From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Dec 06 2002 - 17:58:02 MST
gts writes
> --- Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com> wrote:
> > I'm not so sure of that. It seems to me that you
> > might employ this reasoning to conclude that an
> > individual cannot conceive of his being dead, i.e.,
> > that the universe goes on without him.
>
> Try it on yourself. You can conceive of the universe
> existing without you, but you cannot conceive of the
> universe not existing.
Oh yeah? Watch this. There. I did it again.
> I'm reminded of Anselm's classic ontological argument
> for the existence of God, which states that because
> God is a being than which none greater can be
> conceived, and because it is greater to conceive of a
> God that exists than to conceive of one that does not
> exist, God must necessarily exist. Kant destroyed
> Anselm's argument by pointing out that existence is
> not a property of objects. We cannot imagine a
> non-existent God because to imagine God is to imagine
> a God that exists.
I am full of wonders. Not only am *I* capable of
imagining the universe not existing, I can even
when I try imagine God, even though He does not
exist. I will even, for a small fee, imagine
imaginary unicorns for you.
> The same kind of Kantian argument is true of our
> conceptions of the universe. We can imagine a universe
> in which some things are non-existent, but we cannnot
> imagine a non-existent universe. It is therefore
> pointless to ask why it exists.
I agree that it's pointless to ask why it exists;
but not because we are incapable of imagining it
not to exist. It is rather easier that imagining
measurable cardinals.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:36 MST