|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: On the possibility of belief in God
|
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584
|
Posted
Plantinga writes
quote:
It seems many theologians and others believe that there is real difficulty with the idea that our concepts could apply to God—that is, could apply to a being with the properties of being infinite, transcendent, and ultimate. The idea is that if there is such a being, we couldn’t speak about it, couldn’t think and talk about it, couldn’t ascribe properties to it.
And he adds
quote:
In particular, it seems to be widely accepted, among theologians, that Kant showed that reference to or thought about such a being (even if there is one) is impossible or at least deeply problematic …
(1) is his claim about theologians correct? (2) did Kant in fact show that reference to or thought about God was problematic?
--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog
Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Yes; except perhaps there was a revelation of God....an incarnation.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by peter damian:
Plantinga writes
quote:
In particular, it seems to be widely accepted, among theologians, that Kant showed that reference to or thought about such a being (even if there is one) is impossible or at least deeply problematic …
(1) is his claim about theologians correct? (2) did Kant in fact show that reference to or thought about God was problematic?
If you substitute 'Aquinas' for Kant, then I think the second statement is correct; and the first statement is I think widely accepted among theologians who pay attention to Aquinas.
Kant's argument depends upon accepting Kantian metaphysics. Aquinas' argument I think is more independent of Aquinas' Aristotelian metaphysics.
The difference is that Aquinas has an argument about how talking about God can still happen.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584
|
Posted
Aquinas:
quote:
For as the ultimate beatitude of man consists in the use of his highest function, which is the operation of his intellect; if we suppose that the created intellect could never see God, it would either never attain to beatitude, or its beatitude would consist in something else beside God; which is opposed to faith. For the ultimate perfection of the rational creature is to be found in that which is the principle of its being; since a thing is perfect so far as it attains to its principle. Further the same opinion is also against reason. For there resides in every man a natural desire to know the cause of any effect which he sees; and thence arises wonder in men. But if the intellect of the rational creature could not reach so far as to the first cause of things, the natural desire would remain void. Hence it must be absolutely granted that the blessed see the essence of God. Iª q. 12 a. 1 co.
This suggests (I may be wrong) that we our understanding can 'reach as far as God'.
--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog
Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
Theologically, I would say that God is beyond our understanding, but in his grace reveals himself to us in ways that we can understand, and supremely in the person of Jesus Christ.
I found Vincent Brümmer's Speaking of a Personal God a very helpful text in this area. It is quite short, and as these things go, an easy read. Much of it can be accessed on Google Books. It's a bit pricey new (£30), but available secondhand for under £10 inc postage.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by peter damian:
Plantinga writes
quote:
It seems many theologians and others believe that there is real difficulty with the idea that our concepts could apply to God—that is, could apply to a being with the properties of being infinite, transcendent, and ultimate. The idea is that if there is such a being, we couldn’t speak about it, couldn’t think and talk about it, couldn’t ascribe properties to it.
And he adds
quote:
In particular, it seems to be widely accepted, among theologians, that Kant showed that reference to or thought about such a being (even if there is one) is impossible or at least deeply problematic …
(1) is his claim about theologians correct? (2) did Kant in fact show that reference to or thought about God was problematic?
These two quotes sound like he's working up to a "but..." How does Plantinga answer the question? What follows this in the book?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Although we have evolved to be curious, with a strong desire to find a cause for everything, I think that one of the most important things that the world of Science, with its history of accumulated knowledge and its method of inquirey, has taught us is that we can be comfortable with 'we don't know'. This is a true and far better place holder than a 'god' answer until an objective answer can be found.
[ 17. September 2016, 15:52: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
These two quotes sound like he's working up to a "but..." How does Plantinga answer the question? What follows this in the book?
Very perceptive. Indeed, a big ‘but’. He impressively refutes Kant’s whole metaphysical distinction between noumena (things in themselves) and phenomena (things as we perceive them.
Kant's position, as P represents it, is that things in themselves are unknowable and we can't even speak about them meaningfully. God is a thing in himself, ergo etc.
I would outline P's refutation, but it’s nearly time for supper.
--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog
Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by peter damian:
Aquinas:
quote:
Hence it must be absolutely granted that the blessed see the essence of God. Iª q. 12 a. 1 co.
This suggests (I may be wrong) that we our understanding can 'reach as far as God'.
Firstly, Aquinas makes a distinction between 'seeing' and 'comprehending'.
Secondly, Aquinas argues that this doesn't happen without supernatural grace (where 'supernatural' means something that lifts one above one's natural capicity). It isn't something that we can expect in this life except through a miracle.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
peter damian
Shipmate
# 18584
|
Posted
Thanks Dafyd. I am still puzzled by 'beatitude'. The Latin is sometimes translated as 'happiness'. It can also mean blessedness. Does Aquinas mean that true happiness cannot be achieved in this life? And are 'the blessed' in effect only those who have died and are among the Elect?
--------------------
http://trinities.org/blog
Posts: 73 | From: london | Registered: Apr 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
... we can be comfortable with 'we don't know' ....
I haven't noticed too many scientists who are comfortable with "we don't know". Since the essence of science is finding things out, they are, almost by definition, people who are uncomfortable until they've found an answer.
But if, for example, I have to choose between some biologists' claims that we are all essentially selfish and my feeling we are not then I'll stick with my unscientific and probably wrong hunch.
After all, scientifically I'd say everyone I've met seems to me wrong about lots of things and so I conclude I must be as well. And yet my life seems as full and satisfying as most people's. But it doesn't seem particularly more or less so than the lives of those who believe God or Karma or whatever.
Could you provide some scientific evidence for your claim?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
... we can be comfortable with 'we don't know' ....
I haven't noticed too many scientists who are comfortable with "we don't know". Since the essence of science is finding things out, they are, almost by definition, people who are uncomfortable until they've found an answer.
But if, for example, I have to choose between some biologists' claims that we are all essentially selfish and my feeling we are not then I'll stick with my unscientific and probably wrong hunch.
After all, scientifically I'd say everyone I've met seems to me wrong about lots of things and so I conclude I must be as well. And yet my life seems as full and satisfying as most people's. But it doesn't seem particularly more or less so than the lives of those who believe God or Karma or whatever.
Could you provide some scientific evidence for your claim?
No, I cannot quote any scientific details but one of the most interesting things I have learnt during my ten years on message boards is that the scientific method of work is the best we have, and unless someone can come up with an alternative method which can distinguish guesswork from reality, it seems a very satisfactory one.
I should of course have written a longer post. ![[Smile]](smile.gif) To say, in answer to any question which cannot follow the scientific method, or which is not based on observation, that it is because of God/god/s/any kind of unobservable idea is to be avoiding the far better interim answer: 'we do not know at the moment, but will keep the question in mind until we at some future date, we hope, find an answer which stands up to review, challenge, etc.
Everyone has the right to hunches, personal beliefs, and so on, but for me the clear demarcation line is when any such thing is taught to children - and vulnerable adults too - as absolutely true and is claimed to be backed up by objective evidence. The broader and greater a person's learning, education, travel opportunities and communication skills are, the more confident they wil be with the don't know answer in the interim.
[ 18. September 2016, 13:20: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Saying God is saying we don't know. So that's no worse than saying we don't know.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
If we are confident of the reality of our relationship with God, why should it be a problem thinking about or talking about God?
We even have language to use which has been developed and evolved through thousands of years, and great thinkers who have passed their thoughts on for us to ponder.
The earlier we help young people to start to think and to search for themselves, the better.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Yes, beatitude' does mean, literally, blessedness. Which, one hopes, encompasses happiness.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Although we have evolved to be curious, with a strong desire to find a cause for everything, I think that one of the most important things that the world of Science, with its history of accumulated knowledge and its method of inquirey, has taught us is that we can be comfortable with 'we don't know'. This is a true and far better place holder than a 'god' answer until an objective answer can be found.
Well, science is provisional. What's that quote about moving forward over the graves of bad ideas?
I don't know if you can just compare science and religion. After all, science is not out to describe reality. Well, I'm not sure that religion is either!
But they are incommensurate. Or is it incommensurable?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by peter damian:
Thanks Dafyd. I am still puzzled by 'beatitude'. The Latin is sometimes translated as 'happiness'. It can also mean blessedness. Does Aquinas mean that true happiness cannot be achieved in this life? And are 'the blessed' in effect only those who have died and are among the Elect?
The Latin doesn't have any very good translation in modern English.
'Beatitude' means an objectively desirable state of being, rather than an emotional state of being pleased that might pass. (It's objective rather than subjective.) The chief goal of human existence, that for the sake of which it's worth choosing to do everything else.
Aquinas does indeed believe that it is unavailable in this life without a miracle (although technically I think he should believe it's unavailable in the next life without a miracle as well). I suppose those who have some mystical experiences may be temporarily in a state of beatitude.
[ 18. September 2016, 15:57: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Saying God is saying we don't know. So that's no worse than saying we don't know.
To someone who had never learnt anything about any deity or knew nothing of the history of their group's or culture's beliefs, then yes, I suppose you could say that the word god could be on a par with I don't know, but since I do not know of any such person, who would be even harder to finde in today's world, then no, it will not do! quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If we are confident of the reality of our relationship with God, why should it be a problem thinking about or talking about God?
I agree there would not be a problem here, especially if you are conversing with someone whose definition/idea of God is very similar to your own. If you both have, or rather if you both believe that you have such a relationship, then there's no problem there but since neither of you has anything to say to make the supposed relationship true for others, then you are open to a challenge to supply a fact or two. quote:
We even have language to use which has been developed and evolved through thousands of years, and great thinkers who have passed their thoughts on for us to ponder.
Yes, of course, but every single one of those words, thoughts and writings has come entirely from human minds, however much they may be believed to be 'God-inspired'. quote:
The earlier we help young people to start to think and to search for themselves, the better.
To search for what? As soon as you indicate by your words that you are giving them a fact and not a belief, you are on very shaky ground. All children should learn as much as they possibly can about all the gods that humans have believed existed and why and how these ideas have been an integral part of history. This teaching would include information about why gods such as Greek and Norse gods are no longer believed in or to have existed, and why, I think I'll add, the gods believed in today will become less important as time goes on.
Thank you for your interesting post- it has been a very quiet day today and one of the other forums I like has had IE cannot display the page all day!!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
We even have language to use which has been developed and evolved through thousands of years, and great thinkers who have passed their thoughts on for us to ponder.
Yes, of course, but every single one of those words, thoughts and writings has come entirely from human minds, however much they may be believed to be 'God-inspired'.
Of course. But that is true of every single word, thought, or writing produced by humankind. The words, thoughts, and writings of scientists also come entirely from human minds. I don't think you are demonstrating what you think you are demonstrating here. You are merely stating a tautology, which says nothing about God or science or man or anything, really, since it's a tautology.
[ 18. September 2016, 17:24: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Although we have evolved to be curious, with a strong desire to find a cause for everything, I think that one of the most important things that the world of Science, with its history of accumulated knowledge and its method of inquirey, has taught us is that we can be comfortable with 'we don't know'. This is a true and far better place holder than a 'god' answer until an objective answer can be found.
Well, science is provisional. What's that quote about moving forward over the graves of bad ideas?
I don't know - I hadn't heard that one before! quote:
I don't know if you can just compare science and religion. After all, science is not out to describe reality. Well, I'm not sure that religion is either!
They are more opposites than comparable subjects I think. Science does not try to describe the world, does it, it tries to find the best explanation of things.
As for the right word to use, I'm afraid I do not know!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
We even have language to use which has been developed and evolved through thousands of years, and great thinkers who have passed their thoughts on for us to ponder.
Yes, of course, but every single one of those words, thoughts and writings has come entirely from human minds, however much they may be believed to be 'God-inspired'.
Of course. But that is true of every single word, thought, or writing produced by humankind. The words, thoughts, and writings of scientists also come entirely from human minds. I don't think you are demonstrating what you think you are demonstrating here. You are merely stating a tautology, which says nothing about God or science or man or anything, really, since it's a tautology.
Okay, let me try again! Those with religious beliefs and books which are described as holy believe the words that are used therein were directly inspired by what they believe to be God. It seems they believe that this distinguishes them from other writings. If they believe some words were, in fact, directly inspired by said God, then the onus is on them to provide back-up for those of us who think they can just be considered along with all other words.
I think that'll do for today!!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Saying God is saying we don't know. So that's no worse than saying we don't know.
To someone who had never learnt anything about any deity or knew nothing of the history of their group's or culture's beliefs, then yes, I suppose you could say that the word god could be on a par with I don't know, but since I do not know of any such person, who would be even harder to finde in today's world, then no, it will not do!
Why's that then? Can you think of a question in normal discourse for a start in which the answer 'God' is explanatory?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Why's that then? Can you think of a question in normal discourse for a start in which the answer 'God' is explanatory?
I will come back to this later, but for a start I have googled 'the God-of-the-gaps question' and there is a multitude of links! I'll see if I can find any gems there...
I spotted one paragraph mentioning the spiral flagellum which was one of those 'irreducible complexity - therefore God' arguments of believers. Since this now has a scientific explanation, the idea that it refuted the TofE no longer applies.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I don't believe in a "God of the gaps'.
I believe in a God, without whom, nothing would exist and there would be no science to investigate. I believe in a God who started the whole caboodle off and sustains it all. Not by controlling anything - s/he gave the whole of creation total freedom to evolve - but by simply being.
I admit, this God doesn't seem necessary to ordinary life. But I continue to have a need to worship (and can't worship celebrities, football stars etc as many seem to). So I worship God. My problem is that, by and large, Churches don't believe in the only God who makes sense to me. So I'm mostly a heretic and happy to be so
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Why's that then? Can you think of a question in normal discourse for a start in which the answer 'God' is explanatory?
I will come back to this later, but for a start I have googled 'the God-of-the-gaps question' and there is a multitude of links! I'll see if I can find any gems there...
I spotted one paragraph mentioning the spiral flagellum which was one of those 'irreducible complexity - therefore God' arguments of believers. Since this now has a scientific explanation, the idea that it refuted the TofE no longer applies.
How do you feel about the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" - where "something" doesn't just mean the physical universe, it also means the 'branes, strings etc. out of which the Universe may have come, and the existence in which they exist, if you catch my drift. In other words, even if it's elephants all the way down (or was it turtles?), existence includes all those elephants. Or turtles. Why elephants at all?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I don't want to pre-empt SusanDoris' reply, but God is something. Something no less mysterious than the physical infinite eternal scalar field that experiences quantum perturbations some of which inflate to the point where big bangs can start; no less mysterious to say the least. Infinitely more so; infinitely more mysterious. Infinitely more complex. And not explanatory at all. Without evidence of God, it is not necessary to invent Him.
The only evidence is Jesus. Not our need to believe, to have meaning. And that evidence is qualitative and anciently culturally mediated. It comes with inextricable sub-narratives that are problematic: angels and demons, PSA, hard sayings which postmoderns need to deconstruct and transcend with an even more progressive trajectory, to be able to be inclusive of broader sexual orientation for a start.
Non-post evangelicals, conservatives, traditionalists don't have any of these problems. Could they be right? It's all as simple as writ 1950 years ago? The progression ends there? Just believe?
[ 19. September 2016, 10:39: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't believe in a "God of the gaps'.
I believe in a God, without whom, nothing would exist and there would be no science to investigate. I believe in a God who started the whole caboodle off and sustains it all. Not by controlling anything - s/he gave the whole of creation total freedom to evolve - but by simply being.
Can you, or would you have a go at trhying to, examine your belief in a detached, unbiased way do you think? That is, if you go back, step by step, through all the steps
which had to take place to put the idea and then belief of God in your mind? Every one of those steps will be taken because of words and actions of other human beings. Whether they were interpreting words or actions to you as being God's and explaining their association with God (i.e. the Christian one), or or not, the fact is that all the words and ideas you have of god come from other people. If you had been born into a family and culture of Islam, with no knowledge of what Christians believe, the extremely strong likelihood is that you too would have Islamic beliefs. quote:
I admit, this God doesn't seem necessary to ordinary life. But I continue to have a need to worship (and can't worship celebrities, football stars etc as many seem to). So I worship God. My problem is that, by and large, Churches don't believe in the only God who makes sense to me. So I'm mostly a heretic and happy to be so
Not only is this God not necessary for any part of human life, but if the human adherence to ancient rules is anything to go by, it can often be a serious barrier to, for instance, people’s personal life choices, especially if such choices do not cause any harm to others..
Certainly humans seem to have evolved to admire and defer to otherpeople, perhaps because these others are stronger, but this can be straightforwardly understood as part of the co-operation in survival strategies. I certainly do not accept the worship idea. Even when I was a believer, I was never a fearful worshipper, or in awe of the invisible God whose praises I sang, having known from childhood that the blibical stories were not meant to be taken as fact. From personal experience, I can say that it is very easy simply to erase the God idea from one’s mind as anything other than a human idea!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Why's that then? Can you think of a question in normal discourse for a start in which the answer 'God' is explanatory?
I will come back to this later, but for a start I have googled 'the God-of-the-gaps question' and there is a multitude of links! I'll see if I can find any gems there...
I spotted one paragraph mentioning the spiral flagellum which was one of those 'irreducible complexity - therefore God' arguments of believers. Since this now has a scientific explanation, the idea that it refuted the TofE no longer applies.
How do you feel about the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" - where "something" doesn't just mean the physical universe, it also means the 'branes, strings etc. out of which the Universe may have come, and the existence in which they exist, if you catch my drift. In other words, even if it's elephants all the way down (or was it turtles?), existence includes all those elephants. Or turtles. Why elephants at all?
The obvious answer is that nothing is impossible. However, there are several versions of this. One, that nothing is unstable, and tends to flip into something, but then this 'nothing' is reckoned by some to be not really nothing, (e.g. a vacuum). Presumably, this means that the universe could emerge from nothing (and could go back to nothing).
Two, that the uncertainty principle forbids nothing, since it would be impossible to accurately identify it.
Three, the total energy of the universe is zero, this may connect with (1).
And four, rather more prosaically, that nothing cannot exist, since then because of its existence, it would be something.
Well, that sounds daft, but it means to me that death cannot be followed by oblivion, since there is no such thing, and cannot be.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How do you feel about the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" - where "something" doesn't just mean the physical universe, it also means the 'branes, strings etc. out of which the Universe may have come, and the existence in which they exist, if you catch my drift. In other words, even if it's elephants all the way down (or was it turtles?), existence includes all those elephants. Or turtles. Why elephants at all?
’something from nothing’ = a phrase which believers tend to think might be the one which confounds the atheist lack of belief! However, this googled link looks good to me. If by some chance there was some other something before the start of this universe, then I do not know, and the span of time is so vast that not only does it not affect any human who has ever existed, but will not affect those who exist until the sun begins to turn into a supernova.
I am not being flippant there, since it is still an interesting point for discussion but no absolutely definitive answer of 100% certainty will ever be found. Every other thing is made of something, most of which is known to scientists now. This includes brains which have evolved to be able to think in the way we humans do.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
I don't want to pre-empt SusanDoris' reply, but God is something. Something no less mysterious than the physical infinite eternal scalar field that experiences quantum perturbations some of which inflate to the point where big bangs can start; no less mysterious to say the least.
’God is something’, you say. That is a claim, is it not? The ‘something’ that many believe is a god is an idea.
quote:
Infinitely more so; infinitely more mysterious. Infinitely more complex. …
Than what?
I’ve listened to the rest of your post several times but would appreciate a simplified version! Synthetic Dave reads well, but holding such text in my head is a bit tricky, I'm afraid!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No claim is being made.
In answering the question why is there something rather than nothing, the answer 'God' explains nothing ultimately, as if God is, He is something.
And if He is, He is necessarily even more mysterious and complex than the infinite, eternal cosmos.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
No claim is being made.
In answering the question why is there something rather than nothing, the answer 'God' explains nothing ultimately, as if God is, He is something.
And if He is, He is necessarily even more mysterious and complex than the infinite, eternal cosmos.
Thank you. Too many 'ifs' ( ) , but either way the question 'why is there something' arises from our having evolved to be curious and with the language to articulate the questions.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joesaphat
Shipmate
# 18493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by peter damian:
Aquinas:
quote:
For as the ultimate beatitude of man consists in the use of his highest function, which is the operation of his intellect; if we suppose that the created intellect could never see God, it would either never attain to beatitude, or its beatitude would consist in something else beside God; which is opposed to faith. For the ultimate perfection of the rational creature is to be found in that which is the principle of its being; since a thing is perfect so far as it attains to its principle. Further the same opinion is also against reason. For there resides in every man a natural desire to know the cause of any effect which he sees; and thence arises wonder in men. But if the intellect of the rational creature could not reach so far as to the first cause of things, the natural desire would remain void. Hence it must be absolutely granted that the blessed see the essence of God. Iª q. 12 a. 1 co.
This suggests (I may be wrong) that we our understanding can 'reach as far as God'.
That's a 'sed contra' to his own argument, I think. Aquinas famously concluded that, of God, one can only know that he is, not what he is.
--------------------
Opening my mouth and removing all doubt, online.
Posts: 418 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Aquinas is often quoted and he was obviously a very wise man, but I wonder what he would say today with the benefit of current scientific knowledge.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The same.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It is a failing of the (modern) scientific mind which suggests all things worth knowing are possible to be interrogated by the scientific method. And in that idiotic way-of-thinking, half everything is lost, and human existence is diminished.
Science simply cannot interrogate the divine, the nature of the thing is not like that - any more than it can interrogate love or dreams (the aspirational kind).
The best it can do is to suggest belief is just a collection of electrical bursts in the brain. Big deal. Houses are just a collection of stones or baked mud with a bunch of other stuff. Humans are just a collection of water and other minerals.
These are just not useful ways (in almost all circumstances) to explain a home or a human being.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
That defends the liberal arts mr cheesy, but what does it have to do with theism beyond them?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Aquinas is often quoted and he was obviously a very wise man, but I wonder what he would say today with the benefit of current scientific knowledge.
I think he would have written to reconcile Christianity with the science of the day, and at the end still have said, "Quia omnia, quæ scripsi, videntur mihi paleæ."
_______
All I have written appears to me as straw.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I vastly admire him for that. Didn't Wittgenstein echo that 700 years later?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The last stanza from his Tractatus, echoing Hamlet:
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
Yes, I agree.
What more can I say?
But it is harder than you think.
The silence.
The silence, of which you speak, is itself eloquent.
Says more,
perhaps,
than any form of words could accomplish.
Maybe that is what you meant all along.
Tell me: was it?
A step in emphasis away from Aquinas?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is a failing of the (modern) scientific mind which suggests all things worth knowing are possible to be interrogated by the scientific method. And in that idiotic way-of-thinking, half everything is lost, and human existence is diminished.
I do not know anyone who thinks in that -as you correctly call it - idiotic way. quote:
Science simply cannot interrogate the divine, the nature of the thing is not like that - any more than it can interrogate love or dreams (the aspirational kind).
It cannot as you call it 'interrogate the divine, since no observations can be made on which to base a question. It can investigate what happens in the brain when certain emotions are felt. quote:
The best it can do is to suggest belief is just a collection of electrical bursts in the brain. Big deal.
Is it not more interesting to know that than not to understand anything about the way the brain works
I was not thinking that Aquinas would reject all but modern scientific Theories and a 'don't know' for the rest and should have made it clear that I was thinking more about what might be his, an intellectual's, interpretation of miracles, the Christian belief that there should be an acceptance of such stories as the resurrection - of which there were of course many before the time of Christ. Philosophers and thinkers have hugely broadened human understanding, but beliefs about a heaven , sort of 'up there' somewhere, and a hell somewhere in the bowels of the Earth have been replaced by knowledge. A quick google shows that Aquinas said: quote:
...If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and our faith is also vain;” ..
I personally do not know any among family, friends and acquaintances who actually believe that any person has lived again after being dead for three days.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
To search for what? As soon as you indicate by your words that you are giving them a fact and not a belief, you are on very shaky ground.
To search and to find his or her own spiritual connection with the living God, the God we believe in because God does not only exist in our minds. A belief is a fact if it's true. Children and young people have the capacity for open-mindedness which helps them to accept all possibilities and to work things out for themselves. Sadly, many adults have had their minds narrowed so that possibilities have been closed off, and they may never even seek to find God for themselves.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
A quick google shows that Aquinas said: quote:
...If Christ be not risen again, then is our preaching vain, and our faith is also vain;” ..
I personally do not know any among family, friends and acquaintances who actually believe that any person has lived again after being dead for three days.
This isn't Aquinas. It's St. Paul, and Aquinas is quoting him. And I'm sorry you don't know anyone who fits that description, because I think it would be very helpful and interesting for you to be able to talk to such people in real life. I know quite a few, but we are on different continents, alas.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Raptor Eye
Thank you very much for your post. It has given mne a most interesting few hours thinking about it and drafting my response. I’m afraid it is probably too long, but hope that is okay with you and Hosts.
I would like to take the points raised a little further, if I may. Children take a while in their growing up to reach a stage when they can distinguish clearly between fact and fantasy. Part of the richness of a child’s life is their freedom to move seamlessly between the two. Having had that freedom, they can then progress to the stage where they can enjoy both, but are well aware of which is which. The result is that no adult believes in Santa Clause, the tooth Fairy(except in the Disc world of course ), leprechauns, etc. They do not waste any time searching for any of these things. Why then should children be asked to maintain a belief in god? If they search, what would be the definitive fact that would convince them of its finding?
During their childhood In their reading and their education they are almost certain to come across the myths and legends of the gods of past peoples. They will enjoy the stories probably learn how their words and language have affected modern vocabularies but will certainly not spend their lives believing that any of them were real and will fully understand that there is no spiritual connection with them. They will, however, have an appreciation and admiration for the skill and imagination of the writers one hopes.
Alongside the above, they will have picked up from multiple sources right from when they were born, and that includes the first two years
when they cannot articulate well, something about religious beliefs. In traditionally Christian countries, this will include talk ofGod. The Christians will not classify this under the same heading as all the other gods they do not believe in, let alone believe exists. Why should a child ‘search’ for some ‘spiritual connection’ with this one? Adults have the very serious burden of responsibility to make it clear that their beliefs are subjective I think.
May I end by asking whether you Wouldsay that your mind is always open to the fact that you might be wrong? Mine is always open to the one fact that might be produced one day which will change it. At that time, there would be no need to search for god, I would have a fact to observe in some way.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This isn't Aquinas. It's St. Paul, and Aquinas is quoting him. And I'm sorry you don't know anyone who fits that description, because I think it would be very helpful and interesting for you to be able to talk to such people in real life. I know quite a few, but we are on different continents, alas.
Thank youfor the correction - but I suppose Aquinas agreed with St Paul!
It is indeed, alas that we are on different continents. It would be so very interesting to meet Purg posters and have what would be I am sure a most lively discussion!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
SusanDoris, Christians have a diversity of belief. It is not necessary to believe in miracles, to be highly sceptical of various claims of supernatural intervention, and to still, amid the scepticism be willing to admit possibility that some things beyond understanding might take place.
I find in reading your responses in this thread, that you often seem to make assumptions about what Christians believe which are not things that I believe, but nor do I think are necessary to dismiss. I feel it is a caricature of belief that you are taking on, not the actual beliefs and faith people have taken on within their lives.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
To search for what? As soon as you indicate by your words that you are giving them a fact and not a belief, you are on very shaky ground.
To search and to find his or her own spiritual connection with the living God, the God we believe in because God does not only exist in our minds. A belief is a fact if it's true. Children and young people have the capacity for open-mindedness which helps them to accept all possibilities and to work things out for themselves. Sadly, many adults have had their minds narrowed so that possibilities have been closed off, and they may never even seek to find God for themselves.
If God exists apart from in our minds we don't, can't know that. Even if it's true. It's not a fact. Until we wake up dead.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Aquinas is often quoted and he was obviously a very wise man, but I wonder what he would say today with the benefit of current scientific knowledge.
Aquinas would say the same thing because current scientific knowledge has damn all to do with what Aquinas said. Up thread, you encouraged Boogie to honestly question her beliefs about God. Let me encourage you to actually do the work of understanding the arguments Aquinas actually made rather than simply learning how internet atheists refute the straw versions of them.
Shame this tangent interrupted the interesting discussion between Dafyd and Peter Damian.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hear, hear, Beeswax Altar.
quote:
Originally posted by peter damian:
Thanks Dafyd. I am still puzzled by 'beatitude'. The Latin is sometimes translated as 'happiness'. It can also mean blessedness. Does Aquinas mean that true happiness cannot be achieved in this life? And are 'the blessed' in effect only those who have died and are among the Elect?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Susan Doris
You seem to be missing the point. There is only one living God, which is why made-up gods don't last but this one does. God can and is found by those who search with an open mind. God is not a work of fiction, far from it. God is not observed as one might look at an insect under a microscope, God is connected with in spiritual relationship.
My mind remains open to all possibilities, for example that God may be found through other religions as well as through Christianity.
If education has progressed so that children are encouraged to learn by exploration and discovery, thinking for themselves rather than by being told lists of 'facts' as in the past, most of which are superseded over time, why should it ever be an issue if they are told about God. After all, if God did not exist, they would jettison the idea rather than holding on to it. There is no good reason not to tell them.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
