He let us out early, because we actually managed to finish the subject.

[conuly]

*laughs*

We were discussing the Cartesian Circle, which is how Descartes' theory got into trouble. Basically, Descartes says that even if there's an evil force out there making stuff up, the one thing this force can't make up is that he exists. Which makes sense. It's hard to believe that you're making something think that he or she exists when really they don't.

And then Descartes says that this evil demon can't make him think of things with more reality than exists in nature. Or something. Basically, ideas come from something, and they can't come from something with less reality than the thing the idea is about. An evil demon can make you believe in things less real than the evil demon, but he can't make you believe in an infinite god. So god must exist. And since god isn't a deciever, the real world must exist too.

Except how do you know that ideas can't come from nothing? Because if they could, god would be a deceiver. Yeah, but weren't you trying to prove god exists?

Anyway, the professor went over this several times, with three different projector screens, so that even the slowest student would understand how this is a vicious circle. I played freecell. Just when I was starting to wonder if these precautions were really necessary...

Professor
You know who
Me

P: So, you can see it's a circle. Any questions?
Y: So... it's a circle...
P: Yes.
Y: Is that bad?
M: *blink*
P: Yes, it's bad. Because then you haven't proven anything.
Y: But no, it's good! It's how you prove god exists!
M: *gigglesnorts, literally*

They spent a few minutes with the professor trying to explain why you can't prove god exists by saying that you know you aren't being deceived because that would mean god's a deceiver.

Sorry about the capitalization, me lazy.

Comments

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

Tom Riddle is in your class!

*gigglesnorts*

I knew Lord Voldimort was a Fundie.

[conuly]

Yes, that was my thought while typing. But if Voldy is analogous to Hitler, he shouldn't be Jewish.

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

Do you think Descarte's actually swallowed his own argument for the existance of God, or do you think he included it to make himself safe from heresy?

[conuly]

I don't know. A lot of people even in his time thought it was messed up, but people rarely see their own circular thinking.

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and it is how Scripturalists think. "This book says there is a Diety. I know this is true because the Diety wrote/dictated/inspired this book."

In a way Descartes' circle is like the TAG/TANG arguments, so I could imagine him buying it. TAG argues "the world does not make sense without a God in it." TANG argues "the world does not make sense with a God in it." Silly, yes, but as epistomology is one of my current perseverations, I find the idea of how God relates to Making Sense of the World fascinating.

[jedirita.livejournal.com]

Is Descartes the one with the "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived?" Or was that Anselm, and Descartes expanded on it? And is that the one that briefly made David Hume a believer until he recovered his senses?

That argument always made my head hurt. It's like the "Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift?" argument. I like the "God is the square root of negative one" explanation better.

Descartes -- I never did really buy into that Cogito Ergo Sum thing, either.

[conuly]

Cogito, ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero.

It makes sense to me - I think, so I know that something about me has to be real, because there's no way I can be tricked into thinking that I'm thinking unless there's a me to trick.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

*grins* Why shouldn't God be a deceiver? The Hindu assumption is that 'all this' is Maya, a grand illusion. There's Hermes, Loki, Pan, Raven and Coyote, all tricksters. Zeus and Odin both have a fondness for disguising themselves as mortals and wandering around messing with peoples' heads.

Jehovah did that whole trick with the tree: "You can eat anything you want except the fruit of THIS tree, because if you eat it you will die", then sending the serpent in to tell them that if they wouldn't die if they ate it - now, tell me THAT wasn't deceptive?

It seems to me that any anthropomorphization of the Universal Forces is necessarily going to have elements of deceptiveness... because if God is, or can be, a person, then why the heck doesn't he explain exactly what's going on? Taking form as a poor carpenter or wandering mystic or whatever doesn't count, and neither does appearing to some holy and/or crazy individuals where no one else can see - all that sort of thing is deceptive too.

Nope nope. If God is, or can be, a person, let's see God appear in indisputable Godlike glory, in public - hey, to everyone simultaneously, why not? - and explain How Things Are in clear and unambiguous terms.

It ain't gonna happen, because either God is a deceiver and likes to keep us guessing, or God isn't a person at all, and all these anthropomorphic analogies are invalid.

[lasarus.livejournal.com]

There were moments when that theory almost made sense, then ... ow ...

[conuly]

And then it winds back in on itself. I know.

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

Tom Riddle is in your class!

*gigglesnorts*

I knew Lord Voldimort was a Fundie.

[conuly]

Yes, that was my thought while typing. But if Voldy is analogous to Hitler, he shouldn't be Jewish.

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

Do you think Descarte's actually swallowed his own argument for the existance of God, or do you think he included it to make himself safe from heresy?

[conuly]

I don't know. A lot of people even in his time thought it was messed up, but people rarely see their own circular thinking.

[staircase-wit.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and it is how Scripturalists think. "This book says there is a Diety. I know this is true because the Diety wrote/dictated/inspired this book."

In a way Descartes' circle is like the TAG/TANG arguments, so I could imagine him buying it. TAG argues "the world does not make sense without a God in it." TANG argues "the world does not make sense with a God in it." Silly, yes, but as epistomology is one of my current perseverations, I find the idea of how God relates to Making Sense of the World fascinating.

[jedirita.livejournal.com]

Is Descartes the one with the "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived?" Or was that Anselm, and Descartes expanded on it? And is that the one that briefly made David Hume a believer until he recovered his senses?

That argument always made my head hurt. It's like the "Can God create a stone too heavy for him to lift?" argument. I like the "God is the square root of negative one" explanation better.

Descartes -- I never did really buy into that Cogito Ergo Sum thing, either.

[conuly]

Cogito, ergo sum, sed credo ergo ero.

It makes sense to me - I think, so I know that something about me has to be real, because there's no way I can be tricked into thinking that I'm thinking unless there's a me to trick.

[elenbarathi.livejournal.com]

*grins* Why shouldn't God be a deceiver? The Hindu assumption is that 'all this' is Maya, a grand illusion. There's Hermes, Loki, Pan, Raven and Coyote, all tricksters. Zeus and Odin both have a fondness for disguising themselves as mortals and wandering around messing with peoples' heads.

Jehovah did that whole trick with the tree: "You can eat anything you want except the fruit of THIS tree, because if you eat it you will die", then sending the serpent in to tell them that if they wouldn't die if they ate it - now, tell me THAT wasn't deceptive?

It seems to me that any anthropomorphization of the Universal Forces is necessarily going to have elements of deceptiveness... because if God is, or can be, a person, then why the heck doesn't he explain exactly what's going on? Taking form as a poor carpenter or wandering mystic or whatever doesn't count, and neither does appearing to some holy and/or crazy individuals where no one else can see - all that sort of thing is deceptive too.

Nope nope. If God is, or can be, a person, let's see God appear in indisputable Godlike glory, in public - hey, to everyone simultaneously, why not? - and explain How Things Are in clear and unambiguous terms.

It ain't gonna happen, because either God is a deceiver and likes to keep us guessing, or God isn't a person at all, and all these anthropomorphic analogies are invalid.

[lasarus.livejournal.com]

There were moments when that theory almost made sense, then ... ow ...

[conuly]

And then it winds back in on itself. I know.

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

Wait... Can you explain this "proof" to me again? I'm not following it at all.
By the way, I decided to friend you.

[conuly]

When I get back from class. Remind me.

[tsukikage85.livejournal.com]

Wait... Can you explain this "proof" to me again? I'm not following it at all.
By the way, I decided to friend you.

[conuly]

When I get back from class. Remind me.