“‘We are [more reasonably] human beings who are part of the causal infinity of existence.’ An argument from nihilism, As a staunch nihilist (for the purposes of this debate) I can offer a somewhat disconcerting refutation of the proposition. To begin as a nihilist I must reject everything - not just religion, but indeed the entire universe, since I know that absolutely nothing exists. There is of course a problem with this position in that no matter how I try to deny the existence of matter, time, space and thought, I still come back to the simple statement that something exists. Even if I am a figment of some cosmic imagination, writing this entry, that figment is still something. Thus absolute nihilism would seem to be an impossible position to maintain. However nihilism is a continuum, and now having accepted that somehow something exists where I know in my very non-existent marrow that nothing should, and even having given this something a name - me (its very Genesis here, In the beginning was the word and the word was God), I have to ask myself the question, does anything else exist? Occams razor comes in at this point, not that he existed either, and the logical / more reasonable answer is no. That there should be one such inconceivable impossibility in this universe, i.e. my own existence, is enough of a miracle in its own right, why should I postulate any more. Having now determined that I am the sum total of existence, sadly I now have to inform you that you do not exist along with the entire universe, space, time, energy and matter, and you are all in fact a part of me. Therefore there is no "We are", instead it is "I am". Further I am not a "Part of" anything but rather everything is a "Part of me." As for the infinity part, I alas do not remember my own beginning, but neither do I remember always having been, and you'd think that one of these two situations would be correct - unless I have amnesia! Nor do I know if the universe which is apparently just a figment of my imagination has either spatial or temporal ends. I guess if I decide it does, it will. While I will admit that this answer is a little glib, on an individual level it does refute the proposition, and that if by some strange chance other people actually do exist outside of my thoughts, then any and all of them can argue the same case for themselves. Unfortunately those arguments cannot be made cumulative simply because that would negate the basis of each of our unique existences. Now, having established my credentials as the only person in existence, I must walk across the lake to work, and deal with the fictional maladies of fictional people!”

Greg Curtis March 31 2007

Response:

Your entry is similar to Entry 271 from Challenge the Philosophy Competition 1. In that entry, which we added below, Rick Rush argues that human perspective is mere opinion, because the contents of one’s mind and knowledge is unknown to everyone else, and therefore, it is a matter of opinion whether or not “we can [more reasonably] truly know who we are.”
You have taken a similar position, claiming that we are all “unique existences.”

However, the problem with Rush’s entry and your own, as reiterated in our response to Entry 271, is that though we all have unique existences and the contents of our minds and knowledge are theoretically closed off to each other, it is more reasonable that humanity is interconnected and united in our use of reason (at least for the part of humanity that thinks). So the closure or unique position has a gap (i.e. the individual is not an end-in-itself), which allows us to more reasonably question and challenge individual perspectives.
Turning to your perspective (which you have made for the purpose of this debate), it is unclear to us how you are more reasonably the sum total of existence, and everyone is part of you.
We are confident that this position is a mere extension off your unique existence position, and now that the unique position is in question, so is this sum total position.

271. Entry:

"First note that we must always ‘be who we are’ - we can't be anything else. So it's clear (I hope) that the proposition is equivalent to saying ‘we cannot truly know who we are’. Further, it's impossible for me to know whether some other person is capable of knowing something: their mind is a closed book to me. So to make this statement meaningful it must be translated: ‘I cannot truly know who I am’. Obviously it's impossible to prove or disprove this statement, since no one else can ever know who I am, nor pass judgment on whether I know who I am (since the contents of my mind and knowledge are forever unknown to them). Thus if I feel like claiming that I know who I am, it can never be disproven. Likewise if I feel like claiming the opposite. In other words there is no logical standard by which the statement can be falsified: it's purely a matter of personal opinion, and therefore evidently not worth further argument."
Rick Rush August 31 2001

Response:

Your challenge that there is no logical standard by which the proposition can be falsified, is contingent on the premise that the mind of an individual is a "closed book" to all other individuals, or the contents of an individual’s mind is "forever unknown" to all other individuals. However, it does not follow that an individual needs to get inside another individual’s mind in order to know whether or not the other individual can truly know who he or she is. The individual can reason based on a number things like the biological and neurological makeup of the individual in question, and any interaction he has had with the other individual. More important, an individual’s mind though closed to other individuals, does not allow the individual to know entirely from within his/her mind, because conscious knowing is contingent on knowledge of the external world. (I.e. there is no pure internal knowledge that we can know that we know.) So the challenge of showing how more reasonably we can truly know who we are, whether on an individual or collective basis, than not doing so, comes down to not personal opinion, but the more reasonableness of our reasons.

For example, for you to claim that you can truly know who you are, because you simply believe that you can, is less reasonable than us claiming that your conscious knowledge, based on your biological and neurological makeup, is representational, and therefore, you can only know in a representational sense, rather than in a complete or true sense. For you to respond that our claim is invalid because we cannot get inside your mind to know exactly what you are thinking is irrelevant and inconsistent, because we do not need to get inside your mind to more reasonably know that you cannot truly know who you are, and your own conscious knowledge is contingent on knowledge of the external world. (I.e. you cannot know something solely from inside your mind--there must be a connection to the external world at some level.)

In short, the basis for the evaluation of whether or not you can truly know who you are is the reasons for positions which we both have access to. So the notion of a "closed mind" is not relevant, nor is it consistent since your conscious knowing is contingent on knowledge of the external world. (i.e. world outside of your mind itself.)

27. Entry:

“We are indeed human beings but are controlled by consciousness, thus overcoming the casual infinity of existence. All interconnections are controlled by consciousness thus enabling these interconnections to cease in a controlled manner.”

Shaun Whatley July 4 2007

Response:

How is human consciousness outside the realm of interconnectedness? For example, John wakes up early to go fishing, but decides against it upon hearing thunder and seeing lightening. How is John’s conscious decision not to go fishing outside of the realm of interconnectedness, namely in this instance the weather? How does John’s consciousness control the interconnectedness stemming from the weather?

28. Entry:

“It seems to me that the term infinity is irreconcilable with all the other terms of the proposition rendering the question less reasonable than it could be. The basic outline of my argument concerns the fact that, for the term infinity to be posited meaningfully all notions of cause (and effect) would have to be dissolved. Even if we can conceive of the discrete infinity implicit in the idea of, let's say, the universe continuing to expand indefinitely and hence time carrying on 'forever', this idea also implies the discrete possibility that such an expansion could cease or stop. For a more reasonable definition of infinity, concepts such as time can't be said to operate. If time can't be said to operate then neither can distance/space. The finitude, and consequently time dependent experience of our existence, presupposes the notion of such things as 'connectivity' and 'inter-connectivity'. For things to inter-connect they have to exist in some relation. But the primary condition for such a relationship to be conceivable as a relation would have to be that of a spatial/temporal dimension, a condition that can't be said to have any meaning in terms of an 'infinite perspective'. The argument could be that the original proposition still functions even if we decide to assign it to the theoretical construct called a human being. But it can't. We can't reasonably be said to be human beings AND related, as human beings, to a concept such as infinity. The concept of infinity can't be said to 'accept' ANY level of theoretical construct because the concept itself presupposes the negation of time and space and hence negates any condition for which a construct can be employed in terms of reasoning. In short, it is as fallacious as saying that 'Jill is everything' or 'Jill is nothing' For the proposition to rendered more reasonably it would have to propose something on the level of: 'We are [more reasonably] human beings who are part of the causal finitude of our existence', or 'We are [more reasonably] human beings, but at the level of infinity such ideas as 'human being' cease to function'.”

Ed Field July 25 2007

Response:

We define infinity as a state with no beginning or end, or simply an endless state.

One reason we apply infinity to human existence, is because no one has been able to more reasonably establish a complete beginning or end to anything.

It is unclear to us why our definition of infinity is inconsistent with causality, and presupposes the negation of space and time? You say that it is possible that the indefinite expansion of the universe could stop. We agree, but doubt in the form of possibility can be applied to any idea. Also, to use finitude instead of infinitude to describe human existence as you suggest, would be inconsistent with our inability to more reasonably know a complete beginning or end. (The notion of finitude implies a beginning and end to things.)

In our view, no beginning or end in a limited sense allows for time and space in an apparently endless causal state. Though no beginning or end implies an oneness of existence through infinite causal interconnections, and thereby negates space and time. But your position on the finitude of things, and thereby their individual oneness, denies or contradicts space and time.
In our view, we are left with the issue of ex nihlo (something from nothing) (finitude position) versus something from something else ad infinitum (infinite position).

Which is more reasonable?

Something from nothing is in contradiction with our comparative perspective, which posits a causal relationship to things, while something from something else is not. Therefore, we think that the infinite position is more reasonable. I.e. more likely corresponds to human existence.

29. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 27

“If we as human beings are part of a casual infinity of existence why then are we in the decision process as human beings affected by an influence not of this realm. God through the bible itself changes our direction of existence. Everything else in this universe known to us acts on basic interconnections, consider a plant, the soil, the weather and its genes. We however are not so basic, we act out of this interconnection because we are driven by something nothing else sees, hears nor acknowledges.”

shaun whatley July 25 2007

Response:

How are we outside of causal interaction? For instance, how do you account for people being burnt by the Sun’s rays?

Even though we may have an inner divine essence, how are we and our divine essence outside of causal interaction?

How can something be part of existence, and yet not bound by interaction within existence?

Entries 21-25