I can find, but I'm not sure to have understand everything. I wonder if the definitions on conditioned and unconditioned reality are based on the definition of reality I have critizised, but I think they will work with more accurate definitions too.
sepia
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:38 pm
Location: austria

Re: At Least One Unconditioned Reality

Postby GrammarOfAssent » Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:32 pm

sepia:

Seems to become an argument, that rejects any concept of atheistic reality because of the Münchhausen-Trilemma while accepting a special theistic one despite the Münchhausen-Trilemma.

I don't really care about the Munchhausen-Trilemma (MT). If you can give me one good reason for accepting the MT as a real one, then you have just demonstrated that the trilemma is not real. If you would like to continue wondering in a false cloud of uncertainty, be my guest. If not, feel free to critique the argument to come.

A thing that is might in some contexts be real.

In what context is a "thing that is" not real?

But this means that it belongst to reality, not that it is reality.

That is fine. I will make the distinction between A reality (a thing that is), and ALL reality (all realities). See the edited first post.
GrammarOfAssent
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:14 pm

Re: At Least One Unconditioned Reality

Postby GrammarOfAssent » Wed Oct 03, 2012 5:37 pm

Also, because I am presenting the argument, I get to choose what the words I use mean. If I use the same word, as defined in the beginning, in a different way later in the argument, you can call me for committing an equivocation fallacy. Until then, my definition for "reality" can not be "incorrect", but it CAN be "ambiguous" or "unclear".
GrammarOfAssent
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:14 pm

Re: At Least One Unconditioned Reality

Postby sepia » Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:01 pm

GrammarOfAssent wrote:In what context is a "thing that is" not real?

When talking about fictional charakters, maybe someone says that the character exists/is in the fictional world. This doesn't mean that the character is real.
sepia
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:38 pm
Location: austria

Re: At Least One Unconditioned Reality

Postby GrammarOfAssent » Wed Oct 03, 2012 10:19 pm

sepia:

When talking about fictional charakters

Fiction: An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent reality but has been invented

If you admit that the character is fictional...then you simultaneously admit that the character is not real. No problem there.
GrammarOfAssent
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:14 pm

Re: At Least One Unconditioned Reality

Postby lucas11 » Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:33 pm

I haven't read the book and am not aware how you intend to frame this argument, but I do have a few questions about your definitions:

1: A reality
a) Does this include only physical things or does it include real concepts such as emotions or mathematical proofs.
b) Would it include (for example) historical people or buildings which did exist previously but don't any more.
c) What about fictional concepts (I think you already explained this but I need clarification. Harry Potter is fictional, but the concept is real in the sense that millions instantly recognise a picture of him, JK Rowling invented him, he is the basis of a book/film/merchandise franchise worth billions etc).
d) Is it just a way of trying to say things that exist (like rocks) as opposed to things that don't exist but that we can conceive of (like aliens on the moon)

2: Conditioned reality
Does mean a reality that at any point relied on another reality for existance/occurrence, or a reality that currently relies on something.

3: The proposition
Do you mean the UR and ~UR can't both be true at a specific point in time? For example, if there are no unconditioned realities in 2005 but one pops into existance in 2006 and then disappears in 2007, would your proposition mean:
i UR is true (since there had at one point been an unconditioned reality)
ii between 2005 and 2007 both UR and ~UR were true, but only one was true at any particular point in time
iii UR was true in 2006 and ~UR was true in 2005 and 2007
iv ~UR is true (since there are no unconditioned realities)

I think most of my confusion arises from the fact that all the definitions are phrased in the present tense, and I'm not sure whether that is intentionally relating them to a timeframe or not.
lucas11
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:57 am


Return to Believer's Backlash

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: delmetdiu and 1 guest