Arguments for God

[Jac3510]

You asked me a question in plain English so I'll answer in kind:  Nothing makes stuff.  Matter can be neither created nor destroyed.  

This is where we disagree.  You think reality makes stuff.  I don't.  
 
Your first two premises depend on reality making stuff.  This violates the laws of physics.  Your proof doesn't explain why we should suspend these laws, it just starts out with a total disregard for them and keeps going until you get to God.

And this is why I don't do "plain English," because words in "plain English" have too broad of a meaning.

You identified essence with "stuff." Remember that, for me, an essence is what-a-thing-is. A tree is a tree. A cat is a cat. So "stuff" in this case = what-a-thing-is, not the-matter-that-a-thing-is. To fall back on technical terms, you've equivocated the word "stuff" and drawn a false conclusion. If we take "stuff" in the original intention as I took it, then tell me, what makes cats and trees? Answer: other cats and other trees. Cats and trees are part of reality. So what makes cats and trees? Reality. I'm not commenting on the law of conservation of mass and energy.

These kind of "gotcha" questions are silly, Mike. They hardly constitute a serious attempt at debate.

Now, would you like to try again to identify where we disagree, since it isn't here?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It boils down to "Everything needs an explanation for its being. Since there can't be an infinite regress of being, there has to be a first cause of all being.

I'm going to come back and address this thread in more comprehensive detail later, but you have actually stated here the thing I most agree with,which is that this is what it boils down to. I don't agree with the rest, for several reasons. Firstly, what barrier can you demonstrate to an infinite regress? What you seem to be doing here is the usual misunderstanding of just what infinity actually is. It isn't endlessness, for a start. All infinity is, in rigorous terms is 'a really big number'. In its most rigorous form it's 'a number so large that we have no means to deal with it'. Until you actually pin down what infinity is, you have no good reason to make the assertion that infinity can't exist and, by corrollary, that an 'infinite regress of being' (which just sounds like navel-gazers' talk for endless existence) cannot exist.

More importantly, if you assert, as you do, that 'everything needs an explanation for its being', and then go on to cite something that doesn't as some sort of terminus, you are engaging in the fallacy of special pleading. There is no escape from this. In other words, your conclusion refutes your premise, rendering your argument not just unsound but laughably illogical.

You, sir, are the first person to actually point out a logical fallacy in the argument. I concede you are right on this point. I made an error in the presentation of my own argument. Thank you for pointing it out so that I may rephrase it properly. Let me quote the section in which the problem lies:

6. There cannot be an infinite regress of essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
7. Therefore, for any series of essentially ordered efficiently caused beings, there must be a first causal being.

This is false, because, as you note in the last paragraph above, it leads to a case of special pleading. The argument, stated this way, is because there can be no infinite regress, there must be a first cause. However, that is not the Thomistic argument, and I should have been more careful in my presentation. The argument is actually because there is a first cause, there cannot be an infinite regress. We demonstrate the FC another way, not by the impossibility of the regress.

Aquinas makes this very clear himself, saying: "If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity¸ because then there would be no first mover" (see his first way).

Allow me to quote from Richard Howe in confirmation of this point:

Several things should be noted about Thomas' arguments here. First, it is commonly thought that Thomas is using the impossibility of an infinite regress as a proof of the necessity of the first mover, cause or necessary being. But I submit to you that Thomas is actually making the converse argument. He is not saying "Since there cannot be an infinite regress, therefore there must be a first mover." Rather he is saying "Since there must be a first mover, therefore there cannot be an infinite regress."

The way we know that there is a Prime Mover is by the nature of efficient causality. In the case of essentially ordered efficient causes, there could well be an infinite number of them (for instance, a circular causal chain), but the effect itself will be nothing more than an existential zero without a Prime Mover. You can have an infinite chain of boxcars. Unless they are hooked up to an engine, they will never move. You can have the most amazing Rube Goldberg Machine in existence, and unless there is something to get it going, it will never move.

So, again, my apologies. The impossibility of an infinite regress (whatever that means) does not mean that there is PM. Rather, because there is a PM, it makes no sense to speak of an infinite regress of essentially ordered efficient causes. Note that this does not mean that there cannot be an infinite regress of accidentally ordered causes. As far as Aquinas was concerned--and he argued this forcefully--for all we know the universe has always existed. Accidental chains aren't the concern. Essentially ordered chains are.

Again, thank you for pointing out the mistake so that I could correct it.

Mostly, I object to this entire line of argumentation for stipulative, definitional reasons. The universe is literally 'that which exists'. That's what the word means. Most damningly for your argument, it also includes that which you are trying to assert as a first, uncaused cause. Since the universe is everything in existence, it isn't remotely stretching the point to state that the universe is existence, and that anything that exists, therefore, is a subset thereof, including any creator entity. This is very basic. If it exists, it's part of the universe.

This, however, is incorrect. Everything we can point to in the universe is an efficiently caused cause and does not have its being with itself. That is, everything in the universe is contingent. Nothing in the universe has its being within itself, which is the nature of the PM. Thus, if nothing in the universe has its being within itself, and the PM has its being within itself, the PM cannot be said to be "part of the universe." Morever, the cause of essentially oriented efficiently caused causes cannot fundamentally be a part of the causal chain for reasons we have already discussed in this thread. It is here that the boxcar analogy breaks down, which is fine, because eventually, all analogies break down somewhere (if they did not, they would not be analogies!).

The PM cannot, then, be a part of the contingent chain, and sense every part of the contingent chain is in the universe, the PM cannot be a part of the universe. This is expected as the universe itself is an effect. The cause of something is not the thing itself.

Finally, in the strictest sense, the PM does not exist, because the PM is not a being. It is the cause of being. If you refer back to the thread on simplicity, you will find that an extremely important point is that we can predicate nothing to the the PM and to the creature univocally, and that includes "exists." This is further evident in  (9), for in subsistent being is being in itself, then it is merely tautological to say "subsistent existence exists." Actus purus is the cause of existence, and since a cause is not its effect, then actus purus is not existence. We can say it exists, but only analogically. Your objection, then, simply fails to take into account the nature of the PM by using language invalidly to describe it.

This has a corrollary implication, which is also inescapable, namely that there cannot be a first cause of all being, because that which exists is, and any cause, in the form of a causal agent or otherwise, is necessarily existent infinitely, or was caused by something that is. In other words, you may say god, while I say universe. Your conception of an uncaused cause is predicated on the existence of mine, and contingent thereupon. What does this do for the idea of a creator of the universe? It renders it absurd, which is precisely what all conceptions of a creator are.

As the above is false, then so is this corollary.

[hackenslash]

Allow me to quote from Richard Howe in confirmation of this point:

Several things should be noted about Thomas' arguments here. First, it is commonly thought that Thomas is using the impossibility of an infinite regress as a proof of the necessity of the first mover, cause or necessary being. But I submit to you that Thomas is actually making the converse argument. He is not saying "Since there cannot be an infinite regress, therefore there must be a first mover." Rather he is saying "Since there must be a first mover, therefore there cannot be an infinite regress."

The problem is that Howe, being the complete fuckwit apologist he is, doesn't recognise that he doesn't actually confirm your point, but exposes another glaring fallacy, which constitutes another nail in the coffin of your already dead argument, in the form of circular reasoning. He even does it explicitly, in the form "Since there must be a first mover, therefore there cannot be an infinite regress", which can be stated in reductio form as 'because I know my preposterous magic man exists, nothing can precede my magic man'. Once you see this fuckwittery exposed, there is no return. frankly, while this is dressed up in the language of philosophy, that's the one thing it isn't. This is mere apologetic fabrication, and it only exposes the cerebral pretzels it is necessary to contruct to think that this sophomoric drivel is remotely in accord with reality.

Oh, and that's completely aside from the fact that, once again, you have employed infinity without addressing my objections to your usage, which is just plain wrong. Infinity is not what you think it is. Please deal with this point, as your entire argument rests upon it, and a fallacious treatment of this concept renders your argument null (which it is anyway, and you will realise that once you actually understand infinity).

The way we know that there is a Prime Mover is by the nature of efficient causality. In the case of essentially ordered efficient causes, there could well be an infinite number of them (for instance, a circular causal chain), but the effect itself will be nothing more than an existential zero without a Prime Mover. You can have an infinite chain of boxcars. Unless they are hooked up to an engine, they will never move. You can have the most amazing Rube Goldberg Machine in existence, and unless there is something to get it going, it will never move.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. What is infinity?

So, again, my apologies.

No need to apologise. If you feel, however, that apology is necessary, I will accept as apology a little rigour, rather than sophistry and navel-gazing.

The impossibility of an infinite regress (whatever that means) does not mean that there is PM.

The problem here is that you only assert the impossibility of infinite regress. You haven't actually demonstrated it. You haven't, in fact, demonstrated that you even understand what infinity is, despite my schooling you on this point already in the post you are responding to. This is important, because all of your nonsense is predicated upon the impossibility of something you clearly have no understanding of. This is a bit of a problem and, until it is addressed, your contribution to this thread can constitute no more than blind, half-arsed assertions.

Rather, because there is a PM, it makes no sense to speak of an infinite regress of essentially ordered efficient causes.

And circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reas...

You get the picture.

Note that this does not mean that there cannot be an infinite regress of accidentally ordered causes.

Note that this does not mean that you have demonstrated an understanding of infinity, which has a precise meaning, and one that does not remotely reflect your usage here, nor that of the world-class fuckwit Kalamity Craig.

As far as Aquinas was concerned--and he argued this forcefully--for all we know the universe has always existed.

And Aquinas was on to something here, for a change.

This, however, is incorrect. Everything we can point to in the universe is an efficiently caused cause and does not have its being with itself.

This amounts to no more than premise one of the Kalam fallacy. This is C- navel-gazing at best. I can point to entities in the universe for which we can point to no cause, and that's completely aside from the fallacy of comosition you are committing in asserting that that which applies within the cosmos (not universe) applies to the cosmos itself. When we take that to the broadert scope of the universe, your argument is rendered even more ridiculous. Seruiously, a five-year-old could debunk this guff.

That is, everything in the universe is contingent.

Can you provide critically robust evidence for that assertion? Can you even provide critically robust evidence that you understand just what comprises 'the universe'?

Nothing in the universe has its being within itself, which is the nature of the PM. Thus, if nothing in the universe has its being within itself, and the PM has its being within itself, the PM cannot be said to be "part of the universe."

Utter nonsense. That the universe is EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS is definitional and stipulative. There is no escape from this, because it's what the word means. Pleas try to absorb this simple fact, because it's the source of much of your malfunction in this regard.

Morever, the cause of essentially oriented efficiently caused causes cannot fundamentally be a part of the causal chain for reasons we have already discussed in this thread. It is here that the boxcar analogy breaks down, which is fine, because eventually, all analogies break down somewhere (if they did not, they would not be analogies!).

This is sophomoric in its complete lack of rigour. If a causes b to happen, a is part of the causal chain of b. Frankly, however you look at this statement, whether from the perspective of linguistics, logic or whatever, it is clearly nonsense. Frankly, I am going to have real difficulty taking your word-salad seriously after such a howling cock-up. You have much ground to make up after this absolutely ludicrous statement.

The PM cannot, then, be a part of the contingent chain, and sense every part of the contingent chain is in the universe, the PM cannot be a part of the universe. This is expected as the universe itself is an effect. The cause of something is not the thing itself.

More ignorant apologetic fuckwittery. When b is contingent upon a, a is part of the chain of contingency. There is a causal or contingent relationship. I am very close to dismissing you, as you have said very little that makes any sense, and much that is utter bloody nonsense. The universe is that which is, whether it has material existence or not. In that regard, the universe requires no cause, because it is simply a brute fact. Has your first semester in your class on apologetic shanghai-ing of logic covered brute facts yet?

Logic: You're doing it wrong.

Finally, in the strictest sense, the PM does not exist, because the PM is not a being. It is the cause of being. If you refer back to the thread on simplicity, you will find that an extremely important point is that we can predicate nothing to the the PM and to the creature univocally, and that includes "exists." This is further evident in  (9), for in subsistent being is being in itself, then it is merely tautological to say "subsistent existence exists." Actus purus is the cause of existence, and since a cause is not its effect, then actus purus is not existence. We can say it exists, but only analogically. Your objection, then, simply fails to take into account the nature of the PM by using language invalidly to describe it.

This is pure apologetic evasion, and it doesn't wash. That which exists is being. Existence can have no cause, because anything causal must exist.

You're still doing it wrong.

As the above is false, then so is this corollary.

Except, of course, that the above is not false, as demonstrated by your frankly kindergarten attempt to debunk it with apologetic hand-waving.

Sorry if you weren't warned about me. I don't take prisoners, and I don't respect ignorance and poor-thinking.

[humblesmurph]

You asked me a question in plain English so I'll answer in kind:  Nothing makes stuff.  Matter can be neither created nor destroyed.  

This is where we disagree.  You think reality makes stuff.  I don't.  
 
Your first two premises depend on reality making stuff.  This violates the laws of physics.  Your proof doesn't explain why we should suspend these laws, it just starts out with a total disregard for them and keeps going until you get to God.

And this is why I don't do "plain English," because words in "plain English" have too broad of a meaning.

You identified essence with "stuff." Remember that, for me, an essence is what-a-thing-is. A tree is a tree. A cat is a cat. So "stuff" in this case = what-a-thing-is, not the-matter-that-a-thing-is. To fall back on technical terms, you've equivocated the word "stuff" and drawn a false conclusion. If we take "stuff" in the original intention as I took it, then tell me, what makes cats and trees? Answer: other cats and other trees. Cats and trees are part of reality. So what makes cats and trees? Reality. I'm not commenting on the law of conservation of mass and energy.

These kind of "gotcha" questions are silly, Mike. They hardly constitute a serious attempt at debate.

Now, would you like to try again to identify where we disagree, since it isn't here?

I've read your blog, you use plain English well, actually.  Back on point.  

You agreed that essence is stuff, and reality creates it.  Are retracting you that?  If you made a mistake just say so. Otherwise what I have been able to piece together is:

Essence is stuff.  Reality creates this stuff.  This stuff is a necessary component of physical things. When referring to this stuff Chris is not commenting on the law of conservation of mass and energy. So......In Plain English:

Essence is non-physical stuff that affects the physical world.  You use essences in your initial premises for a proof of God.  You are operating under the assumption that there actually is non-physical stuff that affects the physical world before you get into proving anything.  No. You can't do that and call what you have done a proof.

[Sophus]

That's fair enough. I frankly don't see what is so hard in the idea that "from nothing, nothing comes." It's strictly a logical point. But if I tell a student that if A is great than B is great than C, then therefore A is greater than C necessarily, and they say "for me, this is unknown, so I don't draw a conclusion either way," there's not much else I can say on the matter is there? I can just give examples until the cows come home, and that's about it. To use but one, if we see empty space suddenly produce a particle, does that mean nothing produce it? Of course not. There could be something in the fabric of space-time that created the particle. We don't know what it is. Whatever it is, though, must be an "it," because nothing is not an "it" to produce anything. If it were, then it wouldn't be nothing.

Pure nothing has never existed, or - erm... not existed, or ... you know what I mean.    Because you're right, it's not an 'it'. Since we may not be ever to observe pure nothing (then again maybe Krauss is right), perhaps we're not in a position to presume its nature, however odd and logic defying it would seem. On the other hand, if, as I think is more likely, something has always existed, I see no reason why that something would need to be a deity.

I can try. Imagine a lamp that has existed eternally. It has always been off. It is a timeless lamp, plugged into a timeless wall complete with timeless electricity. Now, would this lamp ever turn on? No. It couldn't. Even though it meets all the necessary conditions for producing life, those conditions aren't sufficient to produce light because the switch is off. To say, "someone could turn it on" implies a change in the lamp, which implies that it is not timeless after all, because to go from a state of off to on is the definition of a temporal change. It was this, now it is that. The same may be true if it were on. It would have forever met the sufficient conditions to be "on." It could never be "off" for the same reasons.

The FC (or PM, or SE, or whatever you want to call it) works the same way. It has always been "on." It has always been "in act." There is no potential to change. It is just doing what it does. It always has been. It always will be. And even those terms are misleading, because "always has been" and "always will be" are still temporal. It just is in act. It's act is to be. Every being in this universe derives its act from that be-ing.

So time and matter do or do not go hand in hand with your theory?

Not "why" and "how," but "what is it" and "what does it do." You can give a scientific and a philosophical definition of an eye. A scientific definition will talk about its structure and relation to the rest of the body. Based on that, we can make predictions about what it will do when confronted with various elements (the iris will contract when there is more light). A philosophical definition makes no such predictions. It takes what we observe about the eye and forms them into a working discussion about its nature. What is a thing? A man, for instance, is a rational animal.

Far from discarding evidence, we use it at every step of the way. In my proof, every even statement is a statement about reality that is either true or false. If the evidence is against it, then it is false. For instance, consider only the first, that being is an accidental feature of efficiently caused causes. By all indications, especially logic, that is true. But if you can show me an efficiently caused cause in which being is its very nature, then the argument stands refuted.

Well, as you said yourself, everything is an act of being, so I'm a little confused by this.

I didn't say don't use logic. I said don't confuse logic with philosophy. The first deals with the order of reason. The second deals with the nature of things. Let me give you a practical example.

Consider the word "man." This word applies to every human being alive (and dead), and yet "man" is not found in any one of them. When you look at me, you don't see "man." You see a man. So the question is how the universal definition can be applied to things. That, by the way, was really what the entire enterprise of Medieval philosophy was about. But I digress. Let's follow Abailard, the great logician, and see what happened to him as he tackled this philosophical question using only logic.

First, what is a universal? Abailard answers rightly that it is that which can be predicated to several individual things taken one by one, as in the word "man." "Socrates," though, is not a universal, because it only applies to one man. Next, what is the nature of that which may be predicated to many (that is, what is the nature of the universal)? Is it a thing? This is a philosophical question, but Abailard didn't know philosophy. He knew logic, so he answered it as only a logician would (or, as a logician only would). Abailard then argued that universals could not be things, because if "manness" (to use his example) were present in both Socrates and Plato, then neither Socrates nor Plato could be said to have all of the thing, for if "man" was a thing, then if it were totally in Socrates, it would not be in Plato, and vice-versa. Yet we even more cannot say that Plato and Socrates were only partly men. It clearly, then, could not be a thing.Now, for a logician, there is only one necessary conclusion that must be followed. If a universal is not a thing, then because that which is not a thing is nothing, then universals are actually nothing. Consequently, there is nothing in reality to answer our general ideas. In other words, the word "man" really doesn't mean anything! This is good logic, but bad philosophy. The problem he painted for himself by confusing logic with philosophy was that, for him, universals had no reference to reality, and therefore, they could have no meaning. He died unable to answer that question (actually, he did offer an answer, but it is deeply circular and he would have been better not offering it at all). He is yet another example of a person who ended up in absolute skepticism because he mistook his own discipline for philosophy. If only modern "philosopher" would understand that error, we could get on with letting things like science do its real work unimpeded. Alas, until that happens, everyone loses.

Logic, then, is concerned with how we ought to think. Questions like whether or not being is an accidental or essential property, though they rely heavily on logic, are not essential questions of logic. They are questions of philosophy. If, then, the philosophical statements are true, then the conclusions must be true.

If, then, you wish to disagree with the conclusion of the argument I presented, you either have to disagree with one of the premises, as HS has done (and I will respond to tomorrow), or you have to write of the logic as being invalid. Ignoring it as insufficient doesn't make your problem go away.

Premises are part of the problem.

Are you familiar with the story of Alfred Wagner? His  super continent (Pangaea) theory was beautiful even in his day. Good amount of evidence. Excellent observations and reasoning made from those. Yet it wasn't accepted because he couldn't explain how this happened.

Your theory is almost this in reverse. You are attempting to explain the how but without strong or sufficient evidence for a Prime Mover whom can be identified as, not only a deity, but Yahweh.

[deekayfry]

Why does it take a list of 21 points to prove a God?
Why is the list a mix of academic sounding words convoluted with logical lexicons that are hard to discern?
Why do we need to argue the fine points of the meaning of words, then resort to defining one perspective or connotation of the word?

The content of this topic is great stuff, but the shear volume of information is mind numbing.
Couldn't somebody just call God up and have her over for a cup of coffee?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Goddamn, this is exactly why I hate philosophy.

[NothingSacred]

Why does it take a list of 21 points to prove a God?
Why is the list a mix of academic sounding words convoluted with logical lexicons that are hard to discern?
Why do we need to argue the fine points of the meaning of words, then resort to defining one perspective or connotation of the word?

The content of this topic is great stuff, but the shear volume of information is mind numbing.
Couldn't somebody just call God up and have her over for a cup of coffee?

Well right, If it takes this much to prove god then why introduce the concept to children and the uneducated? Clearly they wouldnt be able to grasp the concept. If this is the type of discussion needed to convey the point.

[The Magic Pudding]

Why does it take a list of 21 points to prove a God?

It seems like a game to me.
An encounter as likely to resolve the god question as a football game.
I don't want to spoil any ones game, so I will avoid engaging the players directly.
I will try to limit myself to sniggering from the sideline.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why does it take a list of 21 points to prove a God?

It seems like a game to me.
An encounter as likely to resolve the god question as a football game.
I don't want to spoil any ones game, so I will avoid engaging the players directly.
I will try to limit myself to sniggering from the sideline.

I'll bring the beer, if you have the popcorn.

[hackenslash]

Goddamn, this is exactly why I hate philosophy.

This isn't philosophy, it's apologetics. It's dressed up in the language of philosophy, but bears about as much resemblance to the love of knowledge as Scarlet Johansson does to a bear's arse. This is the pseudo-intellectual arse-gravy that Kalamity Craig is so fond of, because it makes him look intelligent, when in actual fact he's a moron with a vocabulary, and couldn't reason his way out of a wet paper bag. Anybody who genuinely thinks that the umbilicus is a source of information about reality has completely missed the point of philosophy. Philosophy is a tool for teaching one how to think. As soon as you allow it to tell you what to think, you're doing it wrong.

My other objection to this kind of guff is my love of the language, and my utter disdain for these vacuous attempts to subvert it with nebulous definitions such as the above one concerning 'perfection', which the poster describes as a 'technical term' and then completely avoids giving any kind of robust definition, which is a clear sign that the poster is setting up the apologetic bait and switch. It looks all reasonable at first glance, but when you've seen this guff enough times, you begin to recognise it off the bat.

[humblesmurph]

jac3510,

You have presented a complicated argument with fancy words, special definitions, and 21 steps.  Obviously,  we understand  that nobody is going to change their mind on God as a result of these 21 steps. I hoped to pin down exactly where we disagree, and leave it at that. You took the time to post a 21 step argument with  22 minutes of audio commentary, I thought it considerate to tell you why I personally reject it.  Your reply is that I reject it because I don't understand it.  I'm obviously not experienced in philosophy or apologetics, but I do believe I get it. These 21 steps are dependent on an assumption of the correctness of Aristotelian Forms (which I reject), and an assumption that infinite regress is impossible (which many others reject).  That's not to suggest that you are wrong, just that these are assumptions.  I don't know how you could go about proving that these assumptions are correct.  It would seem such an exercise would require at least two additional threads, maybe more.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Goddamn, this is exactly why I hate philosophy.

This isn't philosophy, it's apologetics. It's dressed up in the language of philosophy, but bears about as much resemblance to the love of knowledge as Scarlet Johansson does to a bear's arse. This is the pseudo-intellectual arse-gravy that Kalamity Craig is so fond of, because it makes him look intelligent, when in actual fact he's a moron with a vocabulary, and couldn't reason his way out of a wet paper bag. Anybody who genuinely thinks that the umbilicus is a source of information about reality has completely missed the point of philosophy. Philosophy is a tool for teaching one how to think. As soon as you allow it to tell you what to think, you're doing it wrong.

My other objection to this kind of guff is my love of the language, and my utter disdain for these vacuous attempts to subvert it with nebulous definitions such as the above one concerning 'perfection', which the poster describes as a 'technical term' and then completely avoids giving any kind of robust definition, which is a clear sign that the poster is setting up the apologetic bait and switch. It looks all reasonable at first glance, but when you've seen this guff enough times, you begin to recognise it off the bat.

I'll take your word for it.  From my perspective, it's word-salad, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Also, it wasn't philosophy that taught me how to think.  It was the unforgiving real world, thanks.

[The Magic Pudding]

I'll take your word for it.  From my perspective, it's word-salad, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Also, it wasn't philosophy that taught me how to think.  It was the unforgiving real world, thanks.

I don't think these desperate attempts to save god should paint all philosophy as ineffectual.
There are philosophers that make sense.  
Peter Singer makes sense to me, he expresses his ideas clearly, you can agree or not.
He doesn't say this is difficult, insinuating you're a dolt for not comprehending the incomprehensible.

[hackenslash]

I'll take your word for it.  From my perspective, it's word-salad, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Exactly my point. Philosophy is useful, this isn't, which is precisely why I said it wasn't philosophy but apologetics.

Also, it wasn't philosophy that taught me how to think.  It was the unforgiving real world, thanks.

Indeed, and I didn't suggest that philosophy was the only tool for teaching one how to think, just one tool, and a well-developed one with that specific purpose. Having said that, any thinking you did in your appraisal of the 'unforgiving real world' constituted philosophy, in one form or another. Empiricism is philosophy, but a particular school of philosophy that values measuring premises against reality, rather than taking them as axiomatic simply by assertion, as much philosophy does. When you measure against the real world, you are engaging in a particular school of philosophy, whether you recognise it as such or not.

[The Magic Pudding]

When you measure against the real world, you are engaging in a particular school of philosophy, whether you recognise it as such or not.

History is long, has some one suggested searching for conclusions in a vacuum is vacuous?