UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote: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.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Which concepts of god/God?
quote: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).
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote:A good argument, well reasoned and 'won' by the person arguing proves nothing at all.
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).
quote:Not all arguments are proofs. But those that are, and are successful, demonstrate what they propose. That's why they are called proofs.
Originally posted by Boogie:
A good argument, well reasoned and 'won' by the person arguing proves nothing at all.
quote: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?
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.
quote:I believe the scientists. I don't believe the theologians.
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?
quote:OK. But would you potentially be prepared to believe the metaphysicists?
Originally posted by Boogie:
I believe the scientists. I don't believe the theologians.
quote: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.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:OK. But would you potentially be prepared to believe the metaphysicists?
Originally posted by Boogie:
I believe the scientists. I don't believe the theologians.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
]quote:Thanks, Yes. The WSJ declined to publish a rebuttal Letter to the editor which was then published by Richard Dawkins.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
Palimpsest, is this the WSJ article you're referring to:
WSJ article
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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?
quote:Yes but isn't that one full of massive holes?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Macrina:
Say you believe in God and want to prove his existence, ....
quote: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.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Macrina:
Say you believe in God and want to prove his existence, ....
Who needs faith and belief when you have proof?
quote:Yes, indeed. My faith is almost anti-intellectual at a basic level because I believe something that I know is unprovable.
Originally posted by Macrina:
quote: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.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Macrina:
Say you believe in God and want to prove his existence, ....
Who needs faith and belief when you have proof?
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by JoannaP:
My faith is almost anti-intellectual at a basic level because I believe something that I know is unprovable.
quote: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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Macrina:
Yes but isn't that one full of massive holes?
quote: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.”'
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:I'm sorry, where did I say that God is a "fundamental entity in this world"?
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote:Metaphysics is the philosophical study of the first (fundamental) principles of being.
Originally posted by Jamat:
Just interested to see if you have a clearer definition of what is meant by the term 'metaphysical'?
quote: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.
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)
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote:Yes, you have it in a nutshell.
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.
quote: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..."
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?
![[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.quote: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).
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 .
quote: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.
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?)
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Thus you stand with Mr Lewis against St Paul in scripture.
quote: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.
Anyhow, while it is somewhat mysterious why you would consider Mr Lewis an authority, or how you know that he is a saint,
quote: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.
you are presumably aware that an argument from authority at most can establish probability, not truth.
quote: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.
You may believe in the revelation according to Mr Lewis
quote: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.
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:It obviously would help if you could offer an alternative interpretation of what St Paul is saying there.
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.
quote: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".
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Find someone else to play your little game. And that's what it is. A game.
quote: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?
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.
quote:Yes, because one of us sees every discussion as an argument, and one of us doesn't. As I said.
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.
quote:I did not castigate you for telling us a factoid about yourself.
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes, because one of us sees every discussion as an argument, and one of us doesn't. As I said.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Oh, and if fashion determines what is true, as you allude, then God help us all.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Here, in the very paragraph of yours that I quoted in my post:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I'm sorry, where did I say that God is a "fundamental entity in this world"?
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?
quote:Unless you are now claiming that this fundamental entity isn't God.
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.
quote:Amazing what you read into me comparing myself to a dog needing to follow a stereotypical routine. It was intended as self-deprecating...
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.
quote:Obviously. Faith itself is a limit to the intellect.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is there a limit to the intellect for you with faith?
quote: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...
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Unless you are now claiming that this fundamental entity isn't God. Care to apologise?
quote: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.
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.
quote:It is the latter, though having acquired faith the former might be sufficient for me now, if push comes to shove.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Amazing what you read into me comparing myself to a dog needing to follow a stereotypical routine. It was intended as self-deprecating...
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.
quote:Not seen evidence of "lazy contemplative' in posts of your's. If you have these habits of personality, not seen within these forums.
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...
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote: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...
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote:Beauty and truth may unite as one in God, but for us in this world they are not quite the same. Neither was your true experience "true", except perhaps in the sense that you are not lying about it - but rather it was moving, remarkable, unique, unforgettable or whatever else you may wish to say about it.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
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?
quote:Not really. I consider myself to be a topic most boring, and I'm always disappointed when I am urged to discuss myself. Furthermore, I have no real idea what all this has to do with the existence of God. Yes, I am sure that one can find God in beauty. Some see God shining through nature, personally I prefer the poetry of Rumi and gilded icons in candle light. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and one man's beauty of God is the other man's kitsch from Walmart. Beauty moves, but it does not prove.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
-your prior question as to why we're discussing the issue of approach is perhaps more plain from my response?
quote:It sure does.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Nor does reason.
quote:I don't think that one encounters meaning like one encounters for example a tree. But yeah, sure. We encounter everything within our lived experience. How else would we encounter it?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Where do you place phenomenology? Because it is within our lived experience we encounter meaning. Not true?
quote:Of course there is an actual reality. If you have any doubts about that then I invite you to attempt to walk through the nearest wall. Come back to us once you have bloodied your nose sufficiently to accept its actuality. The framework of reason is not "empirical", or at least it is certainly not exclusively "empirical". That's the conceit of scientism. However, nobody has claimed that the domain of reason is identical with reality. Indeed, reality is "more" than the mind. Once more, truth is the correspondence of concept to reality. It is a measure to what extent what is in the mind matches what is actual. Yet if we say that a map is accurate, we do not mean that the map is identical with the landscape. Likewise, when we say that reason has found truth, we do not mean that our mind has become identical with reality, just that our concepts accurately capture what is in fact the case.
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
The thing is, there is no "actual reality". Reason only explains things, or proves them, within the empirical framework that accepts them. Reality is more than that.
quote:And there's also the question of how we recognize reason when we see it. You may say that you are following reason in reaching the conclusions you do, and I may say that I am following reason, and yet we may come up with different or even opposite conclusions. What counts as "reason" can differ (even if we take into account that some ways of reasoning have become unfashionable, as IngoB posits). Aristotle is not a god, and his Rhetoric is not holy writ.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Reason has its own conceit.
quote:You came pretty close to it when we discussed Feser and the Cosmological Argument in Purg some time ago. I said that the map is not the territory and you said something along the lines that in the case of metaphysical proofs, the map actually is the territory. I don't recall how you supported the assertion, though.
IngoB:
However, nobody has claimed that the domain of reason is identical with reality
quote:I'm not sure that you know what "having a conceit" means, for I can make no sense of your claim here.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Reason has its own conceit. Experience and emotion for starters, but also appetite, spirit, intuition and faith.
quote:Rather, I have assigned reason its proper place, where it carries out the functions proper to it. Not over and against other human "characteristic", if that is what you meant above. For example, there is no denial of the importance of the senses in this. Indeed, one of the most famous Scholastic maxims is "There is nothing in the mind which was not first in the senses." But reason has a "job" to do, and like emotions and the liver, in healthy human beings it does so.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Reason in your descriptions IngoB has seperated and outdistanced the other human characteristics.
quote:You seem to be incapable of making your points without discussing me, or more precisely, without attributing some fault to me. Why is that so? When I'm saying that I'm "lazy contemplative", then I mean that my main religious practice is contemplative, and that I'm lazy about it (I don't do as much as I think I should). I'm not sure how this speaks to the topic at hand, aside from rhetorical armchair psychology, but here's the key point: fundamentally, this is none of your fucking business. OK?
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
A degree of imbalance extreme enough these other characeristics are indeed denigrated to marginal respectability. Which makes me understand 'lazy contemplation' as also filtered through your reason. Which contemplation doesn't require.
quote:That's correct. And the reason is that one of us is wrong, for example by employing false premises, using faulty logic, ignoring domains of applicability, confusing language, etc. The reason is not that there are somehow two valid contradictory answers in cases where reason claims that it can demonstrate things. Of course, there are lots of problems that do not allow a full demonstration towards a truth, like for example the question "What is the best economic system?" Here one can at best distinguish "reasonable" from "unreasonable", rather than "right" from "wrong". That basically means that reason can only provide probabilities there, not binary truth values. It does not follow though that reason can never do the the latter. (That in itself is a philosophical claim, which one would have to reason - leading to problems of circularity.)
Originally posted by mousethief:
And there's also the question of how we recognize reason when we see it. You may say that you are following reason in reaching the conclusions you do, and I may say that I am following reason, and yet we may come up with different or even opposite conclusions.
quote:What counts as "reasonable" certainly will change with time and place, since it is a kind of probability estimate by whatever is the local state of knowledge. However, the kind of proof we are talking about here is not of this kind. It is more similar to a proof in mathematics. A demonstration claims to be truly "true", not just "likely". A demonstration can only fail in its premises or its logic, and in order to arrive at a truth, it assumes that its premises are fundamental truths about the world that one cannot deny. Consequently, to attack such a demonstration, just must attack either its logic or its premises. It will not do to simply say "but it could be otherwise". No, it could not, unless you show an error. When I say that modern academic philosophy misunderstand the classical cosmological proof to the point of dismissing it airily, I'm actually attributing a fault to these philosophers. They are making a genuine mistake there, they are not merely operating a different concept of "reasonable" likelihood on some other knowledge. The reason why they make such mistakes has, I claim, to do with "intellectual fashions", which may make some of these old philosophy look "arcane" or "outdated". But this says nothing about the truth content of the proof, it is basically a sociological claim about the academe.
Originally posted by mousethief:
What counts as "reason" can differ (even if we take into account that some ways of reasoning have become unfashionable, as IngoB posits). Aristotle is not a god, and his Rhetoric is not holy writ.
quote:I'm sorry, but I don't trust your paraphrase of my thought, in particular as ripped out of the context of a different discussion. You will have to quote and link, or start afresh.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
You came pretty close to it when we discussed Feser and the Cosmological Argument in Purg some time ago. I said that the map is not the territory and you said something along the lines that in the case of metaphysical proofs, the map actually is the territory. I don't recall how you supported the assertion, though.
quote:And your proof for this claim is what? Or is this is simple assertion without foundation in argument from first principles?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Proofs work in mathematics. There is no proof anywhere else. There is conjecture, there is probability. But no proof.
quote:Asserting random shit without bothering to explain what one means, never mind supporting it by argument, clearly is the new black.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
The concept of proof is actually more problematic than one might think even in mathematics.
quote:Nor is it a game of proof, or there would only be one philosophy.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Philosophy is not a game of probability.
quote:Absolutely. Where your proof ends up depends entirely on what postulates you accept. And you can't prove postulates. You can either accept them or not. Is the the continuum hypothesis true? It is in ZF+choice; it is not in ZF without choice. Is the sum of the interior angles of a triangle equal to 180°? It is if you accept the parallel postulate; it is not if you don't.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
The concept of proof is actually more problematic than one might think even in mathematics.
quote:To say whether there is any "proof" in the (modern) "hard sciences" would require further careful distinctions. In the full sense of the word, probably not...
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nor is it a game of proof, or there would only be one philosophy. Do you have any examples of somewhere outside of math and hard sciences where "proof" means anything real and uniformly accepted?
quote:The statement perhaps has a typo? You meant to say "I'm not sure that I know what "having a conceit" means". Because you don't mean to denigrate or insult do you?
IngoB
I'm not sure that you know what "having a conceit" means, for I can make no sense of your claim here.
quote:The thing is, "proof" is defined within these areas to enable discussion and debate, and these "proofs" are based on an accepted starting point, the ontology of that discipline.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Nor is it a game of proof, or there would only be one philosophy.
Originally posted by IngoB:
Philosophy is not a game of probability.
Do you have any examples of somewhere outside of math and hard sciences where "proof" means anything real and uniformly accepted?
quote:No, I really did mean that the way you were using this idiom made no particular sense to me. If you feel denigrated or insulted by this, then I will have to live with the shame of it all...
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The statement perhaps has a typo? You meant to say "I'm not sure that I know what "having a conceit" means". Because you don't mean to denigrate or insult do you?
quote:Well, if you were just repeating Mr Saul's words, then I do not understand him, I guess. As far as your present explanation goes: It is trivial that reason provides rational ways of understanding. It is not trivial that it is rational to assume an atheistic perspective, that requires argument. Your final sentence, I'm afraid to say, does not provide such argument and is rather mysterious.
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The phrase is John Raulston Saul's (Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West). What is meant is that reason can provide perfectly rational ways of understanding things and for action, such that it is rational to assume an atheistic perspective and govern perception and conduct appropriately. Reason being a method, not an conclusion.
quote:Some of what you say here just echoes what everybody else, including yours truly, has said. But I'm mildly curious about all these many other areas where demonstrations of truth are readily available, if one only specifies one's "ontological position". Care to give some examples?
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
f you wish to argue for "proof", you have to clarify what you starting point is. You can have proofs in all sorts of other areas, as long as you clarify your core ontological position upon which you are defining "proof". But this definition and concept is not transferable to other areas. And this is not just "random shit". This is from my PhD research methods course, which was helping us to understand what these concepts mean in academic areas, rather than just colloquially.
quote:It's rather inconvenient when one doesn't remember such details, isn't it? After all, what can anybody say about this now other than "thanks for sharing"?
Originally posted by Carex:
I don't remember the details, but I think it rested on at least 6 assumptions that I didn't share. For those who did share those assumptions, of course, it probably seemed like a solid proof.
quote:Sorry, just how did we get from you disagreeing with some proof of the existence of God - about which you furthermore remember basically nothing - to this general statement about all proofs of God? This seems to have the following logical structure: "I once met a Frenchman that I found disagreeable, though I don't really remember why. Therefore all French people are disagreeable and one would do well to avoid them."
Originally posted by Carex:
So just because may be "proofs of the existence of God" doesn't mean that they are binding on everyone. Those who already believe in God may find them convincing, but those who don't will see them more as wishful sophistries.