Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Fixed
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Arguing Against Self Existence
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
Fixed
The Law of Identity is a tautology. It doesn't rely on induction.
What does the Law of Identity have to do with what we're talking about?
1137 is using it as an example of an axiom, rather than tautology.
... which doesn't change the fact that it IS a tautology.
Sure, the mind emerges from matter. This doesn't make them identical. It's like saying an apple emerges from a tree, therefore an apple is a tree.
My point is that the Law is an axiom, but axioms dont have to be 100% correct. They're simply based on the criteria I've outlined numerous times. You reject "I exist" as an axiom because it may not be a 100% certainty, but I'm guessing accept other axioms with the same criteria and the same threat from skepticism. This seems inconsistent.
...which doesn't change the irrelevance of it being a tautology.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Exactly.
That's my point. Sound isn't matter either, yet the music still plays. Sound exists.
Why do you suppose that is?
Hint, it hinges on the word 'exists', and maybe not how you think.
I'm operating under the definition of axiom as "a self-evident truth that requires no proof."
You've actually danced around the issue. If you're defining is as something like "a statement that is commonly accepted as true", then I don't see how something being an axiom means it's necessarily true.
I reject "I exist" as an axiom because its truth is not self-evident. It may very well be true.
I judge each claim on its merits. The fact that you happen to label some as "axioms" has no bearing on whether they're true.
Tautologies are true, including tautologies that are axioms.
If sound isn't matter, and sound exists, then matter isn't the only thing that exists, and materialism isn't true. So you've agreed with me all this time?
I've explained several times and you create yet another straw man. I think we're finished here.
Your OP described the claim "I exist" as "self-evident" and as something that "can't be denied", but you have an issue with "self-evident truth that requires no proof"?
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
A swing and a miss
A sound argument unless your position is incorrect. You can't shake your head "no" hard enough to beat logic.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
It wasn't an argument so much as an invitation to really think about this.
I think reading some Wittgenstein could really help you with this continual conundrum in which you find yourself here. Might I recommend his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus?
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
R
If you would like an annotated breakdown, there are many publicly available. Here's one.
http://genius.com/amp/Ludwig-wittgenstein-tractatus-logico-philosophicus-proposition-1-annotated?
That is but a subsection of his opening proposition. Read on, dear boy.
If you would like an annotated breakdown, there are many publicly available. Here's one.
http://genius.com/amp/Ludwig-wittgenstein-tractatus-logico-philosophicus-proposition-1-annotated?
Alright I'll check it out, thanks.
But axioms are at issue, not tautology.
Last edited: