|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The existence of God
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I've been following a lot of the threads here pretty closely and it seems a lot of us have rejected Church and the expressions of it but have retained some concept of the existence of God.
For me, this board has led me to read further and deeper into philosophy and the religious arguments for the existence of God. I am struggling a little because despite my best efforts I am actually starting to feel a little like I've finally spotted the man behind the curtain. I don't really want to call myself an Atheist but I'm not sure if that is simply emotional rather than actually an honest representation of how I truly think.
So for those with some belief in God/the divine and those without...what do you make of arguments for the existence of God? Do they seem valid to you?
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well, I don't think you can make a scientific testable hypothesis for God - because the existence of God is not a scientific question. By definition, you are proposing an entity that supercedes the laws of nature.
I believe in God because of the observation of love, and because intermittent personal experience of a sense of connection.to something transcendant beyond myslf.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
With Doublethink, proof in the sense of an empirical proof of a being who, by definition does not submit to empirical proof is impossible. My proof will differ from yours. I have evidence and experience that convinces me, but I don't expect that to convince you.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
I suppose a clarification of where I currently sit is more that I do not believe in the Christian God. I am probably somewhere between a deist and a Hindu.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I believe in God, but I don't think God exists. Existence, that there is something in the world that matches a description (true for lions, not for unicorns), just isn't appropriate for God, because God isn't one of the things in the world. God is so unknowable that we can't have clear and settled opinions about God. God is for ever wrong footing us.
"Only an atheist can be a good Christian, and only a Christian can be a good atheist."
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
Which concepts of god/God?
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I don't believe in God and the "proofs" like the recent WSJ article fail to impress. When they present the sleight of hand they can't explain why the proof is limited to the existence of two, three, seven, 9 or 900 gods.
I'm also not impressed by testimony or history of testimony for s similar reason. There's lots of testimony for many gods.
Another question is related to Theodicy. If there is an omnipotent god, and he's fond of doing bad things, is it moral to worship him?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Which concepts of god/God?
Good question, it's interesting how the Cosmological arguement in its various forms (Aquinas and Kalam) are used as proofs for the Christian and Islamic versions of God respectively. I was always stuck on how they got from a God to my God on that one.
I don't really think any of the 'proofs' actually give us anything beyond very broad brushstokes as to what the character or nature of God is supposed to be.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicodemia
WYSIWYG
# 4756
|
Posted
Could someone tell me briefly what the WSJ said - I don't intend to subscribe just to read it, but I'd like to know what it said!
There can be no proof of God/god/gods as I see it. We cannot get 'outside' God to 'see' him/her/them in entirety. Because if he is God, then he is totally outside us, a concept, a something that is beyond proof, because he is not in this world/universe/cosmos. I know he is supposed to be here, omnipresent and all that, and he may be, depends what you believe, but in the last resort, we choose to believe either that he is or isn't. No actual proof.
Bit muddled, but I expect someone will put it better than I can. Or shoot me down. or both.
And it is all one reason I don't believe in an afterlife.
Posts: 4544 | From: not too far from Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
So for those with some belief in God/the divine and those without...what do you make of arguments for the existence of God? Do they seem valid to you?
Of course. The simple existence of a god can be proven beyond reasonable doubt by metaphysical argument, as can quite a few features of this entity (for example that it must be eternal).
While these proofs get attacked, most of what gets thrown at them these days is simply ignorant of the basic philosophy supporting them (and sometimes even ignorant of the actual proofs themselves, instead discussing some caricature thereof). In order to actually deny these proofs, one has to claim that the human intellect fails. And not simply "at the unobservable mystery of god", but rather at core conceptual abstractions from observing nature and/or their logical extrapolation.
So, a key but perhaps hidden qualification in my statement at the beginning was that the proofs are beyond reasonable doubt. If one questions human reason as such, even within its apparent "natural" domain, then one can question the existence of a god as derived in these proofs. I trust in human reason sufficiently to believe that there is such a "god of philosophy".
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I suppose a clarification of where I currently sit is more that I do not believe in the Christian God. I am probably somewhere between a deist and a Hindu.
And that is basically fine as far as the "god of philosophy" is concerned. The Christian God is one conception of the Divine which is compatible with the "god of philosophy". Given that the philosophical specs we can argue for a god are quite limited, many other conceptions of the Divine can be compatible with this "god of philosophy" as well, for example at least some deist or Hindu approaches (as far as I am informed about these, which frankly is not very far). Interestingly, some modern Christian conceptions are incompatible with the "god of philosophy", for example the god of process theology. These hence can be proven to be wrong beyond reasonable doubt. Likewise, classical Buddhism (as much as I appreciate it as an ex-Buddhist) is incompatible with the "god of philosophy". Etc.
[ 06. January 2015, 09:42: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course. The simple existence of a god can be proven beyond reasonable doubt by metaphysical argument, as can quite a few features of this entity (for example that it must be eternal).
A good argument, well reasoned and 'won' by the person arguing proves nothing at all.
Your well argued God may exist or not, who knows? But if I can't experience him/her/it then all the argument in the world is no use to me.
[ 06. January 2015, 11:39: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A good argument, well reasoned and 'won' by the person arguing proves nothing at all.
Not all arguments are proofs. But those that are, and are successful, demonstrate what they propose. That's why they are called proofs.
Your statement is of course nothing but the very rejection of reason that I have mentioned, if in a rather vague and general form.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Your well argued God may exist or not, who knows? But if I can't experience him/her/it then all the argument in the world is no use to me.
Is that so? You can also not experience radioactivity directly with your senses; that you believe radioactivity exists, and copiously so near an exploded nuclear reactor, is based on clever arguments from circumstantial evidence made by smart people. Are you going to book a holiday in Chernobyl any time soon, or do you have some practical use for such "arguments beyond direct experience" after all?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Is that so? You can also not experience radioactivity directly with your senses; that you believe radioactivity exists, and copiously so near an exploded nuclear reactor, is based on clever arguments from circumstantial evidence made by smart people. Are you going to book a holiday in Chernobyl any time soon, or do you have some practical use for such "arguments beyond direct experience" after all?
I believe the scientists. I don't believe the theologians.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I believe the scientists. I don't believe the theologians.
OK. But would you potentially be prepared to believe the metaphysicists?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
IngoB, can you point to a link or reading for, or give or summarize yourself, the argument/proof for the god of philosophy?
Nicodemia, is the WSJ article paywall-blocking you? I encountered no block. If no one else steps in earlier, I'll try to provide a summary of the article later today.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I believe the scientists. I don't believe the theologians.
OK. But would you potentially be prepared to believe the metaphysicists?
Scientists come up with (very) useful stuff, don't they? The results of their labours are there for us all to benefit from. The same with engineers etc etc. Even the most obscure theories end up with practical purposes and uses.
Philosophy is fun - wriggling around with ideas floats many people's boats, mine sometimes too when I can kick-start my slow brain.
Art/music of all kinds is useful in that it takes us into creative places and allows an outlet for our creativity.
But metaphysics, theology, the study of God, proofs for God etc. What actual good do they do in the world? What use are they?
[ metaphysics, not mataphysics ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ]
[ 06. January 2015, 15:36: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
All morality is dervied from metaphysics - even if it is a humanist morality. Metaphysical assumptions have a profound effect on how societies function.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
I believe in God because of experiences not wholly unlike Paul's Damascus road. I.e., I don't have a choice. No argument would have convinced me after my childhood church turned me into an atheist.
In spite of my startling personal experiences of God, church going gradually makes me - not an atheist these days but borderline agnostic. Then getting away from church for a while re-awakens my awareness of God. So for me church is deeply destructive.
I'm trying to get a handle on why church involvement separates me from God awareness. I have some theories but they are far from complete or ready to discuss yet. Briefly - churches have a narrow and distorted concept of God, who is so much bigger better amazing! In my experience you have to leave church to see God.
I accept that church really does help some people spiritually, I learned that on the ship. I'm guessing less than half of people/personalities can be helped by church; the other half are far better off avoiding the institution, their spiritual growth is hindered by church and best fed elsewhere, other ways.
Unfortunately the church institution in its arrogance disdains the idea that some need other ways, so people who have discovered church is unhealthy for them are left floundering alone.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Palimpsest, is this the WSJ article you're referring to:
WSJ article
Thanks, Yes. The WSJ declined to publish a rebuttal Letter to the editor which was then published by Richard Dawkins.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
IngoB, can you point to a link or reading for, or give or summarize yourself, the argument/proof for the god of philosophy?
There are various ones that I would consider as successful. The classical cosmological one is perhaps the clearest and most well-known one. You can listen to Feser explaining it competently here. I would recommend watching the entire thing, but if you want the pure "existence proof", then you can listen to that from 24:10 to 33:45.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Scientists come up with (very) useful stuff, don't they? The results of their labours are there for us all to benefit from. The same with engineers etc etc. Even the most obscure theories end up with practical purposes and uses.
Philosophy is fun - wriggling around with ideas floats many people's boats, mine sometimes too when I can kick-start my slow brain. Art/music of all kinds is useful in that it takes us into creative places and allows an outlet for our creativity.
But metaphysics, theology, the study of God, proofs for God etc. What actual good do they do in the world? What use are they?
Science is the study of aspects of nature that are regular, quantifiable and controllable. Rather unsurprisingly then, good science allows one to control nature in a quantifiable manner with regular success, i.e., to engineer technology. As professional scientist currently being employed in an engineering department of an university, I certainly celebrate this success.
However, it does not follow in the slightest that all aspects of nature are regular, quantifiable and controllable. Neither does it follow that only activities which bend this specific aspect of nature to our desires have value, i.e., there is more to good life than technology. This point was already biting you somewhat, and so you told us that art and music are "useful" in a different way. Indeed they are, and so are other activities that do not focus on the investigation and control of nature through the narrow lens of science and engineering.
Among them, philosophy in general and metaphysics in particular certainly play an important role. It is simply as dumb to ask why philosophy has not created a jumbo jet as to ask why music has not created a jumbo jet. In both cases the obvious answer is that this is not what this field is about, and this is not why people value it.
Well then, what useful things can metaphysics do for you? It can provide you with a fundamental understanding of nature not accessible by physics. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that physics is impossible without a metaphysical foundation. Because ultimately physics is constructed by people thinking and speaking about nature, about things that are, and metaphysics investigates precisely what that entails. Of course, many physicists have never studied metaphysics. But that does not mean that metaphysics does not undergird everything they ever do. It just means that they are not conscious of it.
For example, physicists like to discover "natural laws". Well, what is a "natural law"? No, not "these are Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics, and here's how to use them," or anything like that. Rather, what does it say about nature if we claim that a "law" holds for it? What do we even mean by that? Is it something inherent in the things? Is it something outside of the things which acts upon them? Is it just a kind of grammar of events? Then how come that events should have a grammar? Etc. Most physicists nowadays would shrug their shoulder and answer "dunno, I just calculate and predict / compare to observables." And that's fine, because that's what modern physics does. But that doesn't mean that the metaphysical question is pointless.
More concretely, we are currently discussing here that metaphysics can prove the existence of god. It cannot prove the Christian God, admittedly, but it can prove the existence of a fundamental entity in this world which is essential to all existence. That seems to be worth a jumbo jet or two in my book.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[There are various ones that I would consider as successful. The classical cosmological one is perhaps the clearest and most well-known one.
Yes but isn't that one full of massive holes?
Say you believe in God and want to prove his existence, so you look around and you say, as Aquinas did, that every effect must have a cause. All that leads to is an infinite regressive chain of causes until you decide, mostly because you believe in God, that the first cause must be a special case and can be called God. If you DON'T start out this argument believing in God you don't make those assumptions and the argument fails.
But okay that can be ignored because as the video you linked to argues it's linear and not hierarchical in nature. So what about the hierarchical ones? The idea that everything must have an ultimate cause?
I found a very good chapter on this by Dan Barker in Godless. The essence of his argument is that arguing all things that begin to exist must have a cause inherently assumes that there are two categories of things, those that begin to exist and those that do not. If these categories are going to be valid then there must be more than one object in each category i.e more than one thing that does not begin to exist. Otherwise you're effectively saying that God is the only thing that does not begin to exist and exempting him from the beginning of your argument and begging the question. As we have no experience of other things (or maybe of any) that do not begin to exist and therefore have no cause it's difficult to see how we are NOT giving God a free pass in this argument.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Say you believe in God and want to prove his existence, ....
This may be an example of me being weird but I do not want to prove that God exists; it would diminish my faith. For me, knowing that I could be totally and utterly deluded and I will not know until after my death (or never, depending) is an important part of my belief in God.
Who needs faith and belief when you have proof?
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Say you believe in God and want to prove his existence, ....
This may be an example of me being weird but I do not want to prove that God exists; it would diminish my faith. For me, knowing that I could be totally and utterly deluded and I will not know until after my death (or never, depending) is an important part of my belief in God.
Who needs faith and belief when you have proof?
I don't think you're being weird. I can understand what you're saying. I suppose though that when you say faith and belief you're more suggesting reliance upon and trust in rather than intellectual assent towards. (Which is okay) It's just a slightly different angle.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Say you believe in God and want to prove his existence, ....
This may be an example of me being weird but I do not want to prove that God exists; it would diminish my faith. For me, knowing that I could be totally and utterly deluded and I will not know until after my death (or never, depending) is an important part of my belief in God.
Who needs faith and belief when you have proof?
I don't think you're being weird. I can understand what you're saying. I suppose though that when you say faith and belief you're more suggesting reliance upon and trust in rather than intellectual assent towards. (Which is okay) It's just a slightly different angle.
Yes, indeed. My faith is almost anti-intellectual at a basic level because I believe something that I know is unprovable.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
More concretely, we are currently discussing here that metaphysics can prove the existence of god. It cannot prove the Christian God, admittedly, but it can prove the existence of a fundamental entity in this world which is essential to all existence. That seems to be worth a jumbo jet or two in my book.
It seems to me we are regularly told on these boards that trying to demonstrate the existence of God is a fool's game because God is fundamentally beyond the universe, and has to be to have created it. But now you're saying he's a fundamental entity in this world after all. Which of these mutually contradictory arguments should I go with? Or is it simpler to see metaphysical "proofs" as being mutable according to demand?
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
My faith is almost anti-intellectual at a basic level because I believe something that I know is unprovable.
Hear, hear. I am with Saint Clive when he says that God is neither provable nor disprovable, and if that changes, it will be because the world is ending.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
More concretely, we are currently discussing here that metaphysics can prove the existence of god. It cannot prove the Christian God, admittedly, but it can prove the existence of a fundamental entity in this world which is essential to all existence. That seems to be worth a jumbo jet or two in my book.
IngoB,
My understanding of the term metaphysical is vague. I enjoy Donne who is a 'metaphysical' poet. Do you mean by metaphysical, 'speculative' or something based in an a priori assumption? An obvious example would be the first statement of the Ontological argument.
' Being is; non being is not' and the rest follows if you buy into the premise.
Donne's poem Death be not Proud' uses some cute reasoning to argue that death, which he personifies has no victory over a Christian even though death is the inevitable end for a Christian based on the conceit that Christ by death achieved victory over it. Just interested to see if you have a clearer definition of what is meant by the term 'metaphysical'?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Yes but isn't that one full of massive holes?
Nope. There is no known hole in it, of any size. The only known way to stop this argument is to argue that human reason fails.
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Say you believe in God and want to prove his existence, so you look around and you say, as Aquinas did, that every effect must have a cause. All that leads to is an infinite regressive chain of causes until you decide, mostly because you believe in God, that the first cause must be a special case and can be called God. If you DON'T start out this argument believing in God you don't make those assumptions and the argument fails.
You simply assert here that somewhere along the chain of reasoning the defenders of the classical cosmological argument jump to a conclusion based on their belief in God. This is 1. a falsehood, 2. an insulting falsehood, and 3. an insulting falsehood that you cannot possibly hope to back up by pointing to anything in the actual argument. Now, rather obviously every effect has a cause. That's not a statement about the world, that's a statement about what we mean by the word "effect". It is the definition of "effect" that it is what results from a cause. This is not contentious, or if it is then at the level of semantics, which has to be cleared up before arguing. What you probably mean is "everything has a cause". Feser conveniently lists the most common straw men concerning the cosmological argument here. Guess what makes the top of the list? '1. The argument does NOT rest on the premise that “Everything has a cause.”'
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
But okay that can be ignored because as the video you linked to argues it's linear and not hierarchical in nature. So what about the hierarchical ones? The idea that everything must have an ultimate cause?
It is not the idea of hierarchical causation that everything must have an ultimate cause. It is a conclusion from it. The idea of hierarchical causation stems from an analysis of non-temporal dependencies observed in nature. So this kind of causation is not what we are used to call "causation" (which is temporal, the effect follows the cause in time). It is a "cause" in the Aristotelian sense of actualising a potential. In modern language we might call it a dependency, or a condition, or something like that.
It is important to understand that the classical cosmological argument considers hierarchical "causes" (dependencies, conditions, ...), because it means that it does not require a temporal beginning of the universe (no "big bang" required), is not fazed by multiverses, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
If these categories are going to be valid then there must be more than one object in each category i.e more than one thing that does not begin to exist.
As such, this is nonsense. I am the only member of the category of IngoBs currently posting to SoF from Reading, UK. It may not be a particularly useful category, but there is absolutely nothing wrong in principle with defining a category that contains just one member, with everything else not in that category.
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Otherwise you're effectively saying that God is the only thing that does not begin to exist and exempting him from the beginning of your argument and begging the question.
This is a plain falsehood. The argument does not assume that there must be an "Uncaused Cause". It concludes it. This category is not a premise, it is established as a result. Nobody is begging a question here, rather the question is being answered.
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
As we have no experience of other things (or maybe of any) that do not begin to exist and therefore have no cause it's difficult to see how we are NOT giving God a free pass in this argument.
Nobody is giving anybody a free pass here. The argument considers what we know of things, and then tracks that - our natural knowledge - down to the conclusion that things cannot be as we observed them to be *unless* we allow for the existence of an uncaused cause.
It is the same intellectual move as seeing a bright red spot of light jumping around in your garden. If you were a cat, you would try to catch it. Since you are a human, you conclude "some idiot is aiming a laser pointer at my garden, where is he?" and look around at places in the line of sight. You observed the jumping red spot, you know enough about the world to narrow down how it could come about, and you concludes towards an unobserved entity, laser pointer guy. You didn't start all this with the assumption "there must be a laser pointer guy" and it didn't feature in your mind's workings other than as an outcome.
The same is true for the classical cosmological argument.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
It seems to me we are regularly told on these boards that trying to demonstrate the existence of God is a fool's game because God is fundamentally beyond the universe, and has to be to have created it. But now you're saying he's a fundamental entity in this world after all. Which of these mutually contradictory arguments should I go with? Or is it simpler to see metaphysical "proofs" as being mutable according to demand?
I'm sorry, where did I say that God is a "fundamental entity in this world"?
Of course, it all depends on what you define as "world" or "universe". If you mean thereby "all that exists", then indeed God is part of this particular "world" or "universe". Because God does exist (and hatless is talking simple nonsense in denying that, for all the pious Zen-appeal that nonsense may have). What is however usually meant by saying that God is not part of this world is that God is fundamentally unlike all the things we experience as existing around us.
And that this is so actually follows from the cosmological argument. For one thing God is uncaused ("unactualised"), all the other beings we know are caused ("actualised"). It follows from the argument that God is eternal, all the other beings we know are temporal (or at least semi-temporal, if you believe in angels...). Etc. Working out the various features of an "unactualised Actualiser", we find that they are not like the features that the "stuff of the world" has.
So it really depends on what you call "world". But at any rate, the essential difference between Creator and creature (to put it this way) is not denied by the cosmological argument, but rather established.
And those that say that it is a fool's game to try to demonstrate the existence of God from nature are fools themselves. And yes, this is an entire Ship of Fools. Anyhow, whoever claims so certainly speaks against the Christian faith as clearly laid out in scripture:
"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. " (Rom 1:19-20)
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I am with Saint Clive when he says that God is neither provable nor disprovable, and if that changes, it will be because the world is ending.
Thus you stand with Mr Lewis against St Paul in scripture. Anyhow, while it is somewhat mysterious why you would consider Mr Lewis an authority, or how you know that he is a saint, you are presumably aware that an argument from authority at most can establish probability, not truth. You may believe in the revelation according to Mr Lewis, but unless you can find fault with for example the cosmological argument - which does what Mr Lewis' revelation claims cannot be done - you are on very shaky and irrational ground there.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Just interested to see if you have a clearer definition of what is meant by the term 'metaphysical'?
Metaphysics is the philosophical study of the first (fundamental) principles of being.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And those that say that it is a fool's game to try to demonstrate the existence of God from nature are fools themselves. And yes, this is an entire Ship of Fools. Anyhow, whoever claims so certainly speaks against the Christian faith as clearly laid out in scripture:
"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. " (Rom 1:19-20)
You are on The Eighth Day section of the Ship - the place to discuss the implications of having lost or rejected your faith, be that in a representation of the divine, or an expression of faith community.
And you quote scripture on it?
Foolish indeed.
I myself believe there is something (which I call God) which creates and holds everything together - in fact, at the moment that's all I believe of God ('tho it's a pretty big 'all' to be fair)
But if this 'God' could be so easily proved we wouldn't have any disbelief in him/her/it - would we?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
You are on The Eighth Day section of the Ship - the place to discuss the implications of having lost or rejected your faith, be that in a representation of the divine, or an expression of faith community. And you quote scripture on it? Foolish indeed.
Pre-cambrian was complaining that many other Shipmates - presumably in their majority believing Christians - keep telling him that one cannot demonstrate the existence of God from nature, and in response I was calling these believing Christians "fools" for doing so and quoted scripture at them. And just to illustrate all that, mousethief conveniently stepped forward arm in arm with C.S. Lewis, as practical example.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I myself believe there is something (which I call God) which creates and holds everything together - in fact, at the moment that's all I believe of God ('tho it's a pretty big 'all' to be fair). But if this 'God' could be so easily proved we wouldn't have any disbelief in him/her/it - would we?
So you essentially believe in the god that the cosmological argument can prove to exist. I consider this kind of "minimalist deism" to be the rational default position.
Why do not all people hold the rational default position? They don't do it by habit, since our culture has ceased to be default theist. As far as becoming intellectually convinced is concerned: First, the proof isn't that easy. It is watertight and clear if one understands the underlying philosophy, which is however a considerable "if". Second, as Blaise Pascal has pointed out eloquently, an insight that one once had is not generally sufficient to establish a habit of belief. One has to ingrain it by practice. The mind is to weak and fickle to instantly reproduce the insight itself whenever queried. It requires effort to come to a complicated intellectual conclusion, and for the most part we operate efficiently by relying on habitual answers. Thus an established habit of disbelief is not overcome by an isolated insight, which soon recedes into vague memory. Only if one follows up on that insight with regular, habit-forming practice (e.g., prayer) will one secure that insight in one's mind.
In fact, presumably you can see this in yourself right now. For I assume that you are not maintaining your belief in a Creator due to some intellectual proof like the cosmological one. Rather, it precisely is the remaining residue of your prior Christian practice, which has established a habitual answer to the question whether God exists (and what we mean by that) in you. What the cosmological proof can do for you is not to establish this belief (your prior practice did that). Rather, it can furnish you with good reason why you should be happy with this habitual answer. Without such reason, you might convince yourself that a habit void of reasonable support is something you should try to shed.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In fact, presumably you can see this in yourself right now. For I assume that you are not maintaining your belief in a Creator due to some intellectual proof like the cosmological one. Rather, it precisely is the remaining residue of your prior Christian practice, which has established a habitual answer to the question whether God exists (and what we mean by that) in you. What the cosmological proof can do for you is not to establish this belief (your prior practice did that). Rather, it can furnish you with good reason why you should be happy with this habitual answer. Without such reason, you might convince yourself that a habit void of reasonable support is something you should try to shed.
Yes, you have it in a nutshell.
I continue the habit (Going to Church, prayer of sorts etc - I have two quite big roles at Church) The reason is exactly as you say - I still believe in a creator and sustainer of all things.
My problem is that my Church (Con-Evo Methodist) has too many 'add ons' to what I now believe. I am not deceiving anyone - but don't explain my position unless asked. My minister is very happy for me to continue (AV person and Worship Co-Ordinator which is an admin job really)
But is all that habit stuff simply remaining in a comfort zone, or maybe I'm brain washed - whatever that means?
[ 07. January 2015, 14:55: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
IngoB
First off thankyou, I was grateful for the link to the article and found it very interesting. It's given me more reading to do and fleshed out my understanding of the argument more than my previous reading and study had allowed.
I am still struggling how to see that unactualised actualiser or uncaused cause necessarily leads to God in any form that we understand it/him/she but yes as you said before it doesn't actually have to . I am also confused about how one can argue that you can't criticise the argument by saying 'What caused God' by saying it's like 'What caused the unactualised actualiser or being that could never have not existed' and then state the argument doesn't beg the question. (I suppose though you'd respond that it's a conclusion not a premise to state this?) I am also struggling with how it interacts with what science does know about the origin of the universe eg that it DID have a temporal beginning even if we're not sure how that came about.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But is all that habit stuff simply remaining in a comfort zone, or maybe I'm brain washed - whatever that means?
Well, that was exactly my point. If you cannot point to any good reason for your habitual belief, then maybe you are just hanging out in a brainwashed comfort zone. But since there is such a thing as the classical cosmological argument, you can at least in principle provide good reason for your habitual belief. In practice, this might be just an appeal to authority ("IngoB said it, so it must be right..." ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ). But that's fine. You might have the habit to take a paracetamol when you have too high a fever. While in principle you might be able to find good reason for that in the medical literature (or even in biochemistry), in practice you simply follow authority there (some doctor, or perhaps your parents, told you to do that some time ago). Likewise, you do not need to understand every philosophical argument out there as long as you trust some authority on this.
So there you go, one good and practical effect of metaphysics in your own life is that you do not have to worry about being brainwashed into believing in the existence of God. Whether God in fact exists or not, your belief is at least a reasonable position. And it remains that even if you yourself cannot defend it - as long as someone you trust can do so with good reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I am still struggling how to see that unactualised actualiser or uncaused cause necessarily leads to God in any form that we understand it/him/she but yes as you said before it doesn't actually have to .
It is most likely correct to say that most Christians today do not believe in a God who is compatible with the "god of metaphysics". Furthermore, this was probably true throughout the ages, but with the difference that in times past people perhaps more readily deferred to authority (and hence did not assert their own understanding over and above an official one). Whenever I spell out consequences of identifying the Christian God as comprising the god of metaphysics, many people on SoF find the result unappealing (if not outright wrong).
But I don't particularly care. All I care about is that I know that the metaphysical God exists, that nothing in RCC doctrine makes the identification impossible, and that RC philosophical theology has traditionally made that identification. That's good enough for me personally.
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I am also confused about how one can argue that you can't criticise the argument by saying 'What caused God' by saying it's like 'What caused the unactualised actualiser or being that could never have not existed' and then state the argument doesn't beg the question. (I suppose though you'd respond that it's a conclusion not a premise to state this?)
Indeed. Imagine you look at your bank account, and sum up all the regular transaction, i.e., those you can read in the bank statement. And then you find that the sums do not work out. The regular transactions do not explain the tally. What do you conclude? Well, that there must be some irregular transactions going on. Why do you say this, because you know what kind of irregular transactions they are, because you have seen them? No, not at all. You have no idea. You don't even really know what you mean by "irregular", other than that it is not "regular". All you did do is to check that the "regular" transactions are not sufficient to explain the numbers you are seeing, and then you drew a logical conclusion from that and gave it an obvious name: "irregular". That's all. So it is here. "Uncaused" is simply the name we give to that which is not "caused", and we need a name for that because the "caused" stuff cannot explain the world we see. But we make no assumptions about this "uncaused" stuff, we simply detect that the regular causation is not sufficient.
(Of course, a bank might make mistakes and forget to list a "regular" transaction. But nature does not make mistakes, and the cosmological argument looks at principles, not at lists of entities where something could be forgotten.)
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I am also struggling with how it interacts with what science does know about the origin of the universe eg that it DID have a temporal beginning even if we're not sure how that came about.
What is the relationship between that which ultimately guarantees all existence at every point in time, non-temporally, with the purported beginning of (material) existence, temporally? I don't know. That actually is a really good question. However, it is important to realise that the classical cosmological argument itself will remain untouched by whatever answer one might give. That's simply so because it does not rely on any temporal sequence, and hence has as such no connection to a purported beginning - other than that one can only apply this argument after this beginning, when something is there.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Thus you stand with Mr Lewis against St Paul in scripture.
If you interpret Paul to say that the existence of the world proves the existence of God, then yes. I stand against him. Really I stand against your interpretation of him. But that's a subtle distinction and not everyone can grasp it.
quote:
Anyhow, while it is somewhat mysterious why you would consider Mr Lewis an authority, or how you know that he is a saint,
I didn't say he was an authority. I said I agreed with him. I'm really interested in whether everyone you agree with is an authority, or if you sometimes agree with people you know are not authorities? This is a bizarre conflation to me.
I don't know he's a saint. It's a long-running shipboard in-joke to call him Saint Clive. Long-running. One of those weird jokes in which nobody breaks a leg.
quote:
you are presumably aware that an argument from authority at most can establish probability, not truth.
I have not made any arguments. Not everything everybody says is an argument, just because everything you say is an argument. I was stating an agreement with a principle. I was not arguing for anything. I was not trying to prove anything. Amazing as it may seem, there are people who say things without attempting to establish them using argumentation. This was one such instance. You may see others here; it might be good to consider this possibility in the posts of others as well.
quote:
You may believe in the revelation according to Mr Lewis
Hahaha! That's so clever! Hahahaha! The "revelation according to Mr Lewis"! OMG I'm laughing so much the drool is running down my lip.
Not.
quote:
but unless you can find fault with for example the cosmological argument - which does what Mr Lewis' revelation claims cannot be done - you are on very shaky and irrational ground there.
If acting rational means I have to become an asshole, then I'll remain irrational, thank you. And it's only rational for me to do so.
The Cosmological argument doesn't need me to find fault with it. Real philosophers have ripped it to shreds long before now. And no, I'm not going to argue for this position. Find someone else to play your little game. And that's what it is. A game.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you interpret Paul to say that the existence of the world proves the existence of God, then yes. I stand against him. Really I stand against your interpretation of him. But that's a subtle distinction and not everyone can grasp it.
It obviously would help if you could offer an alternative interpretation of what St Paul is saying there.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I didn't say he was an authority. I said I agreed with him. I'm really interested in whether everyone you agree with is an authority, or if you sometimes agree with people you know are not authorities? This is a bizarre conflation to me.
When you say that you agree with one of the most popular Christian apologetic authors, on a matter of doctrine, then you automatically invoke his authority in the mind of the reader. Just like saying "I agree with Einstein's calculations concerning the perihelion of Mercury" will not be perceived the same as "I agree with John here that the weather is lovely today".
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't know he's a saint. It's a long-running shipboard in-joke to call him Saint Clive. Long-running. One of those weird jokes in which nobody breaks a leg.
Calling Mr Lewis "St Clive" is neither random nor ironic, though it is somewhat humorous. It is more akin to calling Mr Presley the King. It attributes certain qualities to Mr Lewis by virtue of the title, even if the title is not assumed to be "real". And since I happen to disagree with Mr Lewis, I attacked that humorous attribution, rhetorically.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Amazing as it may seem, there are people who say things without attempting to establish them using argumentation. This was one such instance.
OK, fine. You were simply contributing "this is what I think" to the discussion, with no intention to influence it beyond adding a factoid about yourself. We are talking at cross-purposes here, because if I say "I think X" in a discussion I invariably imply "and I think you should, too." If I don't want to imply that, I add disclaimers.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Cosmological argument doesn't need me to find fault with it. Real philosophers have ripped it to shreds long before now. And no, I'm not going to argue for this position.
For the record, no, they haven't. Though obviously not all philosophers believe it holds true, or all of them would have to be "philosophical theists". Academic philosophy has its fashions, and it is fair to say that this style of philosophy has been so out of fashion as to be dismissed without a second thought in the academe. But that is changing, since a growing number of modern "Analytic Philosophers" are coming full circle on "Aristotelian" essentialism.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Find someone else to play your little game. And that's what it is. A game.
Your mind-reading is failing you. That one can philosophically prove the existence of a god is a foundation, perhaps even the foundation, of my faith in the Christian God.
I will have an intellectually sound faith, or none. That's no "game", that's an essential feature of what I personally can believe in. Like a dog turning around a few times before settling to sleep, I cannot "relax" into faith before my intellect has secured a perimeter. I don't care whether that is good or bad, it certainly is the case.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I will have an intellectually sound faith, or none. That's no "game", that's an essential feature of what I personally can believe in. Like a dog turning around a few times before settling to sleep, I cannot "relax" into faith before my intellect has secured a perimeter. I don't care whether that is good or bad, it certainly is the case.
Here you are basically telling us a factoid about yourself. As you castigated me for doing earlier. Hold others to a standard you don't meet much?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You were simply contributing "this is what I think" to the discussion, with no intention to influence it beyond adding a factoid about yourself. We are talking at cross-purposes here, because if I say "I think X" in a discussion I invariably imply "and I think you should, too." If I don't want to imply that, I add disclaimers.
Yes, because one of us sees every discussion as an argument, and one of us doesn't. As I said.
Oh and by the bye, agreeing with Einstein on science and agreeing with Lewis on theology are hardly parallel. Even so, if a non-scientist agrees with Einstein on anything it's a personal opinion. I have no way of confirming or denying anything Einstein said about science. I can't do experiments to verify or contradict him, and wouldn't even know how. I might agree or disagree with someone who did such an experiment, but that would be exactly the same thing at second hand. I take all on authority, and can do nothing but.
So yes, if I said, "I agree with Einstein about X" I would simply be stating my opinion. This is so obvious as to be obvious.
[ 08. January 2015, 14:06: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Oh, and if fashion determines what is true, as you allude, then God help us all.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Here you are basically telling us a factoid about yourself. As you castigated me for doing earlier. Hold others to a standard you don't meet much?
I did not castigate you for telling us a factoid about yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, because one of us sees every discussion as an argument, and one of us doesn't. As I said.
When discussing the validity of arguments for the existence of God, as the OP requested, I do find it a bit odd to just state "I think X" without any intention to supply motivation or reason, just a plain, brute fact. That's true.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I take all on authority, and can do nothing but. So yes, if I said, "I agree with Einstein about X" I would simply be stating my opinion. This is so obvious as to be obvious.
Indeed. And I have not attacked your right to state your opinion, whether original or borrowed from authority. I have attacked your opinion as wrong. There is a difference.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh, and if fashion determines what is true, as you allude, then God help us all.
Obviously fashion doesn't determine truth. But it does - according to me at least - influence academic philosophy. Since academic philosophy is supposed to seek truth, I was hence critiquing the academe.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I will have an intellectually sound faith, or none. That's no "game", that's an essential feature of what I personally can believe in. Like a dog turning around a few times before settling to sleep, I cannot "relax" into faith before my intellect has secured a perimeter. I don't care whether that is good or bad, it certainly is the case.
This would see to explain the presentation of your views here and elsewhere. Perhaps it is presumptuous to read a sense of elation into such a statement as this one of your's, as if when the hammered nail has been set within a predefined cognitive schema, there is a sense of accomplishment at completing something and a thrill at feeling you've demolished the position of others.
Is there a limit to the intellect for you with faith? that there are other valid approaches, and these are not inferior to your personal prioritization of intellect; at least conjoint? that other approaches are not of lesser value? Thus, might you appreciate that others do not share what I'd label as an extreme reliance on argument, reason and intellect as the first priority?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
It seems to me we are regularly told on these boards that trying to demonstrate the existence of God is a fool's game because God is fundamentally beyond the universe, and has to be to have created it. But now you're saying he's a fundamental entity in this world after all. Which of these mutually contradictory arguments should I go with? Or is it simpler to see metaphysical "proofs" as being mutable according to demand?
I'm sorry, where did I say that God is a "fundamental entity in this world"?
Here, in the very paragraph of yours that I quoted in my post: quote:
More concretely, we are currently discussing here that metaphysics can prove the existence of god. It cannot prove the Christian God, admittedly, but it can prove the existence of a fundamental entity in this world which is essential to all existence. That seems to be worth a jumbo jet or two in my book.
Unless you are now claiming that this fundamental entity isn't God.
Care to apologise?
[ 08. January 2015, 22:18: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Perhaps it is presumptuous to read a sense of elation into such a statement as this one of your's, as if when the hammered nail has been set within a predefined cognitive schema, there is a sense of accomplishment at completing something and a thrill at feeling you've demolished the position of others.
Amazing what you read into me comparing myself to a dog needing to follow a stereotypical routine. It was intended as self-deprecating...
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is there a limit to the intellect for you with faith?
Obviously. Faith itself is a limit to the intellect.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
that there are other valid approaches, and these are not inferior to your personal prioritization of intellect; at least conjoint? that other approaches are not of lesser value? Thus, might you appreciate that others do not share what I'd label as an extreme reliance on argument, reason and intellect as the first priority?
I've never actually said that my intellectual approach is the only one, or indeed, the best one. In fact, my personal religious practice is not even particularly focused on philosophical theology, I'm more a lazy contemplative. However, this is a place for discussion, and I like intellectual discussions, so that's what I do here. 9 times out of 10 when I read some Aquinas, it's because of some thread on SoF...
Furthermore, somebody who is really "non-intellectual" about faith is unlikely to be found on SoF in the first place, and if on SoF, unlikely to hang out in Purgatory much. They will go to church, and say the prayers they were taught as child, and give alms perhaps - but "process theology" will be as foreign to them as "Scholastic metaphysics", they will have no more opinion about "traditional liturgy" than about the "sea of faith", they will neither know "PSA" nor the "Ordinariate". In my opinion SoF in general, and Purgatory in particular, is stuffed full with "intellectuals". It's just that many of them are highly selective about when they can be bothered to defend their opinion. That doesn't stop them from asserting it though.
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Unless you are now claiming that this fundamental entity isn't God. Care to apologise?
Heh. I didn't actually spot myself having said that. Well, that was sloppy. As mentioned, whether one considers God to be "part of the world" or not depends on what one means by that. But in general it is better to not talk of God as being an entity in the world, because it will be misunderstood as God being a creature. And it would have been better not to do so there.
I'm not entirely sure what you want me to apologise for, but if it is for implying that you were misrepresenting me, then indeed - sorry about that. Apparently you were simply responding to what I had sloppily written, and I failed to realise that.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
IngoB wrote
I will have an intellectually sound faith, or none. That's no "game", that's an essential feature of what I personally can believe in. Like a dog turning around a few times before settling to sleep, I cannot "relax" into faith before my intellect has secured a perimeter. I don't care whether that is good or bad, it certainly is the case.
Do you mean by this that for you God as an idea can not be intellectually discredited to your satisfaction or do you mean that Aquinas' thinking on the cosmological or first cause issue is enough to convince you that there has to actually be an uncaused first mover which by definition exists because of what we see. (ie Paul's thinking in Romans) or both.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
What do people here make of the ideas and writings of the Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga?
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
Not a lot to the extent that he is a leading proponent of the dodgy claims of "irreducible complexity" as proof of an intelligent designer and is not averse to basing his arguments in the misrepresentation of scientific evidence.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Do you mean by this that for you God as an idea can not be intellectually discredited to your satisfaction or do you mean that Aquinas' thinking on the cosmological or first cause issue is enough to convince you that there has to actually be an uncaused first mover which by definition exists because of what we see. (ie Paul's thinking in Romans) or both.
It is the latter, though having acquired faith the former might be sufficient for me now, if push comes to shove.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Perhaps it is presumptuous to read a sense of elation into such a statement as this one of your's, as if when the hammered nail has been set within a predefined cognitive schema, there is a sense of accomplishment at completing something and a thrill at feeling you've demolished the position of others.
Amazing what you read into me comparing myself to a dog needing to follow a stereotypical routine. It was intended as self-deprecating...
A cognitive schema is not about dogs. It has to do with personality preferences and routine sequences of behaviour. Personality meaning preferred and accustomed patterns of dealing with thoughts, feelings, inner life, behaviour, the interpersonal world.
You have stated clearly elsewhere that you consider ship threads as debates you wish to win, and showed evidence of the same in this thread.
quote:
IngoB
I've never actually said that my intellectual approach is the only one, or indeed, the best one. In fact, my personal religious practice is not even particularly focused on philosophical theology, I'm more a lazy contemplative. However, this is a place for discussion, and I like intellectual discussions, so that's what I do here. 9 times out of 10 when I read some Aquinas, it's because of some thread on SoF...
Not seen evidence of "lazy contemplative' in posts of your's. If you have these habits of personality, not seen within these forums.
quote:
IngoB
Furthermore, somebody who is really "non-intellectual" about faith is unlikely to be found on SoF in the first place, and if on SoF, unlikely to hang out in Purgatory much. They will go to church, and say the prayers they were taught as child, and give alms perhaps - but "process theology" will be as foreign to them as "Scholastic metaphysics", they will have no more opinion about "traditional liturgy" than about the "sea of faith", they will neither know "PSA" nor the "Ordinariate". In my opinion SoF in general, and Purgatory in particular, is stuffed full with "intellectuals". It's just that many of them are highly selective about when they can be bothered to defend their opinion. That doesn't stop them from asserting it though.
Here's where you provide evidence for my initial analysis. You misunderstand other faith approaches as "non-intellectual" and proceed to suggest these as child-like, demonstrating the misunderstanding. This is the error of assuming reason - although you deny this is your - is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Some intend to discuss and not always consider winning as their first priority.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
You have stated clearly elsewhere that you consider ship threads as debates you wish to win, and showed evidence of the same in this thread.
I have said elsewhere that I like the cut and thrust of pugnacious debate, which is not quite the same thing. But why precisely are we discussing this?
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Not seen evidence of "lazy contemplative' in posts of your's. If you have these habits of personality, not seen within these forums.
Neither am I reducible to my SoF persona, nor have you read all my posts on SoF. FWIW, one of the contemplative practices that I am lazy about is detailed in the current top thread in Limbo...
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Here's where you provide evidence for my initial analysis. You misunderstand other faith approaches as "non-intellectual" and proceed to suggest these as child-like, demonstrating the misunderstanding. This is the error of assuming reason - although you deny this is your - is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Some intend to discuss and not always consider winning as their first priority.
Of course reason is the ultimate arbiter of truth. What else would be? Bubble gum? But you cannot reason your way to God, at least not all the way, in this world. What reason can do with the beatific vision upgrade remains to be seen, I hope also by me.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course reason is the ultimate arbiter of truth. What else would be? Bubble gum? But you cannot reason your way to God, at least not all the way, in this world. What reason can do with the beatific vision upgrade remains to be seen, I hope also by me.
I'm glad to see this. Thank-you particularly the last sentence. The first statement is of course debatable. I would ask how reason allows us to approach the truth about music or art, the natural world. Example: one of the truest experiences I've had involves a wilderness waterfall. How does reason allow such aesthetics to be understood?
-your prior question as to why we're discussing the issue of approach is perhaps more plain from my response?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
