Quinque Viae
Offline I have a question regarding Aquinas' five proofs for God's existence. Could you please point out the logical fallacy in the first three proofs (which I believe to be slightly reworded cosmological arguments, maybe he thought three wasn't a big enough number??).
The Argument of the Unmoved Mover
"The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God."
The Argument of the First Cause
"The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God."
The Argument from Contingency
"The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God."
Also regarding his fourth proof:
The Argument from Degree
"The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But 'more' and 'less' are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God."
It was said that Aquinas critiqued the ontological argument during his lifetime, yet this fourth proof would seem to be exactly that, the ontological argument. Could anyone clear this up??
The fifth and final proof is just a teleological argument, already smashed to pieces by evolution, so I don't need help with that one, just the others.
Thanks in advance,
OhMan.
- Login to post comments
Offline The unpredictability of particles creates averages that appear to be "laws". Causality in metaphysics should be concerned with this, particularly those who are concerned about cosmology in reference to dieties because there are known natural phenomenon that begin to exist with no prior event.
but it is a fundamental premise of this discussion that:
1] we are not dealing with "natural phenomena"
2] the term "prior event" is not applicable since it implies a temporal framework.
3] the unpredictability of particles in no way impinges on the problem of ex nihilo existence faced by natural law, it merely pushes the question backwards. Upredictability merely supports the notion of an 'open system'.
Saying this is "foreign" seems to be an appeal to tradition: that is the metaphysical understanding of causality is based on a classical understanding of physics rather than a modern one. With this in mind, if the understanding of physics change, so should one's understanding of causality.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
- Login to post comments
Offline 1] we are not dealing with "natural phenomena"
Cosmology is a natural phenomenon and as I recall the discussion arose from such.
2] the term "prior event" is not applicable since it implies a temporal framework.
A god could not act "before" something it came into existence as that would be absurd. And nothing can begin to exist because that implies that time must first exist before time can begin to exist. This too is absurd....
On the other hand, one can look at events in logical order. What I'm getting at is not "prior" temporally, but logically.
3] the unpredictability of particles in no way impinges on the problem of ex nihilo existence faced by natural law, it merely pushes the question backwards. Upredictability merely supports the notion of an 'open system'.
Quite the contrary. Some natural phenomenon show ex nihilo sort of behaviors...
this looks like a "smuggled-in" argument for simply ditching the question posed by the classical interpretation!
Smuggled in? How so? If the classical interpretation does not paint an accurate picture concerning that which it presumes to represent, it would be pointless answer questioned according to this interpretation.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
- Login to post comments
Offline Event causation is what I'm getting at. Event causation and agent causation are two sorts of causation that get a lot of attention in metaphysics.
I'm suggesting there is no need for an "ontological superior" cause, rather it need only be ontologically equal to subsequent events. If this is the case, then we need not invoke a being (that is, an agent) of sort to get the same result when an event will suffice.
Absurdities arise at a quantum level, and I think this is the limit where a traditional understanding of causation stops. (See my comments below for more elaboration on this.)
Event causation and agent causation are primarily discussed in the philosophy of free will, which is a subset of metaphysics. It is just a distinction between the kinds of causes that there are. Events are reducible to the actions of individual things, so the distinction between event causation and agent causation is essentially a distinction between the production of an effect by one's choice and the production of an effect by natural phenomenon.
Whether causation is occurring through an agent or an event, the principle remains the same: No effect can be greater than its cause. Cause and effect is a dependence relationship. The effect depends on its cause for its existence. That alone establishes that, in the order of being, all causes are greater than their effects. The distinction between agent causation and event causation is merely a discussion of the kinds of things that cause, but does not change the fact that in the order of dependence, the first cause would supersede everything else. At this stage in the argument, whether the first cause is an agent or an event is not an issue.
First, I'm not talking about lack. I'm talking about an infinitely ontological entity dividing.Second, an entity that is unitary and ontologically infinite can divide indefinitely without violating the constraint of "parts" because such division does not alter the entities ontology at all. For this reason, I have no reason to think that it cannot divided. If such divides, then the two entities that it creates are are ontological equal in every way. One is no more perfect or less perfect than the other. They otherwise identical...There is no way to know the difference, even to as which one was the original entity, if one can say that there is an original as that is questionable... Such gods would even be confused about themselves. But on the other hand what it seems you are trying to do is fit a god entity into Liebniz' law. If this is the case then, the god is not perfect because there is something external to itself that governs the god entity. (This is an aside, but I once used a similar line of thinking in defense of triniatarian theology, much to the liking of trinitarian Christian theists. It allows for a single entity that can be comprised of other entities that are otherwise identical to the single entity. Yeah, it's paradoxical, but such is the nature of many things concerning the infinite.)
Functions concerning cardinally infinite or even qualitatively infinite entities create paradoxes all over the place, and is largely why logic as applied to finite entities fails. For this reason, I do not think that Leibniz' law works for ontological infinite entities.
Whether you admit it or not, you are talking about a lack because a lack is the only way that we can discern an infinite being from something else that is not it. You made the claim that it is possible for there to be more than one infinite being, therefore, this is relevant.
An infinite being cannot be divided because division presupposes composition. If an infinite being is composed, then it's being is explained, at least in part, by the sum of its parts. As such, you have two options: (1) The parts of the infinite being are not infinite and the being's infinitude somehow emerges out of the composition or (2) The parts of an infinite being are also infinite. In the case of (1), it presupposes that a two or more finites can produce an infinite, which is totally absurd, as an infinite cannot be arrived at by successive addition. Furthermore, anything with the potential to create an infinite must itself be infinite, which would preclude those parts being finite to begin with. In the case of (2), if the parts of an infinite being are infinite, then there is no way to make a distinction between them, and according to Leibniz' law, they are all the same thing, which means that the infinite being is already a unified whole. Therefore, an infinite being cannot be composed or subdivided.
I can't imagine how any Christians would appreciate this sort of defense of the Trinity because the inevitable conclusion of dividing God into three parts would be that there are three Gods, and Christianity does not teach this at all.
Logic does not 'govern' God anymore than mathematics 'governs' a calculator. Logic is not some police officer going around making sure that all rocks continue to be rocks and not be non-rocks, or that all cats do not attempt to stop being felines.
I really think you are misunderstanding the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in relation to vacuum fluctuation. The principle was suggested because at a quantum level, relative frame of references cease to exist, such that one cannot measure the location and speed of a particle simultaneously. One of the first things you learn in any physics class, high school and college, is the concept of frame of reference, because all measurements are taken from such. That is, my relative velocity compared to the planet earth is different when compared to the barycenter of the solar system or the barycenter of the galaxy. At a quantum level, this breaks down.Vacuum fluctuations are a phenomenon that when all energy and matter are removed from a given space, energy will spontaneously appear in the space. The phenomenon goes to say that there are fluctuations such that energy begins to exist without prior cause--prediction is not the issue. This is related to the Uncertainty Principle because it involves quantum mechanics, but principally on these grounds only. Physicists have abducted this and other similar phenomenon to a cosmological scale to better understand big bang cosmology and gravity.
You are just going on one interpretation of quantum mechanics and even in the Copenhagen interpretation, nothing comes to be without a cause. Virtual particles are caused by energy which spontaneously fluctuates. It is weird and unpredictable, even indeterminate, but it is not uncaused. I've never heard it formulated as "energy begins to exist without a cause". Even in a quantum vacuum, there is not a complete void, there is energy.
With these understandings in mind, traditional understandings of causation in Metaphysics are in part superseded in the same way that Newtonian physics were superseded by relativity. Cosmological arguments that use these classical metaphysics fall apart on premises such as those given by Aquinas and those given by Craig. Craig wants to maintain these premises for obvious reasons, but I think has failed to show how this is the case in his writing.The relationship between metaphysics and physics is just that-- metaphysics attempts to understand that which exists in principles (such as Aquinas' and Craig's first premises) while physics attempts to discover the actual mechanics of such things. Physics therefore should inform metaphysics concerning such phenomenon, not the other way around. They are not mutually exclusive spheres, so I don't think metaphysician can ignore such things. To do so would possibly result in esoteric speculation, something that has no real bearing then on what we understand as existence. This has been one of the biggest indictments against metaphysics, duly or unduly, by some because metaphysics seems to have lost touch with existence, the very thing it is trying to understand.
This is incorrect. Metaphysics is concerned with the first principles of being. Thus, the natural sciences presuppose these principles in their very methodology. Philosophy informs science, not vice versa.
The analogy with Newton is flawed becuase that is an example of physics superseding physics; it is advancement within a particular field. Physics has never, and will never, change metaphysics. The principle of sufficient reason, the law of causality, the law of non-contradiction, etc. are the same now as they were back in antiquity.
I do not claim to be a physicist. But as a philosopher, it is my job to let physicists know when they make illogical statements. As soon as they state something such as "this thing came into existence with no cause", it is my job to tell them that they are talking nonsense.
Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.
- Login to post comments
Offline Event causation and agent causation are primarily discussed in the philosophy of free will, which is a subset of metaphysics. It is just a distinction between the kinds of causes that there are. Events are reducible to the actions of individual things, so the distinction between event causation and agent causation is essentially a distinction between the production of an effect by one's choice and the production of an effect by natural phenomenon.
Whether causation is occurring through an agent or an event, the principle remains the same: No effect can be greater than its cause. Cause and effect is a dependence relationship. The effect depends on its cause for its existence. That alone establishes that, in the order of being, all causes are greater than their effects. The distinction between agent causation and event causation is merely a discussion of the kinds of things that cause, but does not change the fact that in the order of dependence, the first cause would supersede everything else. At this stage in the argument, whether the first cause is an agent or an event is not an issue.
You say, no effect can be greater than its cause, but this does prohibit the effect being equal to its cause. At a minimum, the cause is ontologically equal, and therefore it is not necessary to invoke agency, which is seemingly more complex by virtue that it involves an agent willing action then acting according to its will. This is an application of Ocaam's razor--that is to not multiply entities beyond necessity.
Whether you admit it or not, you are talking about a lack because a lack is the only way that we can discern an infinite being from something else that is not it. You made the claim that it is possible for there to be more than one infinite being, therefore, this is relevant.
An infinite being cannot be divided because division presupposes composition. If an infinite being is composed, then it's being is explained, at least in part, by the sum of its parts. As such, you have two options: (1) The parts of the infinite being are not infinite and the being's infinitude somehow emerges out of the composition or (2) The parts of an infinite being are also infinite. In the case of (1), it presupposes that a two or more finites can produce an infinite, which is totally absurd, as an infinite cannot be arrived at by successive addition. Furthermore, anything with the potential to create an infinite must itself be infinite, which would preclude those parts being finite to begin with. In the case of (2), if the parts of an infinite being are infinite, then there is no way to make a distinction between them, and according to Leibniz' law, they are all the same thing, which means that the infinite being is already a unified whole. Therefore, an infinite being cannot be composed or subdivided.
I think you (1) fail to understand the nature of things described as "infinite" and (2) you keep applying logic to it as if it were some finite entity as shown in your response here.
Taking away anything from an entity or adding to it does not change the infinite entity. Should two infinite entity meld to form one entity, such would still be infinite. I'm not suggesting that 2 or more finite entities can form an infinite entity. I speaking strictly in terms of infinite entities. But suppose you have a finite and an infinite entity. If these two combined the result would be indistinguishable for the infinite entity.
I can't imagine how any Christians would appreciate this sort of defense of the Trinity because the inevitable conclusion of dividing God into three parts would be that there are three Gods, and Christianity does not teach this at all.
You're still hung upon this notion of "parts" and I can see why because you're treating infinite entities as you would finite ones. There is no notion of "parts" in infinite entities.... One cannot evenly or unevenly divided an infinite entity into "parts" such that the parts are somehow less than the original and can then be put back together to be equal to the original, which is what you seem to think what I'm doing. I'm not. Rather any division of infinite entities results in only infinite entities that are no more of less than the original.
Logic does not 'govern' God anymore than mathematics 'governs' a calculator. Logic is not some police officer going around making sure that all rocks continue to be rocks and not be non-rocks, or that all cats do not attempt to stop being felines.
From the sounds of it, you are subjecting a god entity to it which means that there is some constraints under which the god entity operates. If this is the case, then the god is not perfect. You'd probably be good to go for something like Thomistic divine simplicity in this case.
You are just going on one interpretation of quantum mechanics and even in the Copenhagen interpretation, nothing comes to be without a cause. Virtual particles are caused by energy which spontaneously fluctuates. It is weird and unpredictable, even indeterminate, but it is not uncaused. I've never heard it formulated as "energy begins to exist without a cause". Even in a quantum vacuum, there is not a complete void, there is energy.
By saying such, you are granting the possibility that there are uncaused events, and therefore some events are not necessarily caused. The burden here then is to show that the particular interpretation I'm going on is not necessarily the case.
This is incorrect. Metaphysics is concerned with the first principles of being. Thus, the natural sciences presuppose these principles in their very methodology. Philosophy informs science, not vice versa.
I think you are confusing the philosophy of science, which is really epistemology, with what I'm getting at which has to do with metaphysics.
Metaphysics is the study of being and what I'm saying is this: if science discovers something that has violates a particular understanding in metaphysics, then one's understanding in metaphysics should change. Metaphysics on the other hand cannot change physics--that is the raw mechanical processes.
The analogy with Newton is flawed becuase that is an example of physics superseding physics; it is advancement within a particular field. Physics has never, and will never, change metaphysics. The principle of sufficient reason, the law of causality, the law of non-contradiction, etc. are the same now as they were back in antiquity.
It's not an analogy. I was talking about how new understandings in physics changing the way one understands the existence, which is precisely what quantum mechanics is doing.
Appealing to tradition may be part of the problem here. Some philosophers have called into question the PSR (this is another thread though) and causality in particular.
I do not claim to be a physicist. But as a philosopher, it is my job to let physicists know when they make illogical statements. As soon as they state something such as "this thing came into existence with no cause", it is my job to tell them that they are talking nonsense.
If a physicist makes such a statement, then as a philosopher it is your job to understand why he made it.
If something does indeed come into existence with no cause, then it is not the physicist who is speaking nonsense, rather it is the philosopher who fails to understand the physics and is unwilling to accept that perhaps his metaphysical understandings are inaccurate.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
- Login to post comments
Offline I think you (1) fail to understand the nature of things described as "infinite" and (2) you keep applying logic to it as if it were some finite entity as shown in your response here.
Taking away anything from an entity or adding to it does not change the infinite entity. Should two infinite entity meld to form one entity, such would still be infinite. I'm not suggesting that 2 or more finite entities can form an infinite entity. I speaking strictly in terms of infinite entities. But suppose you have a finite and an infinite entity. If these two combined the result would be indistinguishable for the infinite entity.
Thank you for this post. I knew there was something about his infinite being premise that was incorrect, but I could not quite put my finger on it. I think you hit it.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
- Login to post comments
Offline Wtf. I will just quote you:
"Examples: 1) The cause for an electron to occupy the energy level of 5.3 electronvolt. None "
Last I heard, matter is composed of (among other things) electrons.
1) So, how does it affect your life?
2) If an electron was brought to the level of 5.3 eV from the level of 5.16 eV as a result of an interaction with a photon with the energy of 0.14 eV, then we can say there is certainly a cause for this transition. If the electron came to that level probabilistically (let's say by quantum tunneling) then there is no direct cause.
My point is that you can turn it any way you like. I think that many of us here are missing the point that in discussing God's actions the the first cause we actually need to discuss pre-determination of events and their probabilities. Regarding the causeless causes, I can generalize that since the BigBang caused the matter (including electrons) to exist, everything that happens now with electrons matter etc. is caused in some respect by the BigBang. Were we caused by the BigBang? Of cause, yes. But has it been determined by the BigBang that we will exist? Good question, I don't really know how to answer it, but what I know is that the probability of our existence on this planet at this time and space would be 0 (zero) from the perspective of the BigBang.
- Login to post comments
Offline You say, no effect can be greater than its cause, but this does prohibit the effect being equal to its cause. At a minimum, the cause is ontologically equal, and therefore it is not necessary to invoke agency, which is seemingly more complex by virtue that it involves an agent willing action then acting according to its will. This is an application of Ocaam's razor--that is to not multiply entities beyond necessity.
No effect can be equal to its cause because if that were the case, then a cause would be equally dependent on the effect for its existence, which is absurd. That would be like saying that while kinetic energy is necessary for the movement of a physical object, the movement of the physical object is also necessary for kinetic energy. Or to use a more general example, it would be like saying that my mother's existence was equally dependent upon me being born.
Again, at this stage in the argument, we are not determining whether the first cause is an agent or an event. Whether the first cause is sentient or not, it must necessarily be greater than the effects that it produces.
I think you (1) fail to understand the nature of things described as "infinite" and (2) you keep applying logic to it as if it were some finite entity as shown in your response here.
Absolutely not. The nature of God is my primary area of interest and I've studied it on and off for several years, including studying it at the university level. I have never seen a metaphysician argue what you are arguing. Read Descartes, Ockham, Duns Scotus, and Aquinas. All of them agree that God is a unicity.
Subdividing or multiplying an entity is changing it. If you want to say that this takes place yet the being itself does not change, then it follows that no divisions or multiplications have actually taken place.
Taking away anything from an entity or adding to it does not change the infinite entity. Should two infinite entity meld to form one entity, such would still be infinite. I'm not suggesting that 2 or more finite entities can form an infinite entity. I speaking strictly in terms of infinite entities. But suppose you have a finite and an infinite entity. If these two combined the result would be indistinguishable for the infinite entity.
You are presupposing that it is possible for there to be more than one infinite being and I've already explained why this cannot be.
I really do not know what it would mean for a finite being to combine with an infinite being, unless that's another way of saying that a finite part is added to an infinite being, which, again, is an absurdity. A finite being can neither be identical nor part of an infinite being. Otherwise, all you'd have is a finite being and an infinite being, with both beings remaining unchanged, such that no addition has actually taken place.
You're still hung upon this notion of "parts" and I can see why because you're treating infinite entities as you would finite ones. There is no notion of "parts" in infinite entities.... One cannot evenly or unevenly divided an infinite entity into "parts" such that the parts are somehow less than the original and can then be put back together to be equal to the original, which is what you seem to think what I'm doing. I'm not. Rather any division of infinite entities results in only infinite entities that are no more of less than the original.
The only sense in which division or multiplication can take place is if there are parts. Otherwise, it is useless to even bring division or multiplication in the discussion.
From the sounds of it, you are subjecting a god entity to it which means that there is some constraints under which the god entity operates. If this is the case, then the god is not perfect. You'd probably be good to go for something like Thomistic divine simplicity in this case.
Of course there are parameters under which God operates. God cannot break his own law (for example, he cannot tell a lie) and he cannot change his nature (he cannot become a non-God). God is perfect precisely because he cannot operate outside of these parameters. If he could, then he would be imperfect like we are. Divine simplicity has nothing to do with it.
By saying such, you are granting the possibility that there are uncaused events, and therefore some events are not necessarily caused. The burden here then is to show that the particular interpretation I'm going on is not necessarily the case.
Even under that interpretation, there is nothing stating that something comes into existence without a cause.
I think you are confusing the philosophy of science, which is really epistemology, with what I'm getting at which has to do with metaphysics.Metaphysics is the study of being and what I'm saying is this: if science discovers something that has violates a particular understanding in metaphysics, then one's understanding in metaphysics should change. Metaphysics on the other hand cannot change physics--that is the raw mechanical processes.
Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge (which actually is what "science" means, but I'm assuming that you are using "science" to refer to the field of natural science?).
Science cannot contradict metaphysics because metaphysics is the guiding post under which scientists are operating. Scientists, in the course of their investigation, are assuming the law of non-contradiction and the principle of sufficient reason. They cannot use these principles to violate them. They may say, as Heisenberg did, that there are cases where causality does not apply in a certain sense, but as far as they are understood in metaphysics, they are never violated.
It's not an analogy. I was talking about how new understandings in physics changing the way one understands the existence, which is precisely what quantum mechanics is doing.
Right, and Newtonian space and time was superseded by Special and General Relativity. These are examples of physics superseding physics, not physics superseding metaphysics.
Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.
- Login to post comments
Offline No effect can be equal to its cause because if that were the case, then a cause would be equally dependent on the effect for its existence, which is absurd.
Again, at this stage in the argument, we are not determining whether the first cause is an agent or an event. Whether the first cause is sentient or not, it must necessarily be greater than the effects that it produces.
Your reason is non-sequitor, and I think it is a result of not understanding what I'm getting at. I'm talking about a single event that causes another event The prior is not contingent upon the latter for existence rather the other way around. I'm saying all that needs to happen is for the first event be enough to cause the second event. A "superior" entity is not necessary....
Absolutely not. The nature of God is my primary area of interest and I've studied it on and off for several years, including studying it at the university level. I have never seen a metaphysician argue what you are arguing. Read Descartes, Ockham, Duns Scotus, and Aquinas. All of them agree that God is a unicity.
Appealing to authority and tradition isn't convincing anyone... and again, you fail to understand what I'm getting at... While working on my masters degree, I studied philosophy of religion and several religions for that matter, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism were among them. I didn't want to graduate so I have over 90+ graduate level hours in various fields (anthropology, languages, classics, language theory, history, even some theology) but most are in philosophy. 
Perhaps most of it was spent on Christianity because I am from the West and generally will encounter Christianity more than the other two. I come at it with a rather unique perspective in that I have a math and science background in my undergraduate. Maybe the reason I'm not approaching it in the way the aforementioned philosophers have is because I'm not approaching in the same manner they did. I've read all of them. I know what they say.
I'm arguing for the possibility of a single entity to have multiple entities that are otherwise identical to one another and the original entity and entities that can be otherwise identical so long as they are infinite and this is possible when something is described as infinite. The original discussion over Leibniz' law concerned such, and my contention was that it broke down on when attempting to describe infinite entities.
A not-so-hard-to-understand concept of an an entity with an infinite attribute is an infinitely long line. If I remove a segment of that line does it shorten the line? No.... If I add a segment to the line, does it lengthen the line? No... If I add or remove an infinitely long line to this infinitely long line does it change the length? No.... If I double its length did it lengthen? No... If I half it's length did it shorten? No.... It's still the same as it was before the operations took place.... Infinite beings are not lines, but nevertheless posses infinite qualities such as this.
You can't treat such things as if they were I think you need to understand something outside the realm of theology to understand this.
Subdividing or multiplying an entity is changing it. If you want to say that this takes place yet the being itself does not change, then it follows that no divisions or multiplications have actually taken place.
You are presupposing that it is possible for there to be more than one infinite being and I've already explained why this cannot be.
I really do not know what it would mean for a finite being to combine with an infinite being, unless that's another way of saying that a finite part is added to an infinite being, which, again, is an absurdity. A finite being can neither be identical nor part of an infinite being. Otherwise, all you'd have is a finite being and an infinite being, with both beings remaining unchanged, such that no addition has actually taken place.
You keep on insisting that it is changing it which is again shows that you really don't understand what an infinite entity of any kind... I think all you've shown is that you don't understand the concept.
An illustration by way of analogy may help. I don't use analogies to make arguments though...only to help one understand a subject. In orders of magnitude, adding another atom to a softball would not significantly change the softball....this would be like adding a single finite entity to a infinite entity. In the same manner, if the softball were an infinite entity, adding it to the sun would not significantly change the sun. This is of course dealing with finite entities and the difference is that infinite entities don't deal with significance such that adding anything does not change it, not even significantly.
I don't usually delve into the particular doctrines of a particular religion, but I will here, particularly concerning the Trinity in Christian theology. If I apply your logic as many Christians have, then the Trinity is absurd, and for this reason, many Christian denominations have rejected trinitarian theology such as Jehovah's Witneses, Mormons, Unitarians, and Modalists (i.e. T.D. Jakes). I honestly think they are in error concerning trinitarian theology for this reason.
The only sense in which division or multiplication can take place is if there are parts. Otherwise, it is useless to even bring division or multiplication in the discussion.
I avoid using the word "parts" for the very reasons you're getting hung upon on. You keep wanting to try and treat these entities as finite entities that comprise a whole (i.e. "parts" of something.)
Of course there are parameters under which God operates. God cannot break his own law (for example, he cannot tell a lie) and he cannot change his nature (he cannot become a non-God). God is perfect precisely because he cannot operate outside of these parameters. If he could, then he would be imperfect like we are. Divine simplicity has nothing to do with it.
It has everything to do with it, because perfection implies (at least according to Aquinas and numerous other theologians) completeness--lacking nothing. If there is some external law that a god adheres to, then this god is lacking something, thereby not perfect. Divine simplicity solved this puzzle according to Aquinas.
Quote:Metaphysics is the study of being and what I'm saying is this: if science discovers something that has violates a particular understanding in metaphysics, then one's understanding in metaphysics should change. Metaphysics on the other hand cannot change physics--that is the raw mechanical processes.Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge (which actually is what "science" means, but I'm assuming that you are using "science" to refer to the field of natural science?).
Science cannot contradict metaphysics because metaphysics is the guiding post under which scientists are operating. Scientists, in the course of their investigation, are assuming the law of non-contradiction and the principle of sufficient reason. They cannot use these principles to violate them. They may say, as Heisenberg did, that there are cases where causality does not apply in a certain sense, but as far as they are understood in metaphysics, they are never violated.
I'm not talking about the discipline of science... That's where you're making the category mistake. I'm not talking about methods.
I'm talking about discoveries made by science, i.e. quantum mechanics etc. These discoveries are ontological in nature thereby have implications in metaphysics.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
- Login to post comments
Offline freeminer wrote:1] we are not dealing with "natural phenomena"
Quote:Cosmology is a natural phenomenon and as I recall the discussion arose from such.the subject of this thread is possible proofs of God's existence.
freeminer wrote:2] the term "prior event" is not applicable since it implies a temporal framework.
Quote:A god could not act "before" something came into existence as that would be absurd.well, the Bible says:
Ephesians 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
so before we actually existed in time, God saw our existence in eternity. The act of 'choosing' would not of itself predicate the existence of a temporal framework but events are described in heaven which predicate a "logical" one [ie with reference to your comment below]Quote:And nothing can begin to exist because that implies that time must first exist before time can begin to exist. This too is absurd....but we should not forget that time is an illusion so we need to think carefully about what we mean when we say, "time exists" The first words of Genesis imply the beginning of the illusion and Genesis 1:4 the measurement of it. That would allow us to define "eternity" as the absence of the illusion in perpetuity or somesuch. That would seem to accommodate this statement of yours:
"On the other hand, one can look at events in logical order. What I'm getting at is not "prior" temporally, but logically."
the question being; are sequential events alone sufficient to sustain the illusion?
freeminer wrote:3] the unpredictability of particles in no way impinges on the problem of ex nihilo existence faced by natural law, it merely pushes the question backwards. Upredictability merely supports the notion of an 'open system'.
Quote:Quite the contrary. Some natural phenomenon show ex nihilo sort of behaviors...I disagree; the perceived existence of particles in unpredictability, merely raises the question of causality; neither matter nor energy are self-generating.........unless you wish to drop the notion that the cause/effect framework is universal, which would agree with the Christian position.
freeminer wrote:this looks like a "smuggled-in" argument for simply ditching the question posed by the classical interpretation!
Smuggled in? How so? If the classical interpretation does not paint an accurate picture concerning that which it presumes to represent, it would be pointless answer questioned according to this interpretation.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
- Login to post comments
Offline the subject of this thread is possible proofs of God's existence.
of the cosmological variety
Ephesians 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of theworld, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
so before we actually existed in time, God saw our existence in eternity. The act of 'choosing' would not of itself predicate the existence of a temporal framework but events are described in heaven which predicate a "logical" one [ie with reference to your comment below]Quote:And nothing can begin to exist because that implies that time must first exist before time can begin to exist. This too is absurd....but we should not forget that time is an illusion so we need to think carefully about what we mean when we say, "time exists" The first words of Genesis imply the beginning of the illusion and Genesis 1:4 the measurement of it. That would allow us to define "eternity" as the absence of the illusion in perpetuity or somesuch. That would seem to accommodate this statement of yours:
"On the other hand, one can look at events in logical order. What I'm getting at is not "prior" temporally, but logically."
the question being; are sequential events alone sufficient to sustain the illusion?
I suppose...Logical sequences of events don't necessarily require time. What's your point though?
I disagree; the perceived existence of particles in unpredictability, merely raises the question of causality; neither matter nor energy are self-generating.........unless you wish to drop the notion that the cause/effect framework is universal, which would agree with the Christian position.
I don't hold that the causal notion is universal. MOL does though, and he/she's a theist of the Christian variety I think.
see above........drop the presumption of the universality of cause/effect by all means. That would seem to answer the question of this thread. Uncaused causes are no longer a matter of dispute.
What?? When did I have say or even presume that?
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
- Login to post comments
Offline ubuntu-- I have to get back to work and I'll address everything you said later. But one question:
Can you name a metaphysician who argues in favor of your position? I just want to be able to read a formal publication which agrees with you. Can you cite one please?
Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.
- Login to post comments
Offline I suppose...Logical sequences of events don't necessarily require time. What's your point though?
Can you have a sequence without movement?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
- Login to post comments
Offline Your reason is non-sequitor, and I think it is a result of not understanding what I'm getting at. I'm talking about a single event that causes another event. The prior is not contingent upon the latter for existence rather the other way around. I'm saying all that needs to happen is for the first event be enough to cause the second event. A "superior" entity is not necessary....
?
No offense, but you are not articulating your position very well. Please give me an example of a single event that causes another event whereby the cause is dependent upon the effect for its existence.
"Causation" is the production of an effect, that is, making a contribution to the being of something else. You can define it at different levels in order to explain why it takes place, i.e., efficient causality, final causality, formal causality, agent causality, event causality, etc., but the essence of causation is the production of an effect. Two corollaries of this are that (1) the effect depends on the cause for its being and (2) the degree of perfection of the effect cannot exceed that of the cause unless the perfection is given to the effect by something other than both.
If there is a first cause, that is, a cause of everything, then what follows is that (1) the existence of all other beings is dependent upon the first cause, and (2) nothing can be more perfect than the first cause.
Please explain how a first cause is ontologically equal to its effects when it clearly supersedes the effects in othe order of being or in the order of dependence.
Appealing to authority and tradition isn't convincing anyone... and again, you fail to understand what I'm getting at... While working on my masters degree, I studied philosophy of religion and several religions for that matter, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism were among them. I didn't want to graduate so I have over 90+ graduate level hours in various fields (anthropology, languages, classics, language theory, history, even some theology) but most are in philosophy. Perhaps most of it was spent on Christianity because I am from the West and generally will encounter Christianity more than the other two. I come at it with a rather unique perspective in that I have a math and science background in my undergraduate. Maybe the reason I'm not approaching it in the way the aforementioned philosophers have is because I'm not approaching in the same manner they did. I've read all of them. I know what they say.
I'm not appealing to authority. I'm just curious if your ideas are reflected in any philosophical publications that I could read. Is there a particular ism that you are adhering to or did you just come up with all of this stuff on your own?
I'm arguing for the possibility of a single entity to have multiple entities that are otherwise identical to one another and the original entity and entities that can be otherwise identical so long as they are infinite and this is possible when something is described as infinite. The original discussion over Leibniz' law concerned such, and my contention was that it broke down on when attempting to describe infinite entities.A not-so-hard-to-understand concept of an an entity with an infinite attribute is an infinitely long line. If I remove a segment of that line does it shorten the line? No.... If I add a segment to the line, does it lengthen the line? No... If I add or remove an infinitely long line to this infinitely long line does it change the length? No.... If I double its length did it lengthen? No... If I half it's length did it shorten? No.... It's still the same as it was before the operations took place.... Infinite beings are not lines, but nevertheless posses infinite qualities such as this.
We've been through this.
Infinite length is a load of nonsense, no more sensible than the idea of an infinite apple or an infinite rainstorm. Lengths only exist in space and are measured numerically. Actual numerical infinitudes are logically impossible. They are absurdities. They do not exist. They are abstact ideas that have no existence outside of minds.
"Infinite" when applied to a being means something completely different. It just means unlimited. To say that you can add to an infinite being would be saying that you can teach it new facts, even though it is omniscient, or you can bring it to a new location, even though it is omnipresent.
This is why your approach to metaphysics fails. You consistently make category mistakes.
You keep on insisting that it is changing it which is again shows that you really don't understand what an infinite entity of any kind... I think all you've shown is that you don't understand the concept.An illustration by way of analogy may help. I don't use analogies to make arguments though...only to help one understand a subject. In orders of magnitude, adding another atom to a softball would not significantly change the softball....this would be like adding a single finite entity to a infinite entity. In the same manner, if the softball were an infinite entity, adding it to the sun would not significantly change the sun. This is of course dealing with finite entities and the difference is that infinite entities don't deal with significance such that adding anything does not change it, not even significantly.
I understand the concept. You do not. By your own admission, you are under the impression that infinite beings in metaphysics are comparable to infinite numbers in mathematics. They have nothing to do with each other.
In the world of mathematics, Hilbert can check new guests into his hotel. In the real world, Hilbert's Hotel is an absurdity.
Your analogy is terrible because a softball is a finite thing and there are no possible worlds where it could be an infinite thing, since it is finite by its very nature. You admit this later on when you acknowledge that adding to an infinite set does not change the cardinality. But once again, you misapply mathematics to reality. In reality, adding to something is changing it. There is not a single instance in non-mental reality where you can add to something without changing it.
I don't usually delve into the particular doctrines of a particular religion, but I will here, particularly concerning the Trinity in Christian theology. If I apply your logic as many Christians have, then the Trinity is absurd, and for this reason, many Christian denominations have rejected trinitarian theology such as Jehovah's Witneses, Mormons, Unitarians, and Modalists (i.e. T.D. Jakes). I honestly think they are in error concerning trinitarian theology for this reason.
Feel free to elaborate on this in another thread. I'd love to discuss it.
I avoid using the word "parts" for the very reasons you're getting hung upon on. You keep wanting to try and treat these entities as finite entities that comprise a whole (i.e. "parts" of something.)
The presumption is inevitable when you step out of the abstract and into the concrete.
It has everything to do with it, because perfection implies (at least according to Aquinas and numerous other theologians) completeness--lacking nothing. If there is some external law that a god adheres to, then this god is lacking something, thereby not perfect. Divine simplicity solved this puzzle according to Aquinas.
That is what "perfection" means. I'm not sure what you mean by "external law". You are treating the laws of logic like they are laws that God is forced against his will into obeying and that a more perfect being would be able to violate those laws. You may as well argue that a more perfect being would be able to uggablav into a synchopod. It makes about as much sense as assuming that the most perfect being would be able to be both perfect and not perfect.
Divine Simplicity is the idea that God is uncomposed, which is what I've been arguing. It's arguing that all of God's attributes are contained in his category of being, allowing him to be a unicity. As far as I know, this was a solution to Euthrypo's Dilemma, not the paradox of omnipotence, which is the direction you are going in here.
I'm not talking about the discipline of science... That's where you're making the category mistake. I'm not talking about methods.I'm talking about discoveries made by science, i.e. quantum mechanics etc. These discoveries are ontological in nature thereby have implications in metaphysics.
The discoveries were not made by science. They were made by people referring to themselves as "scientists". These people are using particular methods and couching them under metaphysical presuppositions, such as the idea that we can learn from what we observe or that our senses are reliable or the idea that we can trust our reason, etc. If they are allowing their observations to affect their metaphysics, then that whole process of reasoning is guided by, well, metaphysics.
Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.
- Login to post comments
Offline No offense, but you are not articulating your position very well. Please give me an example of a single event that causes another event whereby the cause is dependent upon the effect for its existence.
"Causation" is the production of an effect, that is, making a contribution to the being of something else. You can define it at different levels in order to explain why it takes place, i.e., efficient causality, final causality, formal causality, agent causality, event causality, etc., but the essence of causation is the production of an effect. Two corollaries of this are that (1) the effect depends on the cause for its being and (2) the degree of perfection of the effect cannot exceed that of the cause unless the perfection is given to the effect by something other than both.
If there is a first cause, that is, a cause of everything, then what follows is that (1) the existence of all other beings is dependent upon the first cause, and (2) nothing can be more perfect than the first cause.
Please explain how a first cause is ontologically equal to its effects when it clearly supersedes the effects in othe order of being or in the order of dependence.
I tihnk your missing the point altogether. I wasn't talking about causes being dependent on effects. If I said something like this I'd like to know where. It was probably a typo, as I am slightly cixelsyd.
And besides, that's not what I'm getting at anyways. All I was saying this that the cause of an effect be only be equal to the effect, not superior.
I'm not appealing to authority. I'm just curious if your ideas are reflected in any philosophical publications that I could read. Is there a particular ism that you are adhering to or did you just come up with all of this stuff on your own?
These are largely a synthesis of ideas gleaned from reading Godel, Leibniz, Cantor, and Pascal. It's a synthesis of ideas concerning raw infinities and the implications that might have otherwise in something being called "infinite", namely gods. It's not true of every philosopher or even philosophy major, but most don't have math background and therefore aren't always exposed to these ideas. I had more math than most of my peers and professors. This is not an indictment against them because they are probably more than capable of doing the math, they just never had...
We've been through this.
Infinite length is a load of nonsense, no more sensible than the idea of an infinite apple or an infinite rainstorm. Lengths only exist in space and are measured numerically. Actual numerical infinitudes are logically impossible. They are absurdities. They do not exist. They are abstact ideas that have no existence outside of minds.
Lines of infinite length is one of the first things you learn about in high school geometry. If they're absurd and don't exist outside of minds, how do you have any reason to think that gods that have more infinite attributes than length exist?
"Infinite" when applied to a being means something completely different. It just means unlimited. To say that you can add to an infinite being would be saying that you can teach it new facts, even though it is omniscient, or you can bring it to a new location, even though it is omnipresent.
See, now you're talking about something entirely different, that is potential infinities, not actually infinities.
This is why your approach to metaphysics fails. You consistently make category mistakes.
I'm not making categorical mistakes. I don't think you're being clear as to what you mean by "infinite". But I think that how I'm understanding the infinite is the preferred way of some theists even, namely Pascal, Leibniz, Godel, and Cantor. You're understanding sounds more like WLC's understanding of what is entailed by "infinite", and he avoids that word like the plague.
Quote:An illustration by way of analogy may help. I don't use analogies to make arguments though...only to help one understand a subject. In orders of magnitude, adding another atom to a softball would not significantly change the softball....this would be like adding a single finite entity to a infinite entity. In the same manner, if the softball were an infinite entity, adding it to the sun would not significantly change the sun. This is of course dealing with finite entities and the difference is that infinite entities don't deal with significance such that adding anything does not change it, not even significantly.
I understand the concept. You do not. By your own admission, you are under the impression that infinite beings in metaphysics are comparable to infinite numbers in mathematics. They have nothing to do with each other.
In the world of mathematics, Hilbert can check new guests into his hotel. In the real world, Hilbert's Hotel is an absurdity.
Your analogy is terrible because a softball is a finite thing and there are no possible worlds where it could be an infinite thing, since it is finite by its very nature. You admit this later on when you acknowledge that adding to an infinite set does not change the cardinality. But once again, you misapply mathematics to reality. In reality, adding to something is changing it. There is not a single instance in non-mental reality where you can add to something without changing it.
This is were I really think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying. I was using the the example to aid in understanding, and why I was using the analogy. You basically extended the analogy as if it were the argument I was making and I explicitly said it helps in understanding. I don't care about numbers when talking about about qualitative infinities. But just because you can't slap a number on it does not mean there aren't similarities between qualitative and quantitative infinties. If what you are saying is true, then qualitative comparison (greater than, less than, superior, inferior, more perfect than, less perfect than, more knowledgable than, etc) are impossible. If you grant that they are, then I think there more in common between qualitative and quantitative infinities than you'd like to admit. Nor am I misapplying the concept. I'm simply showing the paradoxical nature of infinite entities. Hilbert's problem was that he was creating infinite super-tasks and traversing infinites which does create paradoxes. I don't generally call things absurdities because the truth of the matter concerns the angle one chooses to evaluate something. Paradoxes, are not reconcilable by conventional logic, and some can as you do reject them. I think they just show that even something like logic has its limits.
Feel free to elaborate on this in another thread. I'd love to discuss it.
This forum isn't the place for it, nor do I typically delve in the particular doctrines of a religion... I do this to avoid getting into debates about inerrancy, YEC, which holy book is true, etc. etc. These sort of discussions are for theists to hammer out, and I'll let them do it....
That is what "perfection" means. I'm not sure what you mean by "external law". You are treating the laws of logic like they are laws that God is forced against his will into obeying and that a more perfect being would be able to violate those laws. You may as well argue that a more perfect being would be able to uggablav into a synchopod. It makes about as much sense as assuming that the most perfect being would be able to be both perfect and not perfect.
Divine Simplicity is the idea that God is uncomposed, which is what I've been arguing. It's arguing that all of God's attributes are contained in his category of being, allowing him to be a unicity. As far as I know, this was a solution to Euthrypo's Dilemma, not the paradox of omnipotence, which is the direction you are going in here.
Divine Simplicity solves many other problems than Euthypo's Delemma. From a theological perspective, I think it is the most tenable understanding of a god. External law would mean that there is something outside a god that it obeys in the same manner that I obey the laws for whatever jurisdiction I am in. Divine Simplicity simply makes it a divine perfect.
If you must know, I think omnipotence paradoxes are lame objections to theism.
The discoveries were not made by science. They were made by people referring to themselves as "scientists". These people are using particular methods and couching them under metaphysical presuppositions, such as the idea that we can learn from what we observe or that our senses are reliable or the idea that we can trust our reason, etc. If they are allowing their observations to affect their metaphysics, then that whole process of reasoning is guided by, well, metaphysics.
Okay, yeah...discoveries aren't technically made by science but scientists. I was speaking of the enterprise (particularly physics) and using it as such, not epistemically. I'm still not sure why you didn't pick upon as such because my usage is a common accepted usage as I feel it communicated the idea.
That aside, I'm not arguing that it's not being guided by metaphysics, simply that long-held metaphysical should change in light of new understandings about existence, which is the issue at hand concerning quantum mechanics.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
- Login to post comments
Offline ubuntu--
I was about to finish writing a lengthy response but then I hit a wrong button and my entire post got erased. I actually had a really great response regarding the nature of cause and effect. But rather than write it all over again, I'll let the discussion end.
One thing I do want to say is that I don't want what I'm saying to be construed as me disregarding the importance of mathematics. On the contrary, mathematics is extremely important and it must be studied. Somehow, it just helps us get along when we apply it in the real world. We simply run into problems when we start treating numbers like concrete entities. If we want to talk about infinite lines as an abstract idea, then fine. Where we run into problems is when we start talking about, say, a universe that is infinity years old (i.e., steady state theory) or a hotel that has infinity rooms available (i.e., Hilbert's Hotel).
My position on this is that logic and mathematics helps us, not because they tell us anything about the world, but because God gave us these principles so that we could think in a similar way to Him and be able to understand the world in ways that no other species can... and hopefully, accept Him with our hearts and minds. My reasoning for this is that I cannot account for these principles in any other way, that is, they are neither invented by people nor are they observed in sense experience. TAG, you're it!
Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.
- Login to post comments
Offline ubuntu--
I was about to finish writing a lengthy response but then I hit a wrong button and my entire post got erased. I actually had a really great response regarding the nature of cause and effect. But rather than write it all over again, I'll let the discussion end.
One thing I do want to say is that I don't want what I'm saying to be construed as me disregarding the importance of mathematics. On the contrary, mathematics is extremely important and it must be studied. Somehow, it just helps us get along when we apply it in the real world. We simply run into problems when we start treating numbers like concrete entities. If we want to talk about infinite lines as an abstract idea, then fine. Where we run into problems is when we start talking about, say, a universe that is infinity years old (i.e., steady state theory) or a hotel that has infinity rooms available (i.e., Hilbert's Hotel).
My position on this is that logic and mathematics helps us, not because they tell us anything about the world, but because God gave us these principles so that we could think in a similar way to Him and be able to understand the world in ways that no other species can... and hopefully, accept Him with our hearts and minds. My reasoning for this is that I cannot account for these principles in any other way, that is, they are neither invented by people nor are they observed in sense experience. TAG, you're it!
10/4
I was going to add this:
(1) If you're going to talk about potential infinites (which is what I tihnk you're getting at), I'd avoid using the word "infinite" as Craig does, because potential infinities are just that: potential, and thereby are really finite in nature.
and (2) In my philosophical musings, the one thing that I've come to realize is that I can't change that which exists, only the way I understand it. I therefore don't reject perfectly tenable ideas (even if they are only ideas) strictly on epistemic grounds. I have yet to find an epistemic system that I'm 100% satisfied with, and this is largely why I am an existentialist too... My problem with calling actual infinties "absurd" is that it's unduly justified. This is being done on epistemic grounds, not metaphysical grounds. If that is the case, I change my epistemology rather than write things off absurd, because the one thing I can't change is that which exists. Actual infinites are conceptually understandable, but create epistemic paradoxes. I just embrace the paradoxes as they are and admit that perhaps my epistemology as it stands now does not fully understand such things. I hope that we'll have more Cantors, Godels, and Leibnizs come along and hammer some more of this stuff out.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
- Login to post comments
Offline
this is not intended to be either patronising or sychophantic........just to say I'm enjoying your discussion with MOL very much and looking at your latest comments on your own position, you obviously have a very clear understanding of it........I only say this because it distinguishes you from most atheists.
the subject of this thread is possible proofs of God's existence.
of the cosmological variety
you said:
"Cosmology is a natural phenomenon and as I recall the discussion arose from such."
as long as you define cosmology in these terms it excludes the God of the Bible from the outset since he transcends it by definition.
I suppose...Logical sequences of events don't necessarily require time. What's your point though?
sorry, I think I was being a bit obtuse. Your comment that you were thinking of 'prior' "not in temporal but in logical" terms, sparked a long discussion here because it appeared to be a false distinction. I think we concluded it was not as false as it first appeared! We also concluded that they don't necessarily require time; my outstanding question being, in eternity, would they succeed in re-establishing a sense of it? Perhaps they would and the answer is "so what?".......in eternity, who cares?!
I disagree; the perceived existence of particles in unpredictability, merely raises the question of causality; neither matter nor energy are self-generating.........unless you wish to drop the notion that the cause/effect framework is universal, which would agree with the Christian position.
I don't hold that the causal notion is universal. MOL does though, and he/she's a theist of the Christian variety I think.
yes, I'm sure he is. He must be right, since the Bible describes cause/effect events in eternity and life in material body, which it also foresees, would be absurd without it. The error which most atheists make in contemplating the intervention of God in our dimension, is to assume, for some odd reason, that it is irrational to propose that he is not bound by it [which is obviously definitive of him] .......thus all the "sky-fairy" nonsense. So for the Christian, the exact nature of causality in eternity is an interesting [well for me at least] subject of speculation.
see above........drop the presumption of the universality of cause/effect by all means. That would seem to answer the question of this thread. Uncaused causes are no longer a matter of dispute.
What?? When did I have say or even presume that?
ok.......in fairness, you only appeared to imply it. With respect to unpredictability, either sub- atomic motion and energy imply a cause [ie we retain the current naturalistic explanation] or they don't. If they do, then the enigma of ex nihilo genesis remains. If they don't [which is what your comment vis a vis "ex nihilo characteristics" seemed to suggest] then uncaused causes are a very common phenomenon and, as you suggest, we need to review our definition of 'naturalism'. I don't see that the Christian should have any problem with this, insofar at least that it does not 'explain away' God. I foresee that, among other things, the view held commonly by atheists, that empiricism is the sole , universal source of [anything approaching] 'truth' will have to be abandoned.
PS. As a non-physicist, can I suggest that 'non-locality' militates against this:
"The phenomenon goes to say that there are fluctuations such that energy begins to exist without prior cause--prediction is not the issue."
ie. the suggestion that there is, "no prior cause".
PPS. uhmm.....MOL: re this,
"For suppose there were two such. Then one could not be the other, must be really distinct from the other. But this is impossible unless at least one of the two lacks something that the other one has. Otherwise, they would coincide into total indistinguishable identity. But if either one lacked some positive perfection, it could not also be absolutely infinite in all perfects (The One and the Many, Norris Clarke, p. 221)."
thus we would say that God is universal and infinite vis a vis 'personality' as in other characteristics so that God 'A' and God 'B' cannot be identical in all but personality [?]
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
- Login to post comments
Offline "Cosmology is a natural phenomenon and as I recall the discussion arose from such."
as long as you define cosmology in these terms it excludes the God of the Bible from the outset since he transcends it by definition.
Do you have another definition to offer? As far cosmology is concerned, I have no reason to think that it is anything but natural as there are numerous natural explanations for what we're discussing that need not invoke a god.
sorry, I think I was being a bit obtuse. Your comment that you were thinking of 'prior' "not in temporal but in logical" terms, sparked a long discussion here because it appeared to be a false distinction. I think we concluded it was not as false as it first appeared! We also concluded that they don't necessarily require time; my outstanding question being, in eternity, would they succeed in re-establishing a sense of it? Perhaps they would and the answer is "so what?".......in eternity, who cares?!
I suppose I'll leave that for the theists to ponder.
yes, I'm sure he is. He must be right, since the Bible describes cause/effect events in eternity and life in material body, which it also foresees, would be absurd without it. The error which most atheists make in contemplating the intervention of God in our dimension, is to assume, for some odd reason, that it is irrational to propose that he is not bound by it [which is obviously definitive of him] .......thus all the "sky-fairy" nonsense. So for the Christian, the exact nature of causality in eternity is an interesting [well for me at least] subject of speculation.
For most atheists, it is merely that: speculation. That added to the wide variety of often contradictory understandings claiming to revelation, it touch to say with any certainty that such things are true.
Also, I don't think atheists are opposed to a god intervening in the universe, they just don't have any compelling evidence to suggest that he has.
ok.......in fairness, you only appeared to imply it. With respect to unpredictability, either sub- atomic motion and energy imply a cause [ie we retain the current naturalistic explanation] or they don't. If they do, then the enigma of ex nihilo genesis remains. If they don't [which is what your comment vis a vis "ex nihilo characteristics" seemed to suggest] then uncaused causes are a very common phenomenon and, as you suggest, we need to review our definition of 'naturalism'. I don't see that the Christian should have any problem with this, insofar at least that it does not 'explain away' God. I foresee that, among other things, the view held commonly by atheists, that empiricism is the sole , universal source of [anything approaching] 'truth' will have to be abandoned.
(1) I don't think naturalist are holding to causality that tightly.
(2) The "enigma of ex nihilo genesis" doesn't really bother atheists because it happens all the time, such that it appears to be a natural phenomenon. To suggest that it's a god behind the scenes is, at best, an argument from silence and perhaps question begging.
BTW: Where did I say we need to review our definition of "Naturalism".
PS. As a non-physicist, can I suggest that 'non-locality' militates against this:
"The phenomenon goes to say that there are fluctuations such that energy begins to exist without prior cause--prediction is not the issue."
ie. the suggestion that there is, "no prior cause".
That's apples an oranges I think...not sure why that's even relevant.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
- Login to post comments
Offline
and (2) In my philosophical musings, the one thing that I've come to realize is that I can't change that which exists, only the way I understand it. I therefore don't reject perfectly tenable ideas (even if they are only ideas) strictly on epistemic grounds. I have yet to find an epistemic system that I'm 100% satisfied with,
if everyone was this perceptive, atheist/theist discussions would be a whole lot more constructive! The epistemic problem was demonstrated long enough ago.
and this is largely why I am an existentialist too...
MOL may well have a different/better definition but I regard an existentialist as one who simply accepts the dichotomy established by he "epistemic problem" which seems to concur with everything else you've written below.
[ "dichotomy"ie. modern man's concept of truth and assumed autonomy results in a world-view which he cannot live consistently by, which results in turn in the perception that existence is "absurd" and a sense of alienation.]
Schaeffer [Dr F. Escape from Reason. IVP] attributes post - Enlightenment mysticism, including existentialism, to Hegelian dialectic........the fundamental change in the nature of truth and abandonment of 'classical truth' in which the Bible was written.
My problem with calling actual infinties "absurd" is that it's unduly justified. This is being done on epistemic grounds, not metaphysical grounds. If that is the case, I change my epistemology rather than write things off as absurd, because the one thing I can't change is that which exists. Actual infinites are conceptually understandable, but create epistemic paradoxes. I just embrace the paradoxes as they are and admit that perhaps my epistemology as it stands now does not fully understand such things.
a changed epistemology is precisely what the Bible proposes, eg. "the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge........". The idea that an epistemic problem would result from an arbitrary change in Man's concept of 'truth' seems perfectly consistent.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
- Login to post comments
Offline
BTW: Where did I say we need to review our definition of "Naturalism".
"With this in mind, if the understanding of physics change, so should one's understanding of causality."
PS. As a non-physicist, can I suggest that 'non-locality' militates against this:
"The phenomenon goes to say that there are fluctuations such that energy begins to exist without prior cause--prediction is not the issue."
ie. the suggestion that there is, "no prior cause".
That's apples an oranges I think...not sure why that's even relevant.
The appearance of phenomena apparently "out of nowhere" does not, of itself allow us to conclude non-causality. It merely reinforces conjecture regarding multiverses etc. That is why I mentioned 'non-locality' since it alone would afford a possible explanation and we have already established it.
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
- Login to post comments
approach to philosophy....quite the contrary. (1) Rather than accepting merely it, it is is not satisfied with it. That is to say that proposition may be true, but left alone this does not compel one to embrace them. (2) At the same time, Existentialism sees the seeming futility of epistemic problems. Fore these reasons it takes a "leap" (in Kierkegaard's terms) to attempt to live out one's life with meaning and purpose in spite of these problems.
How am I wrong? I said our world is being affected by causless causes, which your post seems to support...?
If any effect was greater than the first cause, then the higher perfection that the effect has over the first cause could not have come from the first cause, otherwise, the first cause would maintain ontological superiority. Yet it could not have come from the effect either, since nothing can give itself that which it does not have. Therefore, the only option is that the qualities of this particular effect emerged out of nothing, which is absurd.
I'm not sure what events has to do with this, unless you are using "event" to refer to the act of being. Otherwise, why is it relevant?
No, Leibniz' law works with everything. In order for there to be two distinct Gods, one has to somehow be different than the other. But since God, by definition, is an ontologically infinite being which lacks nothing, then the only way to discern the two beings is if one lacked something. Otherwise, they are the same.
"To distinguish one being from another, they must differ in some way. If they differ in some way, then one lacks something that the other one has. If one being lacks something that the other one has, then the lacking being is not infinite because an infinite being, by definition, lacks nothing. So there can only be one infinite Being (I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Norman Geisler, p. 199)."
"For suppose there were two such. Then one could not be the other, must be really distinct from the other. But this is impossible unless at least one of the two lacks something that the other one has. Otherwise, they would coincide into total indistinguishable identity. But if either one lacked some positive perfection, it could not also be absolutely infinite in all perfects (The One and the Many, Norris Clarke, p. 221)."
"If there were two Gods, let us call them A and B, then in virtue of our description God A would be more perfect than anything else, therefore God A would be more perfect than God B, and God B would be more imperfect than God A. But God B would also be more perfect than God A, because according to our assumption God B would be God. Consequently God B would be more perfect and more imperfect than God A, and God A than God B, which is a manifest contradiction. If, therefore, it could be evidently proved that God exists-- 'God' being understood in the present sense-- then the unicity of God could be evidently proved (William of Ockham from his Philosophical Writings, Introducing the German Idealists, Robert Solomon, p. 105)."
An infinite being cannot be subdivided, as that presupposes that an infinite being is made up of parts. Yet if that were true, then we'd already have more than one infinite being since the parts of an infinite being would also have to be infinite.
Definitions are not right or wrong. They are either agreed upon or they are not. In two different fields, you have a community of scholars agreeing to a particular usage of the term and this is what the community of metaphysicians have agreed on about the meaning of "causality".
No scientist has ever proven that something begins to exist with no cause, if "causation" is understood as the production of an effect. Scientists just cannot predict certain things at the quantum level, i.e., Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The principle of sufficient reason does not guarantee that we are going to know everything. It only guarantees the intelligibility of being, that is to say, things ultimately make sense and contradictions are impossible.
Banned for personal attacks. The explanation is here.
Event causation is what I'm getting at. Event causation and agent causation are two sorts of causation that get a lot of attention in metaphysics.
I'm suggesting there is no need for an "ontological superior" cause, rather it need only be ontologically equal to subsequent events. If this is the case, then we need not invoke a being (that is, an agent) of sort to get the same result when an event will suffice.
Absurdities arise at a quantum level, and I think this is the limit where a traditional understanding of causation stops. (See my comments below for more elaboration on this.)
First, I'm not talking about lack. I'm talking about an infinitely ontological entity dividing.
Second, an entity that is unitary and ontologically infinite can divide indefinitely without violating the constraint of "parts" because such division does not alter the entities ontology at all. For this reason, I have no reason to think that it cannot divided. If such divides, then the two entities that it creates are are ontological equal in every way. One is no more perfect or less perfect than the other. They otherwise identical...There is no way to know the difference, even to as which one was the original entity, if one can say that there is an original as that is questionable... Such gods would even be confused about themselves. But on the other hand what it seems you are trying to do is fit a god entity into Liebniz' law. If this is the case then, the god is not perfect because there is something external to itself that governs the god entity. (This is an aside, but I once used a similar line of thinking in defense of triniatarian theology, much to the liking of trinitarian Christian theists. It allows for a single entity that can be comprised of other entities that are otherwise identical to the single entity. Yeah, it's paradoxical, but such is the nature of many things concerning the infinite.)
Functions concerning cardinally infinite or even qualitatively infinite entities create paradoxes all over the place, and is largely why logic as applied to finite entities fails. For this reason, I do not think that Leibniz' law works for ontological infinite entities.
I really think you are misunderstanding the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in relation to vacuum fluctuation. The principle was suggested because at a quantum level, relative frame of references cease to exist, such that one cannot measure the location and speed of a particle simultaneously. One of the first things you learn in any physics class, high school and college, is the concept of frame of reference, because all measurements are taken from such. That is, my relative velocity compared to the planet earth is different when compared to the barycenter of the solar system or the barycenter of the galaxy. At a quantum level, this breaks down.
Vacuum fluctuations are a phenomenon that when all energy and matter are removed from a given space, energy will spontaneously appear in the space. The phenomenon goes to say that there are fluctuations such that energy begins to exist without prior cause--prediction is not the issue. This is related to the Uncertainty Principle because it involves quantum mechanics, but principally on these grounds only. Physicists have abducted this and other similar phenomenon to a cosmological scale to better understand big bang cosmology and gravity.
With these understandings in mind, traditional understandings of causation in Metaphysics are in part superseded in the same way that Newtonian physics were superseded by relativity. Cosmological arguments that use these classical metaphysics fall apart on premises such as those given by Aquinas and those given by Craig. Craig wants to maintain these premises for obvious reasons, but I think has failed to show how this is the case in his writing.
The relationship between metaphysics and physics is just that-- metaphysics attempts to understand that which exists in principles (such as Aquinas' and Craig's first premises) while physics attempts to discover the actual mechanics of such things. Physics therefore should inform metaphysics concerning such phenomenon, not the other way around. They are not mutually exclusive spheres, so I don't think metaphysician can ignore such things. To do so would possibly result in esoteric speculation, something that has no real bearing then on what we understand as existence. This has been one of the biggest indictments against metaphysics, duly or unduly, by some because metaphysics seems to have lost touch with existence, the very thing it is trying to understand.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Does it? Really? I mean does it really being affected? Give examples. I'm curious.
Wtf. I will just quote you:
"Examples: 1) The cause for an electron to occupy the energy level of 5.3 electronvolt. None "
Last I heard, matter is composed of (among other things) electrons.
do yourself a favour and learn something about theology before purporting to spew your inanities about God's presumed non existence everywhere.......you presume the universality of cause/effect in the face of science and then come here gabbing about "scientific method"........go on claim to be "rational".......I need a laugh!
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.
and neither "probabilistic" nor "deterministic" events account for the existence of anything ex nihilo
......and can "scum" come?
'It appeareth in nothing more, that atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man, than by this: that atheists will ever be talking of that their opinion, as if they fainted it within themselves and would be glad to be strengthened by the consent of others.' Francis Bacon.