Evidence for God from Science

opus649 wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I have never met a moral atheist, Christian, Hindu, Buddist, Muslum, Taoist etc.... Everyone lies, cheats, steals, rapes, murders, etc.....

Yikes!! How did this get left unchallenged? Daniel, you've raped and murdered people???

Lol, don't be silly.

My point was that everyone has fallen short, there is none that have not sinned.

Beanybag wrote:Maybe things can be neither true or false maybe they can both true and false. Depends on the logic. If we can't agree to a logic, perhaps we can't get anywhere. None have been proven to be self-consistent nor capable of expressing every true statement (Godel explained this).

No, sir. It doesn't depend on the logic. There is a logic that I agree with, and you disagree with it. The problem here is that you disagree with an absurd logical system and provide no justification for it.

You are talking about Godel's incompleteness theorem, right? He is talking about numbers (specifically the natural ones), not the logical system itself.

Beanybag wrote:If you want to reject my claim that there is such a thing as mathematics, then fine. Now we're all solipsists.

Admitting there is no such thing as mathematics doesn't make you a solipsist. Do you want to be one? I'm still wondering what is your ontological commitments are.

Beanybag wrote:I have seen promise in formalism, platoism, constructivism, logicism, physicism, and even other ideas. I can't say which is true, and neither can anyone else really. So, which of these works for you? If none, then pick one that does. If you don't have one, then congratulations, we're all solipsists.

Again, saying mathematics doesn't exist doesn't make us solipsists. I need to know what your ontological commitments are. To deny you have any is just plain false.

Beanybag wrote:Why are you not taking this advantage to assert your own world view? I am trying to argue from your very own position, and yet, you keep dodging, trying to put the burden of proof on me. Fine. Solipsism it is.

Because I'm interested in understanding YOUR world view. Do you have an interest in my world view? I find it a bit baffling that you simply asserted your view, don't want to support it, and don't want to tell us what ontological commitments you have.
What does my view have to do with proving yours? Why are you so eager to jump into solipsism? Going there is basically admitting you're wrong about everything. My opposition to you isn't that you are wrong about everything. What you are wrong about is that math and science has the explanatory power you say it does.

You seem to understand this, and suddenly we got to solipsism? That just furthers my point that you worship math and science as your omniscient "God". You're willingness to go to solipsism looks incredibly obvious to avoiding ontological significance.

Beanybag wrote:What is untrue about what I said? Consistency and completeness is something no formal mathematical system has ever achieved, not even set theory. Negation has been a subject of debate for as long as the existence of zero - is there such 'thing' as a nothing? Is it an existential concept? It's certainly much more difficult than you realize, it is not my fault if you are ignorant on the philosophy of 'nothingness'. I am not so arrogant as to assume I know the answer to these things. I have no justifications for much of the knowledge I feel I hold (neither do most people). I hold to this knowledge out of convenience and will let other people's justifications work for me. I have no world view, so I'll fall back onto solipsism if you wish to deny whatever presuppositions I have. This is my top-down approach. I wish to discover the foundations through higher order concepts if I can, since what I feel I know strongest is that which is easiest.

Well, this is interesting. Consistency and completeness....would you say that these ideas are something maximally great? And that inconsistency and incompleteness are flaws and imperfect (we've already established this answer, btw)?

Believe me, I'm not ignorant on the philosophy of "nothing". I asked you to tell me what you understand about "nothing". I didn't say you needed to be right.

You say that you don't have a world view, and the needle on my baloney meter broke off.

Its solipsism or "give me my presuppositions back" is by and far one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this board. Thats ridiculously desperate.

Beanybag wrote:Indeed there does. I have my experiences and I believe them to be true. On an academic level, I do not have a way to support this beyond simply assuming my foundations at some level, which isn't to say I believe these foundations are true nor justifiable. Maybe I am having a dream. Maybe I am in a simulation. Maybe the cohesiveness of my existence is actually an illusion and these is no persistent me. Who is to say?

Indeed what? Do you need something certain to grasp onto?

Cogito Ergo Sum
Res cogitans

Means

I THINK. I EXIST as an IMPERFECT, MENTAL SUBSTANCE (An imperfect thing that thinks)

You agree, right?

Beanybag wrote:Can knowledge exist without a knower? Is that your objection to 'unknown' knowledge then? Should I refer to it as information instead (you've already had to concede that information exists without a mind, unless you're asserting a mind (which you haven't - am I to assume you're atheist?))? Is this all a battle of semantics?

Knowledge cannot exist without a mind (Mental substance). Never did I ever concede that information exists without a mind. Where are you reading?

Beanybag wrote:You're borderline lying at this point, very dishonest. Stop assuming things. You are not correct. Neither have you established beyond an assertion that unknowable things are in part known. The value in question is in no part known. You have not demonstrated otherwise, only asserted.

If I am wrong about knowing that something cannot be known, how would you KNOW that? Your disagreement with me affirms KNOWLEDGE, which proves that I am right.

In order to detect falsehood, you MUST KNOW truth. You KNOW something about IT. Otherwise, you would not disagree.

This isn't an assertion. These are you own words and you have having an incredibly difficult time with your god "math and science" not being able handle meaning and contradiction.

Beanybag wrote:Does math presuppose logic? Math has never been proven to be reducible to logic. This position is called logicism - are you a logicist? What if math and logic are different?

Yes it does. Math is the use of symbols with logical reasoning.

Beanybag wrote:More dishonesty. If you're interested in being at all academic, you should probably work on checking the accuracy of your premises. You've provided little to no content, plenty of ad homs and straw men (despite your professed unwillingness to attack straw men), and have constantly battled against my humble arguments with absolutely every red herring you can find. I will argue from any point of view you have, but you haven't asserted any. Am I to infer you're a radical skeptic?

Sir, you need to establish your own view. Arguing from my point of view to prove yours is correct is invalid.

Your claim is something in question does not exist. You are speaking in affirmative.
Refer to this venn diagram
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... iagram.png

Are you man in ignorance or are you man in enlightenment?

Beanybag wrote:This is the part where I ask, "OH? You agree? Why don't you get on with it then?"

No, this is the part where you don't provide anything to support your presuppositions of math and science

Beanybag wrote:To which you will boldly reply, "I will not attack straw men!"

No, this is the part where I tell you you're wasting my time.

Beanybag wrote:Do you think you're on to my naturalist, science-worshipping, math-deifying tricks yet? Or perhaps you can read what I say and take it at its meaning.

I can't take what I read at its meaning, when you won't even tell me why you believe your position has explanatory power for reality.

Beanybag wrote:I have no world view. My assertions and premises rest on your own justifications for these ideas.

No they do not! I cannot justify your assertions and premises. I have NO IDEA at all what you're thinking. Your assertions and premises need to be explained BY YOU.

Beanybag wrote:I argue from other people's world views. If you want to deny that you agree to these premises, then fine. We'll all be a bunch of merry solipsists.

Again, this is ridiculous.

Lets say for example that I believe the moon of the earth is made of cheese. Then you prove to me that it is not made of cheese. Does it follow that WHATEVER you believe the earth's moon is made of is the true reality of the earth's moon?
Surely, you cannot be so foolish to think that this is how to support an affirmative argument. I'm led to believe that you just don't know proper etiquette or just wasting my time.

So, again, and this is for the last time....

Is your assertions about reality one that is in enlightenment?

or is your assertions about reality one that is in ignorance?

domokunrox wrote:You are talking about Godel's incompleteness theorem, right? He is talking about numbers (specifically the natural ones), not the logical system itself.

His incompleteness theorem showed that any set of axioms would not be able to be both complete and consistent, and if it showed itself to be so, would be inconsistent. If you can show a bijection between the set that is being used with the natural numbers (if the set the axioms wish to rule is countably infinite) then his theorem applies.

I need to know what your ontological commitments are. To deny you have any is just plain false.

Prove it.

Its solipsism or "give me my presuppositions back" is by and far one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read on this board. Thats ridiculously desperate.

It's not. I don't have any justification that I feel is adequate for much of what I assume to be true. How do I justify empiricism? By using empirical evidence? It's just circular. I accept empiricism on faith if you will. If I am to be completely and utterly honest, I can't say I know it be accurate, only that it feels accurate. My premise is as weak as it sounds. Reject it or accept it.

Cogito Ergo Sum

You agree, right?

Sure, now I'm at solipsism. That's about as far as I feel I can get when I work bottom-up.

Beanybag wrote:Can knowledge exist without a knower? Is that your objection to 'unknown' knowledge then? Should I refer to it as information instead (you've already had to concede that information exists without a mind, unless you're asserting a mind (which you haven't - am I to assume you're atheist?))? Is this all a battle of semantics?

Knowledge cannot exist without a mind (Mental substance). Never did I ever concede that information exists without a mind. Where are you reading?

What mind are you asserting then for all the information in the universe? And to note: Logicism is the view that mathematics is in some significant way reducible to logic. This has never been proven.

Lets say for example that I believe the moon of the earth is made of cheese. Then you prove to me that it is not made of cheese. Does it follow that WHATEVER you believe the earth's moon is made of is the true reality of the earth's moon?
Surely, you cannot be so foolish to think that this is how to support an affirmative argument. I'm led to believe that you just don't know proper etiquette or just wasting my time.

I don't need to have my own beliefs in order to adopt yours and then argue from your position. If your belief is irrational or inconsistent according to your own beliefs, I could convince you that the moon was not made of cheese, even if I personally believed it was. It doesn't matter. I can argue with a Christian about what they should believe if they tell me they accept the Bible as literally true, even if I don't believe the Bible to be literally true.

Maybe things can be neither true or false maybe they can both true and false. Depends on the logic. If we can't agree to a logic, perhaps we can't get anywhere. None have been proven to be self-consistent nor capable of expressing every true statement (Godel explained this).

Beanybag,

No, sir. You need to look at the statement once again.

"No consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by effective procedures is capable of proving ALL truths about the relations of natural numbers. There will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but unprovable within the system.

To which I say, so what?

"Such system cannot demonstrate its own consistantcy"

Again, so what?

All these statements are doing is telling us something THAT WE KNOW.

What I find even more amusing is that you're talking about Godel. Godel believed in PURE REASON. Godel was showing us that we are limited in mathematic ability. This only leaves us with a debate about infinity, and philosophers discard it. We call it, argument from infinity.

Your opposition to this? It shows that you have an ontological commitment to numbers. What is it?
You are saying that there is no such thing as a perfect system. Isn't this correct?

So, also you admit that empiricism is circular alone, but you can only say that it feels accurate. In otherwords, you believe in something intuitive about your sense experience, do you not? The problem is you don't have explanatory power to say why.

I would say our sense experience is accurate only if we remain rational. However, this leaves us with phenomonalism. That is to say that moment to moment there is nothing there until we are experiencing it. That is the rational conclusion. Now some people think this is a bit crazy. Do I really believe that if I see a truck coming down the road, and stepping in front of its path that nothing bad is going to happen? No, of course not. As irrational as it is to believe in such things, we are not free to disbelieve what we do understand.

Also, I said
Cogito ergo sum
Res cogitans

They both go together. Which is, an imperfect, non-spatial, and mental substance.

Also, putting aside your beliefs to put someone else's on isn't an argument. All you would be doing is smuggling in your presuppositions you hold. Again, this doesnt say anything about your view (which is where the assertions in question came from).

domokunrox wrote:What I find even more amusing is that you're talking about Godel. Godel believed in PURE REASON. Godel was showing us that we are limited in mathematic ability. This only leaves us with a debate about infinity, and philosophers discard it. We call it, argument from infinity.

Had to look it up to be sure, but Godel was a Platoist. Might explain his belief towards pure reason. Also, haven't heard from this argument from infinity. Do you mean infinite regress? Every mathematician accepts infinity as a 'real' concept at this point, we even have different infinities (countable and uncountable, possibly more depending on the truth of the CH).

Your opposition to this? It shows that you have an ontological commitment to numbers. What is it?
You are saying that there is no such thing as a perfect system. Isn't this correct?

No, I'm not. You can have sound and complete axiomatic systems, but many of our current ones are not. Set theory, which was to be the foundation of all mathematics, is incomplete (see: debate on axiom of choice which is independent of the ZF axioms). But it's still useful for statements which the ZF axioms apply.

I would say our sense experience is accurate only if we remain rational. However, this leaves us with phenomonalism. That is to say that moment to moment there is nothing there until we are experiencing it. That is the rational conclusion. Now some people think this is a bit crazy. Do I really believe that if I see a truck coming down the road, and stepping in front of its path that nothing bad is going to happen? No, of course not. As irrational as it is to believe in such things, we are not free to disbelieve what we do understand.

Also, I said
Cogito ergo sum
Res cogitans

I, like many, do not find that 'res cogitans' follows from the first. I accept the validity of the first proposition, mostly, but the not second proposition.

Also, putting aside your beliefs to put someone else's on isn't an argument. All you would be doing is smuggling in your presuppositions you hold. Again, this doesnt say anything about your view (which is where the assertions in question came from).

I don't smuggle in my presuppositions, I try to work off of theirs. If I can show that their beliefs are inconsistent via their own beliefs, then I feel I have made a strong conclusion. We must agree to a set of premises in order to argue, else we're just slinging opinions at each other. This is obvious. Your objections to my beliefs will not be your own beliefs, but inconsistencies that I should be able to hold through my own beliefs.

Infinite regress is the same argument as making a claim of an infinite.
If an actual infinite exists, an actual infinite regress would be a legitimate argument. However, it isn't. The assertion of an infinite regress assumes that a finite worldview is false. So, its a type of question begging.

It comes down to what we do understand. A beginning and an end are well understood ideas that correspond to res extensa.
Infinites are also well understood as counter intuitive. That's why its simply discarded. The only way you can hold a view of infinites is to basically claim that 0 and 1 aren't numbers. That's quite absurd, and its entirely different from what you believe about numbers.

Which is, numbers are fiction or 0 and 1 are not understood. The former brings you to a phenomenonist view of numbers, the latter making you ontologically ambiguous.
In either case, if you use numbers, you do so on an irrational basis.

Let me get this straight. Is there a perfect axiomatic system? Its a yes or no.

Also, regarding
cogito ego sum
Res cogitans

To deny res cogitans is to assert res extensa. We already dealt with that. We can only exist res cogitans. This is what I was talking about. You have presuppositions.

domokunrox wrote:Infinite regress is the same argument as making a claim of an infinite.
If an actual infinite exists, an actual infinite regress would be a legitimate argument. However, it isn't. The assertion of an infinite regress assumes that a finite worldview is false. So, its a type of question begging.

It comes down to what we do understand. A beginning and an end are well understood ideas that correspond to res extensa.
Infinites are also well understood as counter intuitive. That's why its simply discarded. The only way you can hold a view of infinites is to basically claim that 0 and 1 aren't numbers. That's quite absurd, and its entirely different from what you believe about numbers.

Which is, numbers are fiction or 0 and 1 are not understood. The former brings you to a phenomenonist view of numbers, the latter making you ontologically ambiguous.
In either case, if you use numbers, you do so on an irrational basis.

I don't know what I believe about numbers or how I feel about the number 0. Infinity could be a real concept if Platoism is true, it could be not if phenomenalism/physicalism is true, it could be semi-real if formalism is true, and who knows if logicism is true. Intuition isn't always the best concept. Besides, am I to believe that since the world is finite, any number greater than the Universe is non-real? What then of Graham's number? Numbers don't necessarily need to map to the Universe in a one-to-one fashion, and infinity can be captured through finite computation and understanding. I don't know what to think of infinite regress arguments for this reason, however, I do defer to rejecting them for now.

However, I don't need to justify numbers in order to use them much the same as I don't need to understand a motor in order to drive a car. I am fine with, as I have been saying, sticking to a top-down approach and assuming away my foundations for now. I am not yet learned enough to provide these justifications, and I don't know if I ever will be. It is a humble acceptance that I don't know the answers.

Let me get this straight. Is there a perfect axiomatic system? Its a yes or no.

First-order logic is sound and complete for all statements of truth, however, certain paradoxes concerning knowledge create an infinite paradox for knowledge under first-order logic, i.e. it seemingly can't account for all knowledge despite its soundness and completeness. You can also construct other perfect (sound and complete) axiomatic systems but they will be much more limited in power than most mathematical systems we are used to, and it would deny much of the mathematics we have established.

I really enjoy set theory and I find the ZF axioms to be very fantastic, even if their completeness is demonstrably untrue (as per the continuum hypothesis and the axiom of choice), but it has been shown to be consistent up to ZF axioms without the axiom of choice (axiom of choice makes for some problems in that if it's true, ZFC is obviously inconsistent, and if it's false, ZF is obviously inconsistent - intuitively at least. What do we do???). I think it's fantastic to have such open and unsolved questions at the heart of the foundation of mathematics, it's exciting to me. However, it leaves open the problem that many of the mathematical systems we use might be shown to be inconsistent at some level.

Another problem is that mathematics can't be shown to be reducible to logic (especially considering that set theory lacks completeness while first order logic does not). What if mathematics isn't reducible to logic, but they are very similar and different things? That would be extraordinary. I can't say for sure though. And that's roughly the story of my life - this omnipresent form of agnosticism.

Also, regarding
cogito ego sum
Res cogitans

To deny res cogitans is to assert res extensa. We already dealt with that. We can only exist res cogitans. This is what I was talking about. You have presuppositions.

To deny res cogitans is to assert res extensa only if I have positively denied res cogitans (which I haven't, I just haven't necessarily accepted it) and only if the law of excluded middle holds (which would assume First-order logic). That's another problem I have with cogito ergo sum - it hasn't provided justification for the existence of logic by which to infer a conclusion. But how can we prove the existence of logic without asserting our own existence? Are we to treat our existence as a possible contradiction until logic has been proved? Or would that be too logical at this point in time. It's a little messy, as you can see. Theism certainly helps make sense of such a dilemma (which I know you're being careful in asserting, I'm not sure why), but I feel there's other solutions as well.

Beanybag wrote:I don't know what I believe about numbers or how I feel about the number 0. Infinity could be a real concept if Platoism is true, it could be not if phenomenalism/physicalism is true, it could be semi-real if formalism is true, and who knows if logicism is true. Intuition isn't always the best concept. Besides, am I to believe that since the world is finite, any number greater than the Universe is non-real? What then of Graham's number? Numbers don't necessarily need to map to the Universe in a one-to-one fashion, and infinity can be captured through finite computation and understanding. I don't know what to think of infinite regress arguments for this reason, however, I do defer to rejecting them for now.

However, I don't need to justify numbers in order to use them much the same as I don't need to understand a motor in order to drive a car. I am fine with, as I have been saying, sticking to a top-down approach and assuming away my foundations for now. I am not yet learned enough to provide these justifications, and I don't know if I ever will be. It is a humble acceptance that I don't know the answers.

Well, theres an easy answer to this sometimes. You say that "I don't know what I believe" or "How I feel about the number 0". I want you to take notice that you've already affirmed you exist. More on that in a second.

2nd, Theres no good reason at all to believe the Platonist can claim that abstract objects are non-mental (and non-spatial, too). Thats silly considering that Platonism already affirms that a mental substance exists. To try to say that theres some non-mental object that exists independent of you is the most unsuccessful argument I've ever heard. Thats like saying "It just does exist". Its completely unjustified, and impossible. Believe me, I tried.

If there is this non-mental objects, how would it inform you of its presence? It just did? Thats phenomenalism. Thats not rational by any stretch.

And whoa whoa whoa! Hold the presses here! We made a breakthrough! Let me quote it again

Besides, am I to believe that since the world is finite, any number greater than the Universe is non-real?

This is absolutely staggering. You understand what greater is. Most importantly, you can conceive of something greater than the Universe. You got the right idea, but its isn't a number. More on this in a second.

What then of Graham's number? Numbers don't necessarily need to map to the Universe in a one-to-one fashion, and infinity can be captured through finite computation and understanding.

Whoa whoa whoa! First off, lets keep rational about numbers.
2nd, you say that infinity can be "captured" through "finite computation and understanding". Can you clarify? More importantly, wouldn't agree that it is GREATER to have an UNDERSTANDING as opposed to appealing to a mathematical set theory you don't even know exists? Again, how would these "non-mental" objects inform you of their presence? By way of phenomenon? Surely, you must understand that there is no rational basis for such a view.

I don't know what to think of infinite regress arguments for this reason, however, I do defer to rejecting them for now.

I would also put off numbers as non-mental if I were you.

However, I don't need to justify numbers in order to use them much the same as I don't need to understand a motor in order to drive a car. I am fine with, as I have been saying, sticking to a top-down approach and assuming away my foundations for now. I am not yet learned enough to provide these justifications, and I don't know if I ever will be. It is a humble acceptance that I don't know the answers.

No, sir. Thats pretty poor considering you admitted to not having justification. That fatal flaw on top of that is that you're giving bad analogies. That "top down" approach sounds like the naturalist fallacy. Its phenomenon reasoning.
Like, I don't need to understand how a gun works in order to shoot people with it, I don't need to understand drunkenness in order to operate a car, or I don't need to understand rape in order to have sex.

While its true that you don't need to know how or why to carry out the action, you then would be admitting that you simply don't care if you're wrong. Is that the case?

Beanybag wrote:First-order logic is sound and complete for all statements of truth, however, certain paradoxes concerning knowledge create an infinite paradox for knowledge under first-order logic, i.e. it seemingly can't account for all knowledge despite its soundness and completeness.

Heres a thought. Those "certain" paradoxes you are talking about. Don't you think its possible that those paradoxes aren't valid propositions?

Beanybag wrote:You can also construct other perfect (sound and complete) axiomatic systems but they will be much more limited in power than most mathematical systems we are used to, and it would deny much of the mathematics we have established.

Key word I want to point out here is "limited". More on that in a second.

Beanybag wrote:I really enjoy set theory and I find the ZF axioms to be very fantastic, even if their completeness is demonstrably untrue (as per the continuum hypothesis and the axiom of choice), but it has been shown to be consistent up to ZF axioms without the axiom of choice (axiom of choice makes for some problems in that if it's true, ZFC is obviously inconsistent, and if it's false, ZF is obviously inconsistent - intuitively at least. What do we do???). I think it's fantastic to have such open and unsolved questions at the heart of the foundation of mathematics, it's exciting to me. However, it leaves open the problem that many of the mathematical systems we use might be shown to be inconsistent at some level.

Yeah, math is fun stuff. I don't take much interest in it anymore these days. Mostly because I've been out of school for quite some time.

Beanybag wrote:Another problem is that mathematics can't be shown to be reducible to logic (especially considering that set theory lacks completeness while first order logic does not). What if mathematics isn't reducible to logic, but they are very similar and different things? That would be extraordinary. I can't say for sure though. And that's roughly the story of my life - this omnipresent form of agnosticism.

Well, they have different purposes.

Beanybag wrote:To deny res cogitans is to assert res extensa only if I have positively denied res cogitans (which I haven't, I just haven't necessarily accepted it) and only if the law of excluded middle holds (which would assume First-order logic).

Existence falls in 2 categories. Spatial or non spatial. Since we aren't certain in the existence of res extensa. Since it could be a dream. We are forced to res cogitans. The content of the idea in the "excluded middle" is also in doubt. It could be wrong, too.

Beanybag wrote:That's another problem I have with cogito ergo sum - it hasn't provided justification for the existence of logic by which to infer a conclusion.

That because logic doesn't exist either, yet. I've spoken to another user here who has made that same mistake. The statement is not one based in logic. Its a foundational statement. I doubt my sense experience. I doubt mathematics. I doubt logic. Doubt presumes there is an I. The existence of I cannot be doubted.

Beanybag wrote:But how can we prove the existence of logic without asserting our own existence?

Logic isn't needed. Ideas are indubitable as ideas.

For example, going back to the dream we could be having.
I could be having a dream that I am having fresh cup of coffee at a cafe in Seattle. I can doubt that I am having that fresh cup of coffee, but I cannot doubt that I think I'm drinking a cup of coffee at this cafe.
Another example, I think I'm experiencing a discussion at Godandscience.org. I can doubt I am experiencing Godandscience.org, but I cannot doubt that I think I am experiencing it.

This is to say the idea is indubitable. Its is an indubitable and trivial statement.
Like, All bachelors are unmarried. Once you know what bachelor means, and once you know what unmarried means. The ideas are necessarily connected and are necessarily true. Its not a statement of logic. Like, the idea of "A" is that same as the idea of "A".

Beanybag wrote:Are we to treat our existence as a possible contradiction until logic has been proved?

No, we certainly exist.

Beanybag wrote:Or would that be too logical at this point in time. It's a little messy, as you can see. Theism certainly helps make sense of such a dilemma (which I know you're being careful in asserting, I'm not sure why), but I feel there's other solutions as well.

Well, I think its best I saved this for last. As far as what I've show. I must exist as a mental, non-spatial substance. Ideas are indubitable as ideas. Now, I have to prove God exists. There are plenty of times where you admitted to your understanding of words like "limited", "perfect", "imperfect", etc. These ideas are indubitable. I move forward in this manner. Clarification here though. A mind isn't an idea. Its a foundational reality.

I have the idea of a mind that is not my own that has ALL possible perfections. A perfect mental substance; to be more exact.
We can then ask ourselves a pretty serious question. How did we get this idea? It certainly didn't come from me. Imperfect minds can't make this up, can it? Nothing in my sense experiences (even if they are right) is perfect.

This is where I hit you with all the ontological arguments. I changed Anselm's a bit to my own liking.

You are convinced that Perfection exists in the understanding alone, at least, than which nothing perfect can exist in reality. For when you say this, you understand it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding.
But it is greater for Perfection to exist in reality than for it to exist in the understanding alone.
We are forced to conclude that Perfection conceived can be conceived to be greater than it is.
Thats absurd.
Perfection cannot exist in understanding alone, but must exist in reality.

Here is Descartes version:
"But, if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something that entails everything that I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of God? Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. And my understanding that it belongs to his nature that he always exists is no less clear and distinct than is the case when I prove of any shape or number that some property belongs to its nature"

Godel's version (since I know you like Godel)
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Plantinga's:
A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

However, I don't need to justify numbers in order to use them much the same as I don't need to understand a motor in order to drive a car.

Sorry, don't mean to interrupt the dialogue. had to point this out.
Justification and understanding are not the same thing. I may not understand a motor, but I certainly wouldn't be driving down the street with my hair blowing in the wind, while at the same time saying we can't justify the existance of the motor. Isn't one presuming to justify when they are 'using' them?

jlay wrote:

However, I don't need to justify numbers in order to use them much the same as I don't need to understand a motor in order to drive a car.

Sorry, don't mean to interrupt the dialogue. had to point this out.
Justification and understanding are not the same thing. I may not understand a motor, but I certainly wouldn't be driving down the street with my hair blowing in the wind, while at the same time saying we can't justify the existance of the motor. Isn't one presuming to justify when they are 'using' them?

Yes, I assume it's justifiable, I just don't know how.

domokunrox wrote:And whoa whoa whoa! Hold the presses here! We made a breakthrough! Let me quote it again

Besides, am I to believe that since the world is finite, any number greater than the Universe is non-real?

This is absolutely staggering. You understand what greater is. Most importantly, you can conceive of something greater than the Universe. You got the right idea, but its isn't a number. More on this in a second.

You know, I was using the word greater to mean 'larger'. As in x > y. As in Graham's number is greater than the number of bits that could fit into a planck volume. I see no reason to prefer maximal concepts to parsimonious ones. So please don't conflate 'greater' with any idea of 'better'.

What then of Graham's number? Numbers don't necessarily need to map to the Universe in a one-to-one fashion, and infinity can be captured through finite computation and understanding.

Whoa whoa whoa! First off, lets keep rational about numbers.
2nd, you say that infinity can be "captured" through "finite computation and understanding". Can you clarify?

We can begin to understand infinity through finite means. We can begin a series and demonstrate it has no end. We can even compare the sizes of certain infinites. We can define it mathematically and even compute with it. I understand infinity well enough, at least.

More importantly, wouldn't agree that it is GREATER to have an UNDERSTANDING as opposed to appealing to a mathematical set theory you don't even know exists? Again, how would these "non-mental" objects inform you of their presence? By way of phenomenon? Surely, you must understand that there is no rational basis for such a view.

What. I have not even established they are non-mental or mental. I have not even established the existence of the mental as it differentiates from the spatial.

I don't know what to think of infinite regress arguments for this reason, however, I do defer to rejecting them for now.

I would also put off numbers as non-mental if I were you.

Why. You can state there is no rational basis for this line of thought but you can't prove it.

While its true that you don't need to know how or why to carry out the action, you then would be admitting that you simply don't care if you're wrong. Is that the case?

No?

Beanybag wrote:First-order logic is sound and complete for all statements of truth, however, certain paradoxes concerning knowledge create an infinite paradox for knowledge under first-order logic, i.e. it seemingly can't account for all knowledge despite its soundness and completeness.

Heres a thought. Those "certain" paradoxes you are talking about. Don't you think its possible that those paradoxes aren't valid propositions?

No? Where's the justification for this?

Beanybag wrote:Another problem is that mathematics can't be shown to be reducible to logic (especially considering that set theory lacks completeness while first order logic does not). What if mathematics isn't reducible to logic, but they are very similar and different things? That would be extraordinary. I can't say for sure though. And that's roughly the story of my life - this omnipresent form of agnosticism.

Well, they have different purposes.

But you've simply asserted that they are the same.

Existence falls in 2 categories. Spatial or non spatial.

Why? What if it falls into zool, prim, and fatan?

That because logic doesn't exist either, yet. I've spoken to another user here who has made that same mistake. The statement is not one based in logic. Its a foundational statement. I doubt my sense experience. I doubt mathematics. I doubt logic. Doubt presumes there is an I. The existence of I cannot be doubted.

If there's no logic, then I'll just assert that I don't exist. Also stapler, ergo I exist and don't exist. Further, you say I can't doubt myself because I 'presume' the doubter. Well, I doubt the doubter then, oops, I presumed a doubter of the doubter. Well, I doubt that doubter. Now my existence hinges on an infinite regress and I vanished in a big poof.

Another example, I think I'm experiencing a discussion at Godandscience.org. I can doubt I am experiencing Godandscience.org, but I cannot doubt that I think I am experiencing it.

I doubt that I think that I am experiencing it, but now I'm thinking about doubting about thinking. But I doubt that too. Uh oh, infinite regress again. When we skeptically examine each layer, they all reveal more layers behind them. There doesn't seem to be a foundation. Of course, you'll disagree, because you believe this to be true. But I can't say I know it to be true myself. Impasse.

Like, All bachelors are unmarried. Once you know what bachelor means, and once you know what unmarried means. The ideas are necessarily connected and are necessarily true. Its not a statement of logic. Like, the idea of "A" is that same as the idea of "A".

But what if you found a married bachelor. Why, a bachelor can't be married by definition! Why not? What does it mean to be married? To be? Define definition without being circular. Words present a problem for knowledge, they can't justify themselves. Concepts can't come from words and words just point to concepts. But what is the concept? You've asserted this 'idea' as being indubitable, but what does that even mean, how can you know, and wasn't language a requirement in order to come to the conclusion 'cogito ergo sum'? I mean, in order to doubt yourself, you have to already have a concept what what self even is. He certainly couldn't have come to such a conclusion without any prior knowledge, does that mean a priori knowledge exists? This doesn't seem to be the way to establish knowledge.

Well, I think its best I saved this for last. As far as what I've show. I must exist as a mental, non-spatial substance. Ideas are indubitable as ideas. Now, I have to prove God exists. There are plenty of times where you admitted to your understanding of words like "limited", "perfect", "imperfect", etc. These ideas are indubitable. I move forward in this manner. Clarification here though. A mind isn't an idea. Its a foundational reality.

When I used the word perfect, it meant that an axiomatic system was both sound and complete. Perhaps perfect means being equivalent to your distinct, proper, positive divisors? What is mental, why is it non-spatial? Limited is always in comparison, my use of limited was in comparing two axiomatic systems, one of which has demonstrably more power than the other.

I have the idea of a mind that is not my own that has ALL possible perfections. A perfect mental substance; to be more exact.
We can then ask ourselves a pretty serious question. How did we get this idea? It certainly didn't come from me. Imperfect minds can't make this up, can it? Nothing in my sense experiences (even if they are right) is perfect.

Where did I get the idea of a square circle? I certainly didn't make it up. I've never seen one, so it can't be from my sensory experiences. What does it even mean? Is there such thing as perfection - I mean a square circle?

And this is where things get really weird.
You are convinced that Perfection exists in the understanding alone, at least, than which nothing perfect can exist in reality. I don't know, what if all electrons are perfect?
For when you say this, you understand it. And whatever is understood, exists in the understanding. What is the understanding? Is that something where things exist? Can I touch understandings? Why is the understandings not reality?
But it is greater for Perfection to exist in reality than for it to exist in the understanding alone. Perfection in reality > perfection in understanding? I don't know, how do I measure those? What if perfection is equal in all places but reality > understanding? Why should I care if something is larger than another something? What if I like parsimony? I assert reality < understanding, therefore better!
We are forced to conclude that Perfection conceived can be conceived to be greater than it is.
Thats absurd.
Perfection cannot exist in understanding alone, but must exist in reality. Whatever that means.

Godel's version (since I know you like Godel)
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive Okay. Whatever that means.
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positiveWait, why? Why are existence and being god-like both positive?
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

Plantinga's:
A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world. Who cares about being maximal? Why not be minimal? I like minimalist stuff too. What does good even mean?
It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise) Of course, I have no idea how one would prove such a possibility..
Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

All of these proofs have major problems. Godel is an okay guy, but he was a Platoist afterall, and such a position has no rational basis, yes? I'm not even sure logic 'exists' or is applicable outside of existence/the Universe, so I don't really know what to think of these 'many world' hypotheses. I've not been persuaded by anyone and I don't think it's likely I ever will, as to any metaphysical view. I don't think it's necessary either. I'd really like to just get back to the demonstration of unknowability/unknown truths and how it's possible given the premises. Unless you know the answer to the Reimann Hypothesis, that is.

Beanybag wrote:Yes, I assume it's justifiable, I just don't know how.

Thats problematic.

Beanybag wrote:You know, I was using the word greater to mean 'larger'. As in x > y. As in Graham's number is greater than the number of bits that could fit into a planck volume. I see no reason to prefer maximal concepts to parsimonious ones. So please don't conflate 'greater' with any idea of 'better'.

It actually doesn't matter. Greater in any way is enough. You understand it. Thats all I need.

Beanybag wrote:We can begin to understand infinity through finite means. We can begin a series and demonstrate it has no end.

No, sir. You can't actually demonstrate something having no beginning or no end. You are mistaken.

Beanybag wrote:We can even compare the sizes of certain infinites. We can define it mathematically and even compute with it. I understand infinity well enough, at least.

No, sir. You're not talking about ACTUAL infinites. Those Potential infinites are ACTUALLY FINITE.

Beanybag wrote:What. I have not even established they are non-mental or mental. I have not even established the existence of the mental as it differentiates from the spatial.

Sir, you are lost. If you want to get to Platonism, their view is that numbers are non-mental, non-spatial objects. But, like I said, it can't be non-mental because then you cannot be informed of their presence. Do you understand this?

There is 2 categories of existence
1: Matter that is in motion. Its essence and purpose is to take up space (spatial extension) and we have no rational basis that such things exist (at least for right now)
or
2: Imperfect, mental substances and ideas. Its essence and purpose does not take space (non-spatial) and we have a rational basis for it. Cogito Ergo Sum, Res extensa. Ideas are indubitable as ideas.

Beanybag wrote:Why. You can state there is no rational basis for this line of thought but you can't prove it.

I already told you why. Something that is non-mental and non-spatial CANNOT INFORM US OF ITS PRESENCE! If you believe that numbers have informed you that they are there, its is YOU that NEEDS to prove such a view.

Beanybag wrote:

While its true that you don't need to know how or why to carry out the action, you then would be admitting that you simply don't care if you're wrong. Is that the case?

No?

No what?

Beanybag wrote:No? Where's the justification for this?

What do you mean no?

Beanybag wrote:But you've simply asserted that they are the same.

I did no such thing. I've stated that Math PRESUPPOSES logic.
Whats so controversial about the mathematical tables structured on the basis of logic for a different purpose?
I've yet to hear why you disagree with this.

Its clear you presuppose Math is a stand alone self proven, and self working system that simply is just there. Theres NO REASON WHATSOEVER to believe such a view without any justification or even prove that numbers even really exist. Surely, you must be feeling pretty silly with your objections. Its phenomenonalism! Again, you're basically worshipping numbers.

Beanybag wrote:Why? What if it falls into zool, prim, and fatan?

I've already explained. Don't waste my time with non-sense you're making up. You're not making any point at all.

Beanybag wrote:If there's no logic, then I'll just assert that I don't exist.

I exist isn't a statement based in logic.

Beanybag wrote:Also stapler, ergo I exist and don't exist.

A mind isn't an idea. Its a reality. Also, the combination of exist and don't exist is the content of an IDEA, not the idea itself.
I said Ideas are indubitable as ideas, not that idea content is indubitable.

Demonstation:
Me: I think I am experiencing a discussion at Godandscience.org, I can doubt that I am experiencing it. But I cannot doubt that I think I am experiencing a discussion at Godandscience.org (A trivial statement)
and
You are trying to say: The idea (I think) The content (I exist and don't exist)

And again, I exist isn't an idea. Its a reality.

Beanybag wrote:Further, you say I can't doubt myself because I 'presume' the doubter. Well, I doubt the doubter then, oops, I presumed a doubter of the doubter. Well, I doubt that doubter. Now my existence hinges on an infinite regress and I vanished in a big poof.

No, sir. All we need to do is ask, who is doing the doubting? If you answer the question, you automatically exist. Existence doesn't hinge on doubt at all. A mind is not an idea, its a reality.

Beanybag wrote:I doubt that I think that I am experiencing it, but now I'm thinking about doubting about thinking. But I doubt that too. Uh oh, infinite regress again.

Wrong again. You're achieved nothing. I exist is not an idea. Its a reality.

Beanybag wrote:When we skeptically examine each layer, they all reveal more layers behind them. There doesn't seem to be a foundation.

Who is being skeptical?

Beanybag wrote:Of course, you'll disagree, because you believe this to be true.

Who disagrees?

Beanybag wrote:But I can't say I know it to be true myself. Impasse.

Who cannot say?

Again, its a reality. Not an idea. More specifically, its not an indubitable idea, either.

Beanybag wrote:But what if you found a married bachelor.

Appeal to consequences

Beanybag wrote:Why, a bachelor can't be married by definition! Why not?

We know what bachelor means, sir.

Beanybag wrote:What does it mean to be married? To be?

It actually doesn't matter. The statement is trivial.

Beanybag wrote:Define definition without being circular.

Its not a circular argument, sir. Its a trivial statement.
Again, Is the idea of "2" the same as the idea of "2"?

Beanybag wrote:Words present a problem for knowledge, they can't justify themselves.

They ABSOLUTELY do, sir. You're very much mistaken. The content COULD BE wrong. But I am not making statements on idea contents. I am making trivial ones about the ideas itself.

Beanybag wrote:Concepts can't come from words and words just point to concepts. But what is the concept?

Again, you're mistaken.

Beanybag wrote:You've asserted this 'idea' as being indubitable, but what does that even mean, how can you know, and wasn't language a requirement in order to come to the conclusion 'cogito ergo sum'?

I've explained idea are indubitable as ideas. Perhaps you should look this up, sir.

I'm not sure how you are getting to arguing about language. Are you trying to tell me that Semiotics are not established? Surely, you must be joking.

Beanybag wrote:I mean, in order to doubt yourself, you have to already have a concept what what self even is.

You've already admitted to your intuition. If it is not the "self". Then where is the doubt? If you didn't do it, who did? There? Here? over there? Near? Far? There is ZERO reasons to believe any of those places exist and ZERO reasons to believe the doubt has originated from those places.

You can say I doubt. Thats fine. You can try to say that you are being mind controlled to doubt, but thats idea content. Not an indubitable idea.
You can instead say that you think you are being mind controlled by some evil genius.

Beanybag wrote:He certainly couldn't have come to such a conclusion without any prior knowledge, does that mean a priori knowledge exists? This doesn't seem to be the way to establish knowledge.

Key words is CERTAINLY. If we are certain, then its a sure way to establish knowledge.

Beanybag wrote:When I used the word perfect, it meant that an axiomatic system was both sound and complete. Perhaps perfect means being equivalent to your distinct, proper, positive divisors? What is mental, why is it non-spatial? Limited is always in comparison, my use of limited was in comparing two axiomatic systems, one of which has demonstrably more power than the other.

It doesn't matter in which way you use perfect. Its actually good enough.
Also, limited as you have used it, is also good enough.

Beanybag wrote:Where did I get the idea of a square circle? I certainly didn't make it up. I've never seen one, so it can't be from my sensory experiences. What does it even mean? Is there such thing as perfection - I mean a square circle?

I am actually going to wipe everything from here down.

Here is the thing, Beanybag. Your understanding of how the argument works and you're understanding of perfection and limited makes the argument work.

Because I never asserted that anything absurd, nor did I assert anything that you didn't understand.

What I mean by Perfection is the Reality of another mind (other than my own) that has ALL POSSIBLE PERFECTIONS!
It is a perfection to be eternal. Temporal existence is an imperfection.
It is a perfection to be omniscient. Limited in intelligence is an imperfection.
It is a perfection to be omnipotent. Limited in power is an imperfection.
Its is a perfection to be THE definer of truth. Deception is an imperfection.
Etc....

Heres where you went wrong. You demonstrated that you understood what limited meant, and you demonstrated that you understood perfection (in any capacity).

because I never asserted that anything absurd, nor did I assert anything that you didn't understand.

What I mean by Perfection is the Reality of another mind (other than my own) that has ALL POSSIBLE PERFECTIONS!
It is a perfection to be eternal. Temporal existence is an imperfection.
It is a perfection to be omniscient. Limited in intelligence is an imperfection.
It is a perfection to be omnipotent. Limited in power is an imperfection.
Its is a perfection to be THE definer of truth. Deception is an imperfection.
Etc....

Heres where you went wrong. You demonstrated that you understood what limited meant, and you demonstrated that you understood perfection (in any capacity).

I don't actually understand. God is sound and complete? Across what set? Why is limitation imperfect? I find axiomatic systems that limit contradictions to be more useful. I thought there's no such thing as infinity? What about perfect deception? What about perfect imperfection? Your words don't make sense. These non-mental substances that make ideas don't make sense. Where does the meaning in your words come from, how do you solve the subjective problem of language? Before you start using words to make these phrases like 'I exist' you should explain where the concept of words came from. Could you even think if you didn't have language? You couldn't come up with the thought 'I exist' if you didn't already know the words 'I' and 'exist'. If you don't know anything, you shouldn't be able to use words. That was another problem I had with Descartes. I think, once you somehow know language, his cogito ergo sum is fine for establishing your own existence, but only then. Anyway, I don't accept the existence of the mental / non-mental divide. I don't know that they are different. So.

I already told you why. Something that is non-mental and non-spatial CANNOT INFORM US OF ITS PRESENCE! If you believe that numbers have informed you that they are there, its is YOU that NEEDS to prove such a view.

For the ABSOLUTE LAST TIME, I am NOT MAKING POSITIVE CLAIMS. I have none to offer. I am not positing Platoism, I only consider it a possibility. I am not positing naturalism, I only consider it a possibility. I am not positing Islam, Christianity, or Hinduism, I only consider them possibilities.

Its clear you presuppose Math is a stand alone self proven, and self working system that simply is just there.

Another lie. I have done no such thing.

Now, I am done dealing with your lies and I am done dealing with any metaphysical justifications. If you want to discuss something, I can use your world view without believing it. If you want to get back to the original discussion, fine. Otherwise, I am finished.

@Beanybag & domokunrox

I don't know if this will help your discussion, but it might help you with your different views on "reality"

When you are dreaming, you are basically the "main character" doing all the "action", but at the same time, sometimes, you are able to witness what happens like you are watching a movie of yourself.

Now explain me this: how can you be in two places at the same time? but most important: how come you are able to think coherent at that point?

It's like the time travel paradox (traveling to the past): if I open a portal 5 minutes into the past and shoot myself, who opened the portal?

You are basically trying to solve a paradox... Good luck!

The same concept applies to Cogito ergo sum.

As long as your existence is dependent on others, you can't fully prove "Cogito Ergo Sum". At some point you will end up in an infinite regression just as Beanybag pointed out. You do not have a point of origin for "Cogito Ergo Sum".

Beanybag,

Yes, you understand. God, as it is in your understanding, is not a set. You're making yourself look foolish saying that. Limitations are imperfect, sir. You understand this just fine. I didn't say there was an infinity. Where did you get that? There is no perfect deception. That's an oxymoron. There is no perfect imperfection. That is again an oxymoron. Those words as they are understood are contrary ideas. They are not trivial like an indubitable idea.

I am not sure how your current objection regarding language has any bearing here. You're basically arguing semantics. You've fallen into a pitfall of questioning the linguistics itself. If a police officer pulls out a gun, points it at you, and tells you put your hands up. I seriously doubt you're going to refuse to do so until he explains the origination of the phrase to uphold that it actually means something.

Point is, we understand "I exist". An objection which equates to "but what if we don't know language?" Is utterly laughable. You understand it. That is all.

You say you don't accept a mental/non mental divide. Are you monist? Major problems there.

You say that your not making claims. Platonism remains a possibility? Again, I've explained its not unless you want to believe a phenomeomism system where numbers have informed you of their presence. Naturalism is, again, carries presuppositions that are unjustified (therefore, is phenomenonism).

I hope this gets thru to you beanybag.
In order to detect falsehood, you must know truth.

In otherwords, your objections remain dishonest. You're welcome to continue to discuss with me, but if you're going to disagree, you're going to have to reveal truth. Hopefully without presuppositions you cannot defend.

Bryan,

Answering your questions about the dream.
"How can you be at two places at the same time?"

Dream content could be false. However, the dream is real. You are having a dream.

"How come you are able to think coherent at that point?"

This question makes little sense. Like I said, the dream is real. Dream content could be false.

"Its like the time travel paradox"

No its not. The dream is real. The content could be false.

"The same applies to 'cogito ergo sum'"

No it does not. Existing is the reality, not an idea (more specifically, not idea content).

Bryan, there isn't anything you said that I already answered. Perhaps you should have read my responses in turn more carefully.

I doubt my sense experience.
I doubt mathematics are real.

I cannot doubt that I exist. Cogito ergo sum. Res cogitans.

Didn't we have this discussion in another thread? I believe I asked you something like, who is doing the doubting? To which you replied "I am, but you can't prove that I am doing that".