Happy Atheist Forum

Having laid the groundwork for theistic proofs in the thread on divine simplicity, I want to devote this one to actual proofs of God's existence. There are a very great number of them, but rather than discuss each one in a different thread, I think we can put them all here for ease of reference. I'll come back and add this this frequently by editing this original post and adding proofs here. Discussion about them can ensue throughout the thread proper. I'll kind of look at this as an ongoing project . . .With that said, I'm sure even this opening paragraph will be edited and refined later, so for now, I'll just start by posting a modification and extension of Aquinas' second way. The argument is rather long and much of it will need explaining as it makes heavy use of technical terminology, but I hope it is clear enough to be followed. I will say this is far more difficult than many of the popular arguments for God (i.e., the Kalaam), but the popular arguments are popular precisely because they are easier. This, though, I believe, is more robust and leads to a firmer conclusion on the nature of the God whom we are trying to prove.

An Argument from Subsistent Existence
EDIT: Audio commentary on this argument available HERE (http://www.anywhereenterprises.com:80/1/1/a?a=dF&p=Y5ipQZERZY5idQXOAApQZOAApQZsOW)

1.   Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2.   All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3.   Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.
4.   Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.
5.   Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent.
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.
8.   A first causal being cannot receive its being from outside itself.
9.   Therefore, there must be a being which does not receive its being through efficient causality, but for which being is its essence. Being which exists in itself is called subsistent existence.
10.   A first causal being is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
11.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
12.   All non-subsistent being is part of an essentially ordered efficiently causal chain of being.
13.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all things.
14.   All perfections must have an efficient cause.
15.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all perfections.
16.   The effect of any efficient cause pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause.
17.   Therefore, perfections exist virtually in subsistent existence.
18.   A perfection is obtained in being.
19.   Therefore, all perfections obtain in subsistent existence.
20.   A being which obtains all perfections is, by definition, God.
21.   Therefore, God exists.

The definition of a few key terms are in order here:

Accident - an aspect of a thing that can change without changing what the thing fundamentally is; i.e., hair color, height, weight, number of limbs, etc.
Efficient cause - That which brings something about
Essence - the quiddity or "whatness" of a thing. That is, what a thing essentially is regardless of accidental properties.
Efficient order - as opposed to accidental order, not used here. An efficiently ordered causal chain is one in which all of the things in the chain are linked by their nature rather than simply an accidental relation; i.e., my shoulders move my arms which move my hands which move the golf club. If any part of this chain is broken, everything after it ceases to be. An example of an accidentally ordered chain would be a man, his child, and grandchild. The man is related to his grandchild only accidentally. If he ceases to exist, the grandchild does not (although if he never existed, the grandchild would not, which is why the chain, though accidentally related, is still a chain of efficient cause).
First Cause - That which stands at the head of a causal chain. Though normally used of the first being in a temporal chain of events, here, it refers to the being that stands starts and sustains an efficiently ordered causal chain; i.e., a train engine at the head of a string of boxcars. "First" does not refer to temporality so much as it does priority.
Subsistent being - Being that has its own nature essentially rather than accidentally.
Perfection - For our purposes, a non-limiting predicate corresponding to potency in its subject; i.e., sight (in eyes), knowledge (in minds), power (in beings), etc. Predicates like "tall" are not perfections as they are actually expressions of limitations (we are "tall" only in that our being is limited to a certain dimensional extension).

Beyond that, several of the premises above will need defending to demonstrate their soundness, which I will offer as requested. I look forward to your thoughts.

And there was me wondering what I was going to do this weekend  

You know, I think you are the first person to actually attempt something like this on this forum rather than talk about it. I DO hope I remember to return to this thread when I have some time to reply and question a few points of logic.

Quote from: "Tank"And there was me wondering what I was going to do this weekend  ;)

Quote from: "Asmodean"You know, I think you are the first person to actually attempt something like this on this forum rather than talk about it. I DO hope I remember to return to this thread when I have some time to reply and question a few points of logic.

It was time I finally got around to it. As HS said (I think it was HS), the peanut gallery was rumbling . . . I'm very tempted to go back and to a commentary on the argument now. (1), (2), and each of the even numbers after that provide the main assertions that give the argument its truth value. All the odd numbers are tentative conclusions which I expect no argument unless there is a challenge to the actual validity. In other words, after (1), I tried to make sure to include absolutely no new information in the odd statements, just logical extrapolations of the even statements.

With that said, I'll wait a bit. I'm sure this thread will be a fun one for awhile out since I'll be pretty frequently updating it with popular and not-so-popular arguments after this fashion. Most will, by their nature, be simpler than this one. That should be, I think, to everyone's benefit.

WEEEEEEEEE!!!  Thanks Jac.   I have a few simple minded questions before you are bombarded by the big brains.  You lost me at 10.

Isn't it possible that this first mover no longer exists?  Without my grandfather, I wouldn't be here, but he's dead now.

Perfection exists as an idea. It hasn't been observed in nature.  A thing that exists and has properties could have had any infinite combination of properties, but isn't it possible that none of those combinations are identical to perfection? Isn't question begging to assume perfection as a possible attribute of a thing that actually exists?

As far as I can understand this what you're saying is that when we go back in time we arrive at the first cause, and this cause must be uncaused.

But nothing can exist without a cause except for God, therefore God exists.

It's sort of the old ontological/cosmological argument, and it relies on a great deal of assumptions. But I admit that, being largely self-educated, there are great gaps in my learning so perhaps I've got this all wrong.

You're sure working hard on this, I'll give you that. But aren't you just going out of your way to legitimize an imaginary idea or concept that primitive human beings fabricated because they had no real understanding of the universe, so they made up an anthropomorphized super-being to explain natural occurances?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"WEEEEEEEEE!!! :)

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Perfection exists as an idea. It hasn't been observed in nature.  A thing that exists and has properties could have had any infinite combination of properties, but isn't it possible that none of those combinations are identical to perfection? Isn't question begging to assume perfection as a possible attribute of a thing that actually exists?

Quote from: "Jac3510""Perfecton" is a technical term. It doesn't mean "without fault." It is a predicate--it is that which can be predicated to something without limit. Notice I used the plural--perfections. Thus, I'm not just saying that God is "perfect." I'm saying that He necessarily has all perfections--knowledge, goodness, personhood, power, justice, etc.

I hope that helps

Thanks for the homework.  I'll read the paper shortly.  As for the bit I quoted here, no it doesn't quite help.  I was unclear, I didn't mean to suggest that you were saying that God was perfect, just that it contains perfections.  This is the help I need:

Prove that a single perfection exists.

Prove that all perfections exist (show that it could not be the case that perfect goodness exists but not perfect power).

Prove these perfections exist in a single being.

Prove this being is identical to the first mover.

edit: I removed an unnecessary smart ass comment.

I'll get in on this.

Before getting into the nitty gritty, I think I can stop you at the first one. Existence comes, indeed, before essence but virtually everything has essence (or your definition of it).

You never proved that perfection is a real thing that exists or that we should expect must exist.

Furthermore, may we fairly replace being with entity? If so, then I think I can agree (to a degree) with numbers 10 and 11:

A first causal being is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding the concept but it seems we can point to the Atom for this, right? If you change the number of electrons, neutrons, electrons, you end up with something that is a whole new element. Thus it is fundamentally different in one way, however, it is still comprised of atoms, which are each made up of fundamental building blocks which cannot be altered. Are fermions and the tachyon arguments for God? I don't see this being so since it is something so extremely simple on its own that doesn't need further explanation.

Jac, while I don't have time to participate in these discussions I just wanted to thank you for posting thoughtfully.

I have a question, Jac. Would you define God as being the first causal being which did not receive its being through efficient causality, or as the only being which did not receive its being through efficient causality?

Quote from: "i_am_i"As far as I can understand this what you're saying is that when we go back in time we arrive at the first cause, and this cause must be uncaused.

But nothing can exist without a cause except for God, therefore God exists.

It's sort of the old ontological/cosmological argument, and it relies on a great deal of assumptions. But I admit that, being largely self-educated, there are great gaps in my learning so perhaps I've got this all wrong.

You're sure working hard on this, I'll give you that. But aren't you just going out of your way to legitimize an imaginary idea or concept that primitive human beings fabricated because they had no real understanding of the universe, so they made up an anthropomorphized super-being to explain natural occurances?

Check my first reply to HS. I'm not arguing for an infinite back in time. That would be the Kalaam CA, which isn't the one I'm presenting here. We'll look at it later. I'm talking about an infinite simultaneous chain of events isn't possible--in technical terms, essentially ordered efficient causes verses accidentally ordered efficient causes. Second, I'm not saying that nothing can exist without a cause except God. I'm just saying that there is an uncaused cause, and when we examine its nature, we may as well end up calling it God given all that we discover about it. Third, just FYI, there is a huge difference in ontological and cosmological arguments, but either way, I'm not sure which assumptions you are getting at. If you list them, I'll be glad to comment. And finally, we can talk about the history of the idea of God later. Suffice it to say I don't think the story you presented captures the big picture. There are several categories of proofs for God -- we'll discuss that issue if and when we get to historical proofs.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Thanks for the homework.  I'll read the paper shortly.  As for the bit I quoted here, no it doesn't quite help.  I was unclear, I didn't mean to suggest that you were saying that God was perfect, just that it contains perfections.  This is the help I need:

Prove that a single perfection exists.

"Perfection" is just a label for things like sight, love, goodness, justice, power, or knowledge. I'm sure you agree that those things exist. The word "perfection" isn't the best translation of entelecheia, but it's about the best we are going to get. Just FYI, that word was coined by Aristotle and is a combination of three Greek words: en meaning "in," telos meaning "end" or "purpose," and echein which is the infinitive "to have." So the idea is "to have a thing's purpose within [itself]." The purpose an eye is to see, so sight is a "perfection" of the eye. We can go deeper into this concept as needed . . . we will need to discuss the relationship of perfections with form (in Aristotle's form/matter distinction) and act (in his potency/act distinction). Suffice it here to say that a perfection is consistent with the form of a thing in action. The eye is a thing that sees, so seeing is the perfection.

QuoteProve that all perfections exist (show that it could not be the case that perfect goodness exists but not perfect power).

Again, I think the word "perfect" has you thrown a bit. "Perfection" is just a label for a non-limited predicate. As it is, however, each predicate is limited, not by the perfection itself, but by the essence of the thing in which it is found. In other words, the eye sees in a limited way because the eye is a limited structure. "Perfect sight" would be sight not bound by the essence of the eye. It would be that which sees all. This is why, however, we don't really speak of something like height as a perfection. Height is actually a limitation--it expresses the limitation of a dimensional extension (in my case, my frame is limited to 5'11").

QuoteProve these perfections exist in a single being.

Prove this being is identical to the first mover.

See (14)-(17) in the argument above. Perfections are part of an essentially ordered causal chain and thus need to receive their being from the First Cause. Therefore, all perfections exist virtually in the First Cause, and since the First Cause is pure being, all perfections are actually obtained and instantiated in said being.

So, I hope that is still clearer. Like I said in the OP, this argument is particularly philosophical. It isn't easy, and I don't pretend it is. Aquinas argued for this very reason that the existence of God is not self-evident. Once, however, you have learned the nuances of the various technical terminology, it does become self-evident. You discover that "God exists" is a tautology, because "God" is just the religio-relational word for "existence within its own nature." Since existence instantiates all perfections, all perfections are united in subsistent existence (the philosophical word for God).

Quote from: "Sophus"I'll get in on this. :)

QuoteBefore getting into the nitty gritty, I think I can stop you at the first one. Existence comes, indeed, before essence but virtually everything has essence (or your definition of it).

Actually, everything has essence on my definition. :)

Quote from: "i_am_i"I have a question, Jac. How do we, human beings, know about God?

What, in other words, is the "first cause" of human beings knowing about God?

Edit: That question really has nothing to do with what you've posted so far so instead let me ask you this: would you define God as being the first causal being which did not receive its being through efficient causality?

Thank you. I'll save the first question for later.

Yes, IaI, so long as by the word "which" you aren't implying that there are other first causal beings. I don't think you are, but the grammar could be taken in two ways. I think I agree with you, though. I insist that God is the First Cause, and as this First Cause He, by definition, did not receive His being through efficient causality. As I pointed out in the thread on simplicity, His being is not separate from His essence; it is identical with it.

I guess that covers everybody for now.  [

QuoteThe Argument for a First Cause from the Contingency of Things, also called the Thomistic Cosmological Argument
1. What we observe in this universe is contingent
2. A sequence of causally related contingent things cannot be infinite
3. A sequence of causally related contingent things must be finite
Thus, there must be a First Cause in a sequence of contingent things

I suppose that's what I was trying to say earlier when interpreting essence in this context. In other words, the first cause for contingent things is never random itself. For example, hair color which is, while I wouldn't quite say random, subject to a certain degree of chance, the factor causing it, being genetics, is very structured in how it works. The existence or functionality of DNA is not subject to chance.
If we keep digging deeper and deeper looking for a fundamental root in the universe I see no reason to not draw the line at the fundamental components of the atom, with no more empirical evidence suggesting otherwise. This may or may not fit the bill of being a "First Cause" but I would call it a fundamental cause, or rather a fundamental component.

QuoteAnything that is capable of not existing is not a necessary being.

This is an interesting argument. I don't know enough about physics to really claim anything here with any amount of certainty, however, I'm not sure if physicists themselves would know what makes something capable of not existing. Existence alone itself is a mysterious thing to explain which may not need explaining, because perhaps nothing is not a real possibility. Here is a lengthy video (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4174) posted on this forum about how a something could come from nothing, because in Quantum Mechanics nothing isn't nothing.

One question: what excludes the First Cause from not needing to be finite? (Stop me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but this was the impression I got). At what point in eternity would the FC suddenly spark other causes? Wouldn't this denote change in the First Cause from the First Cause - essentially meaning it had an efficient cause?

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Would you define God as being the first causal being which did not receive its being through efficient causality?

I insist that God is the First Cause, and as this First Cause He, by definition, did not receive His being through efficient causality.As I pointed out in the thread on simplicity, His being is not separate from His essence; it is identical with it.

Two questions then.

Is God the only being that did  not receive its being through efficient causality?

Recieve may not be the word you meant to use. On my mother's birthday I had a bunch of flowers delivered to her and she received them. But if receiving is the word you meant to use and if, as you have said, God did not receive its being through efficient causality then how or from where did it receive its being?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Thanks for the homework.  I'll read the paper shortly.  As for the bit I quoted here, no it doesn't quite help.  I was unclear, I didn't mean to suggest that you were saying that God was perfect, just that it contains perfections.  This is the help I need:

Prove that a single perfection exists.

Quote from: "Jac3510""Perfection" is just a label for things like sight, love, goodness, justice, power, or knowledge. I'm sure you agree that those things exist. The word "perfection" isn't the best translation of entelecheia, but it's about the best we are going to get. Just FYI, that word was coined by Aristotle and is a combination of three Greek words: en meaning "in," telos meaning "end" or "purpose," and echein which is the infinitive "to have." So the idea is "to have a thing's purpose within [itself]." The purpose an eye is to see, so sight is a "perfection" of the eye. We can go deeper into this concept as needed . . . we will need to discuss the relationship of perfections with form (in Aristotle's form/matter distinction) and act (in his potency/act distinction). Suffice it here to say that a perfection is consistent with the form of a thing in action. The eye is a thing that sees, so seeing is the perfection.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Prove that all perfections exist (show that it could not be the case that perfect goodness exists but not perfect power).

Quote from: "Jac3510""Again, I think the word "perfect" has you thrown a bit. "Perfection" is just a label for a non-limited predicate. As it is, however, each predicate is limited, not by the perfection itself, but by the essence of the thing in which it is found. In other words, the eye sees in a limited way because the eye is a limited structure. "Perfect sight" would be sight not bound by the essence of the eye. It would be that which sees all. This is why, however, we don't really speak of something like height as a perfection. Height is actually a limitation--it expresses the limitation of a dimensional extension (in my case, my frame is limited to 5'11").

Respectfully, I'm not thrown.  I understand what you are claiming.  Your argument is unsound.  No, I absolutely don't agree that  love, justice, and goodness exist. I can't overstate this.  These things are concepts or predicates of the same order as morality no?  You argued that morality, and by extension, love, justice, and goodness, cannot be objective without God.   You can't then turn around and use these concepts in a proof for God.  That's circular.  

Without proving that these things exist, you go on to assert that these things could be limitless.  How do you know there are not limits to these concepts?  The presumption that limitless sight is even possible is tantamount to faith.

Quote from: "Sophus"I suppose that's what I was trying to say earlier when interpreting essence in this context. In other words, the first cause for contingent things is never random itself. For example, hair color which is, while I wouldn't quite say random, subject to a certain degree of chance, the factor causing it, being genetics, is very structured in how it works. The existence or functionality of DNA is not subject to chance.
If we keep digging deeper and deeper looking for a fundamental root in the universe I see no reason to not draw the line at the fundamental components of the atom, with no more empirical evidence suggesting otherwise. This may or may not fit the bill of being a "First Cause" but I would call it a fundamental cause, or rather a fundamental component.

Closer, but we still aren't on the same page yet. Being random or not doesn't determine whether or not something is contingent. My genes may determine that I will have blue eyes (and I acknowledge that there is a randomness about genes, but just making a point), but that determination doesn't change the fact that my eye color is contingent on my gene structure. To use another example, if I hold a rock in midair and drop it, it is necessary that it will fall if it is not suspended in any other way. The determination of its action by gravity doesn't render its falling non-contingent. Exactly the opposite, the rock's falling is exactly contingent on gravity working.

Physics needs to keep digging on the cause of the universe, but none of that will make anything in the universe less contingent. Suppose, for example, string theory turned out to be true (or take your pick of your favorite speculative cosmology; M-Brane Theory is fun). It would explain quite a bit in the universe, but everything you are doing, from breathing to being, is still contingent on those one dimensional strings vibrating in just certain ways.

So the argument is that this kind of contingency can't go on forever. There has to be a point at which a thing is necessary, which has its being in itself, in which its being is not received from anything else but its necessary to it. That being is called a First Cause or Prime Mover.

QuoteThis is an interesting argument. I don't know enough about physics to really claim anything here with any amount of certainty, however, I'm not sure if physicists themselves would know what makes something capable of not existing. Existence alone itself is a mysterious thing to explain which may not need explaining, because perhaps nothing is not a real possibility. Here is a lengthy video (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4174) posted on this forum about how a something could come from nothing, because in Quantum Mechanics nothing isn't nothing.

Oh, I am convinced that nothing is not a real possibility. From nothing, nothing comes. It's one of the absurdities that scientists need to figure out--and it's one of the questions that philosophers have been struggling with for time immemorial. Why is there something rather than nothing? If there had ever been nothing, there still would be nothing, because nothing can be predicated to nothing, meaning nothing can't do anything. It's meaningless to talk about quantum fluctuations in nothing. Predicates can only be applied to entities (to that which as being).

The question is, from whence comes this being? What we have seen is that, ultimately, being must exist in its own essence. That is NOT the case with you or me. Your essence, your quiddity, your what-ness, your nature (pick your term, I don't care) doesn't guarantee your existence. Your essence has to be combined with existence for you to actually exist, or to put it again in philosophical terms, you must be a composite of essence and existence to place your essence in re.

Going back to the argument, the reason a necessary being is not capable of non-existence is that a necessary being is that which has no distinction between its essence and its existence. Since there is no distinction, it is. It is not an essence, like you or me, that has to receive its existence before it can become real. But if that is the case, then a necessary being is not capable of non-existence, because if it were, then existence would not be part of its nature, but would be something external to it that could be given or taken away.

Nothing in this universe is necessary. Certainly not larger composites like you, me, the sun, the galaxy, etc. Smaller particles aren't necessary because atoms and subatomic particles go in and out of existence all the time. So what is this Necessary Existence, this Prime Mover? That's what the second half of the argument demonstrates.

QuoteOne question: what excludes the First Cause from not needing to be finite? (Stop me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but this was the impression I got). At what point in eternity would the FC suddenly spark other causes? Wouldn't this denote change in the First Cause from the First Cause - essentially meaning it had an efficient cause?

You can't think about eternity as an infinite succession of moments. It doesn't make sense to ask "at what point in eternity" would God do anything. Eternity would be an Everpresent Now. As such, any being which is eternal would be immutable, meaning there could be no efficient cause in it. Being eternal, it could also not be finite, in the sense that it could not be limited. Only that which is temporal can be limited. If a thing is not temporal, it makes no sense to speak of limitations. Thus, the FC, being eternal, must also be infinite and immutable.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Two questions then.

Is God the only being that did  not receive its being through efficient causality?

Yes. Logically, He is the only being that can be. If a being does not receive its being through efficient causality, then that being has its being within itself coterminous with its own nature. Two beings that are pure being would differ by nothing and would therefore be identical.

QuoteRecieve may not be the word you meant to use. On my mother's birthday I had a bunch of flowers delivered to her and she received them. But if receiving is the word you meant to use and if, as you have said, God did not receive its being through efficient causality then how or from where did it receive its being?

"Receive" is as good a word as any. You are basically asking where God came from. I'll briefly comment, buy I refer you to my comments to Sophus above. When we say that you received your being, we are saying that your essence received existence through an external agent which we call the efficient cause. You, then, are a composite of existence and essence.

The FC cannot be a composite of existence and essence or else it would be contingent and thus need an external agent which would therefore continue infinitely and leave all existence impossible. The FC must have its existence coterminous with its essence. There is no distinction between them. I would strongly recommend Aquinas' Question 3, Article 4 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.FP_Q3_A4.html) of the First Part of his Summa or more details on this. It is a short read. I'll offer further clarification as necessary.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Respectfully, I'm not thrown.  I understand what you are claiming.  Your argument is unsound.  No, I absolutely don't agree that  love, justice, and goodness exist. I can't overstate this.  These things are concepts or predicates of the same order as morality no?  You argued that morality, and by extension, love, justice, and goodness, cannot be objective without God.   You can't then turn around and use these concepts in a proof for God.  That's circular.  

That doesn't make my argument unsound, even on your own premise. You are committed to a position called moral anti-realism and has very serious consequences. We can wait to have this debate proper until I put forward the moral argument. You've been following the other thread well enough to know that morality must be objective (or real) for God to exist, and yet I haven't argued that morality actually is objective, a fact which you've now taken me to task for.

With that said, the argument is not circular for three reasons. First, moral realism, at least on some level, is the presumptive position in that moral anti-realism bears the burden of proof. There are two ways to determine burden of proof. 1. By intuition, and 2. by explanatory scope of given phenomena. In other words, theories that are deeply counter-intuitive bear the burden of proof over those that are not, and theories that do not obviously explain a set of data better bear the burden of proof over those that do. Moral realism is certainly more intuitive than anti-realism. Granted you can, and must, explain that if you hold to anti-realism, and perhaps you can, but that is just part of your burden of proof. Moral realism also seems to explain moral phenomena better than anti-realism. In fact, the entire enterprise of secular ethics has been striving to figure out how to explain the data. Each attempt has serious difficulties (i.e., utilitarianism logically justifies slavery, etc.). It is, then, not circular to assume a point that is accepted prima facie. If it were, we could literally have no discussion at all, because we would have to try to define every single word before we could begin discussion, but to do so would require us to use words, which would themselves need defining to an infinite regress.

Second, it isn't circular for formal reasons. The conclusion is not nested in any of the premises. You can challenge the premise as being false and saying that there is, in fact, no such thing as, say, justice, to be instantiated in the First Cause, but that doesn't make the argument circular (if it were circular, it would be invalid). It would make it unsound.

Third, I am not even talking about morality or values when I talk about perfections, although I offered them up as examples. Power, knowledge, existence, and personhood are all perfections that must be attributed to the FC. At absolute worst for me, you simply are denying that God is moral. You are still left with an omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent God. Yours just doesn't care about us.

Now, usually, as I said, I would be more than willing to debate whether or not moral values are perfections proper. I want to wait to do that until I present the moral argument, which I will do next. All I do want you to see here is that if moral values are perfections, then we have a logical proof that God is also moral.

QuoteWithout proving that these things exist, you go on to assert that these things could be limitless.  How do you know there are not limits to these concepts?  The presumption that limitless sight is even possible is tantamount to faith.

Forgive me for being nitpicky on your language, but if we are going to have serious discussion as we have been and I hope we continue to be, we have to be very careful about our words. Suggesting something is "tantamount to faith" is an empty statement as "faith" is understood in different ways by different people. If you mean, as it is popularly used, "tantamount to blind belief [belief without evidence]" then you are just factually incorrect. I arrived at my belief in these concepts by a rigorous reasoning process that has yet to be challenged. If my reasoning is faulty, you can point it out.

In that line of thought, I do not assert that these things could be limitless. I argue it. Let's consider sight. If a perfection is a non-limiting predication (as opposed to a limiting predication, like "height"), and if that predication is limited by the essence of the subject (in this case, the eyeball), then if the perfection is virtually present in the FC, and if the FC is unlimited, then the perfection is obtained without limitation. This leads us, again, to the importance of analogical language as discussed in the simplicity thread (I still need to do some extra work there). Not only is sight obtained without limit in the FC, it turns out to be identical with all other natures obtained without limit in the FC. Literally, unlimited sight = unlimited power = unlimited knowledge = unlimited being, etc. As such, the words "sight," "power," "knowledge," "being," etc. are used analogically (not equivocally) between us and God, as the words are obviously not univocal.

Finally, I do not have to prove that something is possible before I assert that it is. Unless there is something self-contradictory in the concept of "limitless sight," there is no reason to assume impossibility. If we have reason to believe it, then we do. If we have no reason to believe it, then we do not. As it stands, we are (or, at least, I am) philosophically required by the evidence to accept that sight, as a perfection, is obtained without limitation in the FC.

None of this, then, is an article of faith, nor is the argument formally invalid. You may disagree with one of the premises, but if so, you should show why and where. Rejecting the existence of perfections doesn't work, because you would then be saying that sight and knowledge do not exist. At worst, again, then, you are left with an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent personal God. Even if for such a God morals were not objective (and we have strong reason to believe that they are, but we'll get to that in the next argument), you still have one heck of a fully formed concept of God to deal with. At worst, His view of morality would be no more deficient than our own!

An Argument from Subsistent Existence

      1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
      2. All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
      3. Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.
      4. Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.
      5. Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent.
      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.
      8. A first causal being cannot receive its being from outside itself.
      9. Therefore, there must be a being which does not receive its being through efficient causality, but for which being is its essence. Being which exists in itself is called subsistent existence.
      10. A first causal being is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
      11. Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
      12. All non-subsistent being is part of an essentially ordered efficiently causal chain of being.
      13. Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all things.
      14. All perfections must have an efficient cause.
      15. Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all perfections.
      16. The effect of any efficient cause pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause.
      17. Therefore, perfections exist virtually in subsistent existence.
      18. A perfection is obtained in being.
      19. Therefore, all perfections obtain in subsistent existence.
      20. A being which obtains all perfections is, by definition, God.
      21. Therefore, God exists.

First, I appreciate you being nit picky about language, it clarifies things.  Second, forgive my sloppiness with language, I am inexperienced in such things as this.

Jac3510-14. All perfections must have an efficient cause.

You are presuming the actual existence of perfections no?  Perfections do not exist.  I could just as easily substitute any imaginary item.  You don't see any problem using something not real in a proof to show something is real?  

14 All flying pigs must have an efficient cause.  If you saw such a statement in a proof, wouldn't you ask for an explanation?  

Your perfections are much less real than a flying pig.  At least we would know what a flying pig was when we saw it.  Perfections haven't been observed in nature and we likely wouldn't know what one was if we were looking right at it.  In this sense, perfections are just like God.  Your basis for an omnipotent god rests on the assumption of possible omnipotence.  I would think one would have to observe one perfection in nature before trying to prove that a single being contains any or all of them.

I will set morality aside for now.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Jac3510-14. All perfections must have an efficient cause.

You are presuming the actual existence of perfections no?  Perfections do not exist.  I could just as easily substitute any imaginary item.  You don't see any problem using something not real in a proof to show something is real?  

14 All flying pigs must have an efficient cause.  If you saw such a statement in a proof, wouldn't you ask for an explanation?  

Your perfections are much less real than a flying pig.  At least we would know what a flying pig was when we saw it.  Perfections haven't been observed in nature and we likely wouldn't know what one was if we were looking right at it.  In this sense, perfections are just like God.  Your basis for an omnipotent god rests on the assumption of possible omnipotence.  I would think one would have to observe one perfection in nature before trying to prove that a single being contains any or all of them.

I will set morality aside for now.

My basis for an omnipotent God is my belief that power exists. Do you think that there is such a thing as power, HS? By "power," I mean, "the ability to do something." Is it possible for anything to do anything? If so, then this "perfection" exists. That's what a perfection is. If you aren't comfortable with the word, just call it entelecheia, which as I've explained means ""to have a thing's purpose within [itself]," and here, "purpose" does not refer to "design" as it does in the morality thread. That's one of the reasons we use the word "perfection"--to avoid that connotation. Technically, it refers to the act of the form.

In Aristotelian metaphysical language, which is what we are employing here, form (morphe) is that which a thing is. It is the "what-ness" of a thing. In distinction to this is matter, which is the "thatness" of the thing. Thus, a tree has a form we might call "treeness," and any individual tree is that tree because it is a composite of form and matter. This takes us down the road of discussing universals, which I suspect we will have to deal with next, because if you deny form, then you ultimately deny the possibility of all knowledge and all science, since in doing so you end up denying universals, especially universals being grounded in real things. We can go through Abailard and William's debate if we need to to see just how important this is for knowledge of any kind to be meaningful.

But, putting that aside to get to your particular issue, real things aren't the only things with form. Accidental properties have form, too. Whiteness has form. It just so happens that whiteness is found in some other body. White doesn't exist by itself, and therefore, it is not a substance or essence. It is what we call an accidental property. Again, we can lay out how all that works in detail later. I just want you to see the distinction between what something is and that it is and understand the language we use to describe it.

Now, with that in mind, latent in form is the ability to do something. Eyes have the ability to see. That is what it means to be an eye. If something doesn't have the ability to see in potential, then it can't properly be called an eye. This is not to say that a blind eye is not an eye. We can distinguish between orders of capacity later to explain that (in brief, blind eyes have the potential to see, but they lack the development of lower order capacities that allow them to exemplify higher order capacities, in this case, sight; in plain language, they ought to be able to see, but they can't because something is wrong). It is to say only that an eye is something that sees. That seeing is called an act. Before the form/essence "eye" receives being, it cannot see, because it is not. It's ability to see is merely potential. Once an eye receives existence in a form/matter composite, it is now in act. It is doing that which its form is. It sees.

Now, the act of seeing is found in potential in the form of the eye, but the act of seeing is not itself the eye.  The relationship between these two things--the act of seeing and the form/matter composite in which it is instantiated or obtained--is that the act is predicated to the subject as an entelecheia, a perfection.

It makes no sense, then, to argue that perfections don't exist. You may disagree with the terminology, but that's all just a matter of semantics. The important logical point is that the act of seeing (whatever that is) is not the same thing as the thing that sees (whatever that is). Now, unless you are going to tell me that the act of seeing doesn't exist, you are acknowledging that perfections exist in whatever terminology you wish to use.

Having established that, you can try to argue that perfections are not to be obtained in the First Cause. I don't see how you can argue that perfections themselves, though, don't exist, given what the term fundamentally means. I take this all as a matter of learning the language. This is why I said at the outset that this is a difficult proof and that the belief in God is NOT self-evident. However, once the language and concepts are mastered, it becomes imminently self-evident. I'm not in a hurry. We can discuss this as long as necessary. Clarity is what is important to me.

Quote from: "Jac3510"That is NOT the case with you or me. Your essence, your quiddity, your what-ness, your nature (pick your term, I don't care) doesn't guarantee your existence. Your essence has to be combined with existence for you to actually exist, or to put it again in philosophical terms, you must be a composite of essence and existence to place your essence in re.

Essence is an abstract concept of the mind which can only be assigned to something after existing. Sartre's existence before essence, comes to mind.

It is not necessary that you or I exist forever (and that may apply to everything) but it is necessary for us to exist once certain events take place. Sperm + egg + alls goes smoothly = human. Our existence becomes a necessary effect of these causes but our existence isn't necessary to sustain the universe. I'm not sure any one thing is. Given that "nothing" is actually an unstable state that actually inevitably produces something, an infinite amount of nothing is going to eventually create something.

QuoteYou can't think about eternity as an infinite succession of moments. It doesn't make sense to ask "at what point in eternity" would God do anything. Eternity would be an Everpresent Now. As such, any being which is eternal would be immutable, meaning there could be no efficient cause in it. Being eternal, it could also not be finite, in the sense that it could not be limited. Only that which is temporal can be limited. If a thing is not temporal, it makes no sense to speak of limitations. Thus, the FC, being eternal, must also be infinite and immutable.

Right. Which is why I think that question still applies. Are you saying the FC has infinitely  been in the process of creating the universe? At such a point I don't think we can continue to call it a First Cause any longer because it had no beginning.

QuoteSo the argument is that this kind of contingency can't go on forever. There has to be a point at which a thing is necessary, which has its being in itself, in which its being is not received from anything else but its necessary to it. That being is called a First Cause or Prime Mover.

Maybe, although it seems the chaos of "nothing" would argue against this. Even if so, I cannot bring myself to pretend that I know what is necessary and call that FC 'God'. At most it's another God of the gaps.

Quote from: "Sophus"Essence is an abstract concept of the mind which can only be assigned to something after existing. Sartre's existence before essence, comes to mind.

It is not necessary that you or I exist forever (and that may apply to everything) but it is necessary for us to exist once certain events take place. Sperm + egg + alls goes smoothly = human. Our existence becomes a necessary effect of these causes but our existence isn't necessary to sustain the universe. I'm not sure any one thing is. Given that "nothing" is actually an unstable state that actually inevitably produces something, an infinite amount of nothing is going to eventually create something.

This is why I put the parenthesis around the first qualifying clause in the first statement. Being is a unique accident in that it comes before essence. Even to think about an essence is to grant it being, at least cognitional being. Yet from that it does not follow that essences aren't virtually possible without existence. My essence, what I am, is one thing. My existence is another. Why I--my essence--receives existence, then I become real.

Secondly, I would strongly disagree that "'nothing' is actually an unstable state." If you read your sentence carefully you will see a self-contradiction. Nothing can't be anything. The word "is" is a state of being verb. Nothing, however "is" that which has no being; it "is" the negation of being. You cannot apply being to non-being. In fact, the whole concept of "nothing" is really empty. By conceptualizing "it" and talking about "it" with pronouns, you are actually giving "it" conceptual being. True nothingness, however, can't be spoken or even thought of. The human mind only works with being. Only that which is can do anything or be in any state; therefore, that which is nothing cannot be in any state, unstable or not.

QuoteRight. Which is why I think that question still applies. Are you saying the FC has infinitely  been in the process of creating the universe? At such a point I don't think we can continue to call it a First Cause any longer because it had no beginning.

I would quibble with the word "process." The First Cause isn't "creating," because a process necessarily requires the passage of time. If you want to get theological about it (since we are talking about God's existence here), you could say that the same "time" God created the universe He also died on the Cross and is also consummating it in the Great White Throne Judgment at the end of time.

With that said, the word "first" in "first cause" does not refer to the first in a sequence of events. It refers to the first in priority. We can use the term "Prime Mover" if it makes the concept clearer, if you like.

QuoteMaybe, although it seems the chaos of "nothing" would argue against this. Even if so, I cannot bring myself to pretend that I know what is necessary and call that FC 'God'. At most it's another God of the gaps.

Again, you are attributing something to nothing, which would violate the law of non-contradiction. Your "nothing" is actually an eternal something that "is producing" universes. How that is a coherent concept is up to you to solve since it seems to imply time in a timeless environment.

Be that as it may, none of this is a God of the gaps argument. A God of the gaps argument finds holes in knowledge and tries to fill them with God. Our argument is built of required deductions of what we know to be true. If the argument fails, it can only be for one of two reasons. First, one of the premises is false and something that I am asserting to be true (in the even statements) is not true. Or second, the argument is formally invalid and commits a logical error. If either of those can be shown to be true, then we can be free to disregard the argument. Otherwise, it stands as a solid proof for the existence of God.

Quote from: "Jac3510"My basis for an omnipotent God is my belief that power exists. Do you think that there is such a thing as power, HS? By "power," I mean, "the ability to do something." Is it possible for anything to do anything? If so, then this "perfection" exists. That's what a perfection is. If you aren't comfortable with the word, just call it entelecheia, which as I've explained means ""to have a thing's purpose within [itself]," and here, "purpose" does not refer to "design" as it does in the morality thread. That's one of the reasons we use the word "perfection"--to avoid that connotation. Technically, it refers to the act of the form.

In Aristotelian metaphysical language, which is what we are employing here, form (morphe) is that which a thing is. It is the "what-ness" of a thing. In distinction to this is matter, which is the "thatness" of the thing. Thus, a tree has a form we might call "treeness," and any individual tree is that tree because it is a composite of form and matter. This takes us down the road of discussing universals, which I suspect we will have to deal with next, because if you deny form, then you ultimately deny the possibility of all knowledge and all science, since in doing so you end up denying universals, especially universals being grounded in real things. We can go through Abailard and William's debate if we need to to see just how important this is for knowledge of any kind to be meaningful.

But, putting that aside to get to your particular issue, real things aren't the only things with form. Accidental properties have form, too. Whiteness has form. It just so happens that whiteness is found in some other body. White doesn't exist by itself, and therefore, it is not a substance or essence. It is what we call an accidental property. Again, we can lay out how all that works in detail later. I just want you to see the distinction between what something is and that it is and understand the language we use to describe it.

Now, with that in mind, latent in form is the ability to do something. Eyes have the ability to see. That is what it means to be an eye. If something doesn't have the ability to see in potential, then it can't properly be called an eye. This is not to say that a blind eye is not an eye. We can distinguish between orders of capacity later to explain that (in brief, blind eyes have the potential to see, but they lack the development of lower order capacities that allow them to exemplify higher order capacities, in this case, sight; in plain language, they ought to be able to see, but they can't because something is wrong). It is to say only that an eye is something that sees. That seeing is called an act. Before the form/essence "eye" receives being, it cannot see, because it is not. It's ability to see is merely potential. Once an eye receives existence in a form/matter composite, it is now in act. It is doing that which its form is. It sees.

Now, the act of seeing is found in potential in the form of the eye, but the act of seeing is not itself the eye.  The relationship between these two things--the act of seeing and the form/matter composite in which it is instantiated or obtained--is that the act is predicated to the subject as an entelecheia, a perfection.

It makes no sense, then, to argue that perfections don't exist. You may disagree with the terminology, but that's all just a matter of semantics. The important logical point is that the act of seeing (whatever that is) is not the same thing as the thing that sees (whatever that is). Now, unless you are going to tell me that the act of seeing doesn't exist, you are acknowledging that perfections exist in whatever terminology you wish to use.

Having established that, you can try to argue that perfections are not to be obtained in the First Cause. I don't see how you can argue that perfections themselves, though, don't exist, given what the term fundamentally means. I take this all as a matter of learning the language. This is why I said at the outset that this is a difficult proof and that the belief in God is NOT self-evident. However, once the language and concepts are mastered, it becomes imminently self-evident. I'm not in a hurry. We can discuss this as long as necessary. Clarity is what is important to me.

OK, maybe language is the problem here.  Show me a dictionary that defines "perfections" without using the word "theoretical" or "ideal", or any other qualifier that tells us that it is simply a concept.  After you do that, or give me a reason you have decided to change the accepted meaning of the word "perfection", then I think we can continue.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"OK, maybe language is the problem here.  Show me a dictionary that defines "perfections" without using the word "theoretical" or "ideal", or any other qualifier that tells us that it is simply a concept.  After you do that, or give me a reason you have decided to change the accepted meaning of the word "perfection", then I think we can continue.

How about rather than arguing if "perfection" is a good translation of entelecheia, we just use the word entelecheia, as I have defined it for you properly without reference to "theoretical" or "ideal." I don't know if you know any other languages. I can promise you that a sad fact is that literal translations is almost always impossible for a host of reasons. The best you can do is pick a word from one language that points to the same idea as the word you are trying to translate does, and then hope that the translation doesn't carry any excess baggage. In philosophy, it is nearly impossible, because so much of the terminology is technical. Philosophy identifies certain concepts and then just as to label them.

"Perfection" comes from the Latin translation of the Greek telos. The Latin word is perficio, which means "to bring to an end" (as in, a result). Thus, like telos it can talk about things like coming to maturity. Sight is a "perfection" because it is "brought to its end," the end of the eye being to see. If it makes you feel any better, we have just the same difficulty trying to translate telos in the New Testament.

So I suggest just using entelecheia to denote the concept of having an end (that is, the act of the form - what the thing is) within one's self.

BTW, to all, I posted an audio commentary of the argument from simplicity in the first post. Longer explanations like that are much easier to digest, I think, in audio form, since it takes forever to read something that long.

Quote from: "Jac3510"This is why I put the parenthesis around the first qualifying clause in the first statement. Being is a unique accident in that it comes before essence. Even to think about an essence is to grant it being, at least cognitional being. Yet from that it does not follow that essences aren't virtually possible without existence. My essence, what I am, is one thing. My existence is another. Why I--my essence--receives existence, then I become real.

Secondly, I would strongly disagree that "'nothing' is actually an unstable state." If you read your sentence carefully you will see a self-contradiction. Nothing can't be anything. The word "is" is a state of being verb. Nothing, however "is" that which has no being; it "is" the negation of being. You cannot apply being to non-being. In fact, the whole concept of "nothing" is really empty. By conceptualizing "it" and talking about "it" with pronouns, you are actually giving "it" conceptual being. True nothingness, however, can't be spoken or even thought of. The human mind only works with being. Only that which is can do anything or be in any state; therefore, that which is nothing cannot be in any state, unstable or not...
Again, you are attributing something to nothing, which would violate the law of non-contradiction. Your "nothing" is actually an eternal something that "is producing" universes. How that is a coherent concept is up to you to solve since it seems to imply time in a timeless environment.

That's why it's been put in quotes. I don't know if you were bale to watch the video posted earlier by Dr. Krauss, but nothing, in Quantum Mechanics, has been proven to actually be something, hence my saying "nothing" is not nothing. Yes, it's a paradox. This queer concept seemed illogical to me, too, at first.

QuoteI would quibble with the word "process." The First Cause isn't "creating," because a process necessarily requires the passage of time. If you want to get theological about it (since we are talking about God's existence here), you could say that the same "time" God created the universe He also died on the Cross and is also consummating it in the Great White Throne Judgment at the end of time.

With that said, the word "first" in "first cause" does not refer to the first in a sequence of events. It refers to the first in priority. We can use the term "Prime Mover" if it makes the concept clearer, if you like.

I'm familiar with the concept of eternity being, not time without end, but the now; time is an illusion, so on. I like it. I agree with it. Yet that doesn't make the concept of time invalid. A Prime Mover, if stable and isolated, will not bring about any new changes; it won't spark the inception of the efficient order chain of causes. Unless it is in its own nature to change, however slightly, it cannot produce anything new, meaning it is not really immune to efficient order, because EO is occurring from within the Prime Mover itself. It's self defeating.

QuoteBe that as it may, none of this is a God of the gaps argument. A God of the gaps argument finds holes in knowledge and tries to fill them with God. Our argument is built of required deductions of what we know to be true. If the argument fails, it can only be for one of two reasons. First, one of the premises is false and something that I am asserting to be true (in the even statements) is not true. Or second, the argument is formally invalid and commits a logical error. If either of those can be shown to be true, then we can be free to disregard the argument. Otherwise, it stands as a solid proof for the existence of God.

Not only that but there needs to be empirical evidence, not simply logic. If we can conclude there needs to be a perfect Prime Mover then we have merely determined what we should expect to find. That is still a long way from proving what exactly it is, whether or not it is a deity and especially if that deity should be considered Yahweh.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"OK, maybe language is the problem here.  Show me a dictionary that defines "perfections" without using the word "theoretical" or "ideal", or any other qualifier that tells us that it is simply a concept.  After you do that, or give me a reason you have decided to change the accepted meaning of the word "perfection", then I think we can continue.

How about rather than arguing if "perfection" is a good translation of entelecheia, we just use the word entelecheia, as I have defined it for you properly without reference to "theoretical" or "ideal." I don't know if you know any other languages. I can promise you that a sad fact is that literal translations is almost always impossible for a host of reasons. The best you can do is pick a word from one language that points to the same idea as the word you are trying to translate does, and then hope that the translation doesn't carry any excess baggage. In philosophy, it is nearly impossible, because so much of the terminology is technical. Philosophy identifies certain concepts and then just as to label them.

"Perfection" comes from the Latin translation of the Greek telos. The Latin word is perficio, which means "to bring to an end" (as in, a result). Thus, like telos it can talk about things like coming to maturity. Sight is a "perfection" because it is "brought to its end," the end of the eye being to see. If it makes you feel any better, we have just the same difficulty trying to translate telos in the New Testament.

So I suggest just using entelecheia to denote the concept of having an end (that is, the act of the form - what the thing is) within one's self.

I thank you for sharing your work in this way.  I appreciate you putting it to audio as well.  Alas, as with far too many Americans, I am only proficient (barely) in one language.  I looked up entelecheia and energeia in my Cambridge dictionary of Philosophy.

Again, respectfully, I am left with the same problem.  Entelecheia is a term coined by a theist many years ago.  Aristotle is not  labeling something observed, but rather explaining something thought.  It's conceivable to me that he wouldn't have even coined the term if he didn't believe in god(s), but that is for another discussion. Regardless of what we call this thing, it is still just the creation of a (brilliant) mind.

Btw, I do reject "seeing'" in the sense that you describe it.  I don't believe "seeing" can be separated from that which sees, it only exists as a function of seeing apparati.  However, even if one concedes that it could be separated, it would still be limited by the properties of light (that which is observed when seeing), and thus, couldn't properly be called entelecheia because it couldn't reach fulfillment.

Chris (Jac), I showed your Argument from Subsistent Existence to a mucho-smart scientist friend of mine, who also happens to be Christian, and here was his response:

"In a deterministic world where everthing we see is part of a chain of efficient causality, it does make some sort of sense to wonder as Aristote did if all these chains began in one original uncaused cause which is what I think the OP means by a first cause. However in the indeterministic world that is suggested by quantum physics, there are uncaused causes all over the place and chains of efficient causality do not go inevitably lead backward to a single uncaused cause at the beginning (if there is one) but to many at all points of time. This suggests that there is not a single first cause but many and it modifies our speculations about that first uncaused cause (if there is one) because that need only be responsible for infinitesmally little rather than for everything -- i.e. it would not be so god-like at all but just a simple little thing. This by the way would go along with Stephen Hawkings suggestion in "A Brief History of Time" that the first first cause is just a quantum event like all the other "first cause"/quantum events that are happening all the time."

No, I don't really know what he's talking about. I just thought that you might find it interesting.

I find it amazing that Theist spend so much time trying to PROVE the existence of a Supreme Being.  Seems to me that god, if he existed, could do that all on his own.  

The ONLY thing I'll give this god of yours, if he exists, he is probably enjoying the hell out of watching everyone trying to prove/disprove his existence.  Sure seems like a big waste of time in my mind, I wonder how much good all those GREAT minds who work on the "problem" of proving god could do, if they applied that same mental power to working out REAL problems like poverty, hunger, disease, and the list goes on....

Just an ignorant man's ponderings I suppose.

Quote from: "Martin TK"I find it amazing that Theist spend so much time trying to PROVE the existence of a Supreme Being.  Seems to me that god, if he existed, could do that all on his own.  

The ONLY thing I'll give this god of yours, if he exists, he is probably enjoying the hell out of watching everyone trying to prove/disprove his existence.  Sure seems like a big waste of time in my mind, I wonder how much good all those GREAT minds who work on the "problem" of proving god could do, if they applied that same mental power to working out REAL problems like poverty, hunger, disease, and the list goes on....

Just an ignorant man's ponderings I suppose.

I begged this particular theist to present a proof in hopes I'd see something I haven't seen before.  I certainly haven't seen this before, plus I'm getting a philosophy lesson.  I do wonder what great things people like Jac3510 could accomplish if they applied their efforts to something real.

Quote from: "i_am_i"No, I don't really know what he's talking about. I just thought that you might find it interesting.

Unless I understood incorrectly:  Your friend was basically saying that argument for a first mover has some substance to it if we live in a deterministic universe (one where everything is caused by something) but if quantum physics is correct about uncased events happening frequently that the idea of an uncaused cause (first mover) isn't really much to get excited about.

I'm personally not that impressed by first mover arguments for the above reason...there are simply too many unknowns to confidently say that there is a single first mover let alone that it would be right to call god (the universe could be that first mover if it were simply the natural state of things to exist and all progressed deterministically from there)  That said, I also think first mover arguments probably are about as close to proving god that philosophers have come....they are a good enough reason to not push away the possibility of god even if one isn't convinced due to various holes.

Of course the counter to that is "Why does the first cause have to be one thing?  If the first cause is one thing, then why does it have to be a god?"  Theists are right back where they started, taking the existence of their god on faith.

And then one might ask, "What caused the causes?" -- or "cause", if you're a theist.

Another point raised by HS also made me think. What if the first cause doesn't exist any more? There is no guarantee that an entity capable of being a first cause is perforce immortal or sentient or interested. To put a rather tasteless analogy to it, for a dung beetle an elephant is God, it creates a perfect world for the beetle to live in, it doesn't care it created the perfect world for the beetle and eventually it dies.

But yet again we are into intellectual debate for the sake of debate. Nothing Chris has written yet has changed my view of the possibility of the existance of a god or God. There is a lot of beautifully constructed argument but it's all based on itself, it is a perfect circle, just a beautiful perfect circle completely divorced from reality.

The arguments read as though one is constructing a pyramid of immense accuracy and beauty one carefully placed grain of sand at a time until the only possible conclusion is that at the very point of the pyramid sits God. Resplendent in his perfection of existance. The trouble with what I see here, so far, is that there is one critical thing wrong with the pyramid, it is point down and rests on the existance of God in the first place, for which there is no evidence.

I have used the term 'intellectual masturbation' to describe what is going on here, it is mildly derogatory but also very accurate. I'm sure people who engage in this sort of theological debate get immense pleasure from it, I doubt they would do it if they didn't, but because the subject is ethereal and based on the existance of the supernatural the product can only be fruitless. Speculation about speculation is pointless but fun. Speculation followed by experiment is also fun (watch Mythbuters for a very crude example) but requires real world effort. Not that Chris isn't putting in effort, he most definitely is, but in this respect I see it as the sort of effort one puts into riding an exercise bike, the effort isn't really getting us anywhere.

I have called religion institutionalised superstition while the opposite, science, is institutionalised curiosity. Sitting around a camp fire in the middle of the desert with no real idea of how the world works is going to cause speculation about the big questions (such as why did You Bastard fart just as I walked past his arse!) and as humans are an evolved cause and effect machine they are going to want an answer. And at that time there was no possibility of a real answer, so they made shit up as people are want to do in the absence of facts (something we still do today).

So now we are getting a grip on what is really going on, for example evolution. There is no need to invoke a creator anymore. The combined sciences of biology (both taxonomy and genetics), geology and palaeontology have shown how humans came into existance. To deny evolution as the mechanism of production of the biological diversity around us and homo sapiens as part of that biodiversity is simply to deny the scientific method. Darwin was born into a Christian creationist family and set off to discover Gods work. He ended up, after years of soul searching, killing the notion of the biblical creation and thus the voracity of the Bible as an historical document of an worth in describing the mechanisms of creation. Darwin hammered the biggest possible nail into the coffin of God.

In my opinion God is the wishful thinking of people and nothing the Chris has said has, as yet, demonstrated otherwise. But I'm enjoying every word of the debate  :mad:

Quote from: "Tank"snip
In my opinion God is the wishful thinking of people and nothing the Chris has said has, as yet, demonstrated otherwise. But I'm enjoying every word of the debate  :yay:

Quote from: "humblesmurf"...isn't it more fun to joust with somebody who can fight back?

In a word, yes.  I'm very grateful that Jac3510 decided to join this forum, and put such effort into the threads he's been involved with, and started.  There have been a few theists that are members here, including but not limited to Reginus and phillysoul11, who have really impressed me with their willingness to take the field and defend the honor of their side in a polite and intelligent manner.  Without people like them and Jac3510, this place wouldn't be the same. To our honorable partners in discourse!

Quote from: "Whitney"Unless I understood incorrectly:  Your friend was basically saying that argument for a first mover has some substance to it if we live in a deterministic universe (one where everything is caused by something) but if quantum physics is correct about uncased events happening frequently that the idea of an uncaused cause (first mover) isn't really much to get excited about.

I'm personally not that impressed by first mover arguments for the above reason...there are simply too many unknowns to confidently say that there is a single first mover let alone that it would be right to call god (the universe could be that first mover if it were simply the natural state of things to exist and all progressed deterministically from there)  That said, I also think first mover arguments probably are about as close to proving god that philosophers have come....they are a good enough reason to not push away the possibility of god even if one isn't convinced due to various holes.

And that raises my question, which is always the same one: where does the possibility, the idea, of god from if not from the human mind?

Maybe a philosopher should come up with a point-by-point argument for just taking the idea of God seriously in the first place.

Quote from: "Recusant"

Quote from: "humblesmurf"...isn't it more fun to joust with somebody who can fight back?

In a word, yes.  I'm very grateful that Jac3510 decided to join this forum, and put such effort into the threads he's been involved with, and started.  There have been a few theists that are members here, including but not limited to Reginus and phillysoul11, who have really impressed me with their willingness to take the field and defend the honor of their side in a polite and intelligent manner.  Without people like them and Jac3510, this place wouldn't be the same. To our honorable partners in discourse!

To quote Churchill, "We have a very daring and skillful opponent, and, may I say across the havoc of war, a great general."

Jac has the quality of thinking.  No matter that we may disagree, the fact that he takes the time to think is worthy of respect.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Jac has the quality of thinking.  No matter that we may disagree, the fact that he takes the time to think is worthy of respect.

I agree, Thump, that the quality of thinking is worthy of respect. But saying, "Okay, we begin with God" is not worthy of respect in my opinion. First I need to be told why we need to begin with God. Until I'm shown that then as far as I'm concerned it's just another "I believe in God and here's why" postulation, no matter how eruditely it's stated.

Just a quick post to let everyone know I'll respond in detail to the three or four threads I'm a part of tomorrow . . . not that we have to post every day, of course, but I understand how it is with new members, especially when they hold to a (very) minority position. The thought can cross someone's mind pretty easily, "Where'd they go?!?"

Besides, it's Sunday . . . ya know, church day and all that! :D

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Jac has the quality of thinking.  No matter that we may disagree, the fact that he takes the time to think is worthy of respect.

I agree, Thump, that the quality of thinking is worthy of respect. But saying, "Okay, we begin with God" is not worthy of respect in my opinion. First I need to be told why we need to begin with God. Until I'm shown that then as far as I'm concerned it's just another "I believe in God and here's why" postulation, no matter how eruditely it's stated.

Agreed.  Thus, the dependent clause "No matter that we may disagree ...."

I merely think it a good thing to applaud a theist who is willing to put his faith to the fire, and I respect him for it.  Too many believers shelter their belief, as if it is something fragile, to be protected.

My 2cts. I find the discussion with Jac very interesting, even though I'm not a philosopher and know very little about philosophy. But the tread leads to nowhere, other than that we will agree with Jac that we disagree.

For me philosophy has always been an experiment in futility, that evolves around a lot of navel staring; an intellectual discussion that is out of touch with "reality". It reminds me of the following joke:

How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?

"Hmmm... well there's an interesting question isn't it?"
"Define 'light bulb'..."
"How can you be sure it needs changing?"

Jac, if God exists, why doesn't he answer prayers like he claims he would in the Bible?

If he really exists, he does not deserve my worship.

Quote from: "Parsifal"Jac, if God exists, why doesn't he answer prayers like he claims he would in the Bible?

If he really exists, he does not deserve my worship.

The question seems genuine enough (although the "if God exists" is difficult to read. I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt as to sincerity, but the same phrase can easily carry a dismissive tone). The following statement has me wondering whether you are interested in serious dialogue as several of the board members here have demonstrated themselves to be or whether your question is really just a "gotcha."

Rather than spending  a lot of time on a discussion that may prove to be fruitless, let me just ask you a question to help clarify your meaning. Where in the Bible does God claim that He will answer prayers?

Jac, can you explain and/or rephrase 19?  It's a bit confusing to me.  Also, what are the immediate premises it builds upon?

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/franciscan ... kluge.html (http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/franciscan_studies/v066/66.kluge.html)

I don't think you can get to this link. but it talks, in excruciating detail regarding your arguments. i am reading the study, yes it's a philosophical study of another philosophical work :-)

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Parsifal"Jac, if God exists, why doesn't he answer prayers like he claims he would in the Bible?

If he really exists, he does not deserve my worship.

The question seems genuine enough (although the "if God exists" is difficult to read. I'm inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt as to sincerity, but the same phrase can easily carry a dismissive tone). The following statement has me wondering whether you are interested in serious dialogue as several of the board members here have demonstrated themselves to be or whether your question is really just a "gotcha."

Rather than spending  a lot of time on a discussion that may prove to be fruitless, let me just ask you a question to help clarify your meaning. Where in the Bible does God claim that He will answer prayers?

Where?  In several places.  Here is one from Mark.  

QuoteMark 11
11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.   
11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.   
11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

There are several similar passages, the gist of which is: pray, believe and you'll receive.

Now, I know many Christians say that the lack of faith leads to the lack of answered prayer (in 99,99999999% (or something like that) of cases, whereas the remainder is impossible to distinguish from things that would any way have happened, like getting better from a cold, or finding a parking space at the mall).  Otherwise, it wasn't part of God's plan.  But the point is, can so many devout christians really lack faith?  And, nowhere in the Bible does the Lord Jesus say "Whatsoever ye desire, when ye pray and believe that ye received them, AND PROVIDED IT IS PART OF MY PLAN, ye shall receive them.

So, either God lied (but the Bible seems to exclude that possibility) or he doesn't exist.  I'm opting for the latter.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Rather than spending  a lot of time on a discussion that may prove to be fruitless, let me just ask you a question to help clarify your meaning. Where in the Bible does God claim that He will answer prayers?

Quote from: "Matthew, in chpt 21, verse 22"And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Quote from: "Mark, in chpt 11, verse 24"Therefore I say unto you, what things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

Quote from: "John, in chpt 14, verses 13 and 14"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.

Quote from: " ... and in chpt 16, verse 23, "And in that day ye shall ask me nothing.  Verily, verily I say unto you, whatever ye shall ask the Father in my name, He will give it to you

It's worth noting that these are unequivocal promises of positive granting of prayer, too.

Thanks, Thumpalumpacus.  Saved me the trouble.

There's more, too.  I merely picked out the ones that cannot be hedged.

Jac, we look forward to hear your reply.

Just some background on me.  I grew up in the house of missionaries, very devout and conservative.  I've met true children of God, struck with cancer, who relied on these texts to be cured believing they will be, and they died.  Of course, I have further examples about unanswered prayer, let me know if you want me to bore you with them.

I have to ask, have you actually ever read the Bible?  During my religious pre-life, I read it several times, and reading the bible was one of the things that made me an atheist.  How can you possibly believe so much violence, bigotry, nonsense, contradictions etc, from a "loving, perfect" God?

Ok, I've got a lot to reply to, so LONG POST (not proofread):

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

Quote from: "Sophus"That's why it's been put in quotes. I don't know if you were bale to watch the video posted earlier by Dr. Krauss, but nothing, in Quantum Mechanics, has been proven to actually be something, hence my saying "nothing" is not nothing. Yes, it's a paradox. This queer concept seemed illogical to me, too, at first.

I'm aware, which is why I strongly disagree. You know that our understanding of QM is minimal at best. We can make accurate predictions within fields of probability, but we've no idea what we are actually dealing with. If we did, harmonization with Einstein would be simple enough.

The point is that QM doesn't require that nothing produce something. It appears that nothing produces something, which obviously cannot be the case. The very fact that this "nothing" is producing something means that it is something. We need to study it more. The philosophical principle holds, as does, then, the argument I've put forward (as least thus far). I hope you appreciate that to argue that a nothing (which is a contradiction in terms) can produce something is to deny the law of non-contradiction, and in that case, we are forced into absolute and complete skepticism of any and all kinds. Nothing, not even that nothing produces something, can be known.

QuoteI'm familiar with the concept of eternity being, not time without end, but the now; time is an illusion, so on. I like it. I agree with it. Yet that doesn't make the concept of time invalid. A Prime Mover, if stable and isolated, will not bring about any new changes; it won't spark the inception of the efficient order chain of causes. Unless it is in its own nature to change, however slightly, it cannot produce anything new, meaning it is not really immune to efficient order, because EO is occurring from within the Prime Mover itself. It's self defeating.

You are assuming that the PM must move from potential creation to actual creation. That is actually self-defeating, because you are assuming that there is potential in the PM, which would render it not really the PM by definition, and that the PM is temporal, which would also render it not really the PM. As we discussed in the simplicity thread, the PM is pure act. To use inappropriately tensed language, but still be the best we can do, we can say that God "has been creating" eternally. From God's perspective, His creation--every temporal moment of it--is eternal with Him. From our perspective, being temporal, we are finite compared to Him.

A final way to think about this: you are assuming that God has all the necessary conditions to create, but that "before" Creation lacked the sufficient condition, being the will to actually go ahead and create. It is, of course, true that an eternal being that meets all necessary conditions but not sufficient conditions will never move to action. The assumption, however, that God lacks the sufficient condition to create is invalid. The condition has been eternally met in Him as He is actus purus.

QuoteNot only that but there needs to be empirical evidence, not simply logic. If we can conclude there needs to be a perfect Prime Mover then we have merely determined what we should expect to find. That is still a long way from proving what exactly it is, whether or not it is a deity and especially if that deity should be considered Yahweh.

Don't confuse logic and philosophy, my friend. The two disciplines are most certainly not the same thing. Philosophy employs logic to reach its conclusions, but it also employs linguistics, history, science, and every other discipline under the sun.

Philosophy studies the nature of things. Science studies the behavior of things. The latter requires empirical observation. The former, in light of empirical observation, is able to make more informed conclusions on its subject matter. We cannot say, however, that philosophical statements cannot be true or regarded as true without empirical verification. That is a position called verificationism that has long been recognized as being self-refuting, because the statement, "All statements need empirical verification before they can be known to be true" is itself not subject to empirical verification and therefore cannot be known to be true under its own definition. It is self-defeating.

We can know God exists if each of the premises is accepted and the logic is valid. If you want to deny any of the premises, then feel free. So long, however, as the premises are accepted and the logic is valid, the conclusion is true, in this case, that God exists.

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

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I thank you for sharing your work in this way. I appreciate you putting it to audio as well. Alas, as with far too many Americans, I am only proficient (barely) in one language. I looked up entelecheia and energeia in my Cambridge dictionary of Philosophy.

Again, respectfully, I am left with the same problem. Entelecheia is a term coined by a theist many years ago. Aristotle is not labeling something observed, but rather explaining something thought. It's conceivable to me that he wouldn't have even coined the term if he didn't believe in god(s), but that is for another discussion. Regardless of what we call this thing, it is still just the creation of a (brilliant) mind.

Btw, I do reject "seeing'" in the sense that you describe it. I don't believe "seeing" can be separated from that which sees, it only exists as a function of seeing apparati. However, even if one concedes that it could be separated, it would still be limited by the properties of light (that which is observed when seeing), and thus, couldn't properly be called entelecheia because it couldn't reach fulfillment.

Aristotle wasn't really a theist. A deist, perhaps, but not a theist. His "god" was an impersonal force that brought and sustained all in existence. He would have agreed with the first nine statements in my proof. He never took it the rest of the way.

In any case, it really doesn't matter though if an idea comes from a theist or an atheist. The origin of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its truthfulness. To reject something because of its origin is called a genetic fallacy. Outside of that, your statement "regardless of what we call this thing" is the most telling in your post. The fact that we are dealing with a thing is what is important. I will say this again and a thousand times over: I do not care what words we use to describe any of these concepts. Words are just conventional signs for mental constructs that may or may not accurately signify reality. The fact that "the act of seeing" is distinguished from the eye which sees is the important point. The fact that "the act of knowing" is different from the mind which knows is the important point. Aristotle called the act entelecheia (a perfection). We can call it whatever you like. Whatever you call it, it still has being, and that being still has to have efficient causality. That is, that being is still an effect that must be caused, and since all effects find their primary cause in subsistent existence, then whatever you want to call this must have its primary cause in subsistent existence as well.

Next, you are exactly correct that act of seeing cannot be separated from that which sees. That is why it is called entelecheia. Seeing is defined with reference to the eye (or whatever apparatus we are dealing with). It is what the eye does. Yet, again, seeing itself is not the same thing as the eye, so although they are not separated, a logical and philosophical distinction is necessary, namely that both are effects in some sense or another.

Finally, you are confusing the mechanism of seeing with the act of seeing. Bats "see" in a different sense than humans do, and yet the word "see" can be applied analogically to both. If bats were intelligent enough to discuss these things, they would probably object to you using the word "see" for what your eyes do, too. Therefore, what light does isn't important as far seeing goes; it is only important insofar as how the eyeball sees. The very fact that one apparatus may see in one way and another in another way demonstrates further the distinction between the apparatus and the perfection. Seeing, we "see," then, is actually the idea of perceiving the external world. Our perception is limited by our natures. Such a perfection obtained in an unlimited nature of pure being, however, would be unlimited, and this is actually exactly what we would expect. Just suppose with me for a moment that God really does exist as I have defined Him. Suppose He gives existence to everything. Can you see how in giving everything existence He is perceiving everything? Thus, we see that God's "seeing" is infinite; but not only that, it explains His omniscience, for that is how He knows everything. It explains His omnipresence, for if He is causing at present everything, then He is "everywhere." In fact, then, there is no real distinction between God's omniscience, perfect sight, and omnipresence. They are all one and the same attribute considered different ways. And yet isn't that exactly what DS predicts we should find?

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

 

Quote from: "i_am_i"Chris (Jac), I showed your Argument from Subsistent Existence to a mucho-smart scientist friend of mine, who also happens to be Christian, and here was his response:

"In a deterministic world where everthing we see is part of a chain of efficient causality, it does make some sort of sense to wonder as Aristote did if all these chains began in one original uncaused cause which is what I think the OP means by a first cause. However in the indeterministic world that is suggested by quantum physics, there are uncaused causes all over the place and chains of efficient causality do not go inevitably lead backward to a single uncaused cause at the beginning (if there is one) but to many at all points of time. This suggests that there is not a single first cause but many and it modifies our speculations about that first uncaused cause (if there is one) because that need only be responsible for infinitesmally little rather than for everything -- i.e. it would not be so god-like at all but just a simple little thing. This by the way would go along with Stephen Hawkings suggestion in "A Brief History of Time" that the first first cause is just a quantum event like all the other "first cause"/quantum events that are happening all the time."

No, I don't really know what he's talking about. I just thought that you might find it interesting.

Before I offer comments on what he is talking about, let me make a point that I think is rather important to our entire discussion. Philosophy is not science, and science is not philosophy. Ultimately, this needs to be a discussion on its own, but stated simply, just because a person is a skilled technician in biology or physics or chemistry or whatever does not mean they understand the philosophical implications of their own field, much less of philosophy generally. This isn't to downplay the value of science in the least. Like all disciplines, it is a tool. When the right tool is used for the right job, it yields the expected results. When the wrong tool is used, however, the results can actually be damaging. You can't do history in the lab. You can't do science historically. By the same token, the questions, tools, and methods of philosophy differ from those of science, so while I appreciate your friend's comments, his authority on science does not transfer to philosophical issues. If he has some time, though, by all means, invite him here and we can discuss things. I would be more than willing ;)

QuoteThe arguments read as though one is constructing a pyramid of immense accuracy and beauty one carefully placed grain of sand at a time until the only possible conclusion is that at the very point of the pyramid sits God. Resplendent in his perfection of existance. The trouble with what I see here, so far, is that there is one critical thing wrong with the pyramid, it is point down and rests on the existance of God in the first place, for which there is no evidence.

This is incorrect. The argument does rest of the existence of God. Nowhere is that stated or implied until 21. It does assume that there is such a thing as existence, which I assume you disagree with. If there is no such thing as existence, then we are not here to be having this discussion. Descarte, for all of his flaws, proved that flawlessly.

It's rather easy to say something like "the argument assumes God exists." It's quite another to demonstrate it. It is written in full on the first page . . . if I have begged the question, I would be more than happy to drop the argument and move on to others.

QuoteI have used the term 'intellectual masturbation' to describe what is going on here, it is mildly derogatory but also very accurate. I'm sure people who engage in this sort of theological debate get immense pleasure from it, I doubt they would do it if they didn't, but because the subject is ethereal and based on the existance of the supernatural the product can only be fruitless. Speculation about speculation is pointless but fun. Speculation followed by experiment is also fun (watch Mythbuters for a very crude example) but requires real world effort. Not that Chris isn't putting in effort, he most definitely is, but in this respect I see it as the sort of effort one puts into riding an exercise bike, the effort isn't really getting us anywhere.

I have called religion institutionalised superstition while the opposite, science, is institutionalised curiosity. Sitting around a camp fire in the middle of the desert with no real idea of how the world works is going to cause speculation about the big questions (such as why did You Bastard fart just as I walked past his arse!) and as humans are an evolved cause and effect machine they are going to want an answer. And at that time there was no possibility of a real answer, so they made shit up as people are want to do in the absence of facts (something we still do today).

So now we are getting a grip on what is really going on, for example evolution. There is no need to invoke a creator anymore. The combined sciences of biology (both taxonomy and genetics), geology and palaeontology have shown how humans came into existance. To deny evolution as the mechanism of production of the biological diversity around us and homo sapiens as part of that biodiversity is simply to deny the scientific method. Darwin was born into a Christian creationist family and set off to discover Gods work. He ended up, after years of soul searching, killing the notion of the biblical creation and thus the voracity of the Bible as an historical document of an worth in describing the mechanisms of creation. Darwin hammered the biggest possible nail into the coffin of God.

In my opinion God is the wishful thinking of people and nothing the Chris has said has, as yet, demonstrated otherwise. But I'm enjoying every word of the debate  :mad:

I am glad you are enjoying the debate. I'm sure you would agree, however, that it is only debate if the one side takes exceptions to specific points of logic or the soundness of certain premises. Pontificating, which is "mildly derogatory but also very accurate," doesn't advance the discussion at all. I am still very open to being shown where the argument is either invalid or unsound. Much obliged

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

Quote from: "i_am_i"And that raises my question, which is always the same one: where does the possibility, the idea, of god from if not from the human mind?

Maybe a philosopher should come up with a point-by-point argument for just taking the idea of God seriously in the first place.

I don't understand what you are asking for. Where did the idea of gravity come from if not from the human mind? Or the red-shift? Or the George Washington was the first president of the Unite States? Or that 2+2=4? All ideas are fundamentally human. The question is whether or not those ideas accurately describe reality.

God is conceived of as the perfect being, the First Cause of all things. Unless it can be shown that the idea is fundamentally incoherent (and many have tried but none, in my opinion, have succeeded), then the question becomes, "Does this idea accurately reflect reality," which is "Does God exist?" The argument I put forward is a way to prove that it does, that He does.

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

Quote from: "Tom62"My 2cts. I find the discussion with Jac very interesting, even though I'm not a philosopher and know very little about philosophy. But the tread leads to nowhere, other than that we will agree with Jac that we disagree.

For me philosophy has always been an experiment in futility, that evolves around a lot of navel staring; an intellectual discussion that is out of touch with "reality". It reminds me of the following joke:

How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?

"Hmmm... well there's an interesting question isn't it?"
"Define 'light bulb'..."
"How can you be sure it needs changing?"

There have always been people who denied the validity of philosophy. The irony of the matter is that, just as you have done, they always use philosophy to disprove philosophy. Describing philosophy as a thing, whatever that thing is (in your case, "an intellectual discussion that is out of touch with "reality""), is to do philosophy, as you are ascribing a nature to it. And that is just what philosophy is. The point could further be pressed by asking you what is a discussion, and from that, what is intellectual, and from that, what is an intellectual discussion. I could ask you what reality is and what "reality" is, and what it means to be in touch with or out of touch with reality. To answer those questions, you must use philosophy, because to answer those questions is to do philosophy. You can simply refuse to answer them, but then your statement is nothing more than an unfounded assertion and is no better than the blind faith of the theist who says, "I believe in God because I do! You should, too!"

It's like trying to deny the law of non-contradiction, my friend. To do it, you must use it. You can't deny philosophy, because to do it, you must use it. Far better is to learn to use it properly.

Quote from: "Reginus"Jac, can you explain and/or rephrase 19?  It's a bit confusing to me.  Also, what are the immediate premises it builds upon?

Sure thing:

Therefore, all perfections obtain in subsistent existence.

Notice first of all that this is a conclusion from previous statements, so lets look at the previous:

14. All perfections must have an efficient cause.
15. Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all perfections.
16. The effect of any efficient cause pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause.
17. Therefore, perfections exist virtually in subsistent existence.
18. A perfection is obtained in being.

(14) simply states that perfections (entelecheia) are effects, and as effects, need causes. See my discussion with HS for more detail on this.
(15) says that, from previous arguments, SE must be the primary efficient cause of all perfections, since SE is the primary efficient cause of all effects.
(16) is plain; effects always follow from the nature of their causes. Fire produces heat, not water. Hammers, since they are hard, produce pain, not flowers, when smashed into my thumb. The effects don't exist in reality, but only potentially when combined with other existing effects. That is what we mean by "virtual." They are there, but not in a really existent sense.
(17) says that all perfections therefore exist at least virtually in SE. That is a necessary result from 15-16.
(18) asserts that a perfection ceases to be virtual, but becomes actual, when in being. The reason my thumb doesn't hurt yet is that "it smashed my thumb" as no being (hopefully!). Once that being exists, the effect is obtained. But since SE is pure being, then all perfections must obtain in pure being.

From this, (19) necessarily follows. All perfections obtain, that is, are not virtual but are real, in SE. We can go forward and qualify this since there are subclasses of perfections. Only simple, unlimited perfections obtain in pure being (i.e., my height is not a true perfection; it is a limited expression of my being; pain is not a true perfection; it is a particular class of the perfection "perception," etc.). The point, however, is that pure perfections such as knowledge, will, personhood, etc., are fully exemplified (analogically) in SE.

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

Quote from: "_7654_"http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/franciscan_studies/v066/66.kluge.html

I don't think you can get to this link. but it talks, in excruciating detail regarding your arguments. i am reading the study, yes it's a philosophical study of another philosophical work :-)

Actually, I have the full text right here in front of me. Scotus is required reading if you want to be able to use and defend this argument correctly, since he basically decided it was his job in life to challenge Aquinas on pretty much everything.

Rather than get into a source war, would you care to boil down the particular arguments/critiques you find persuasive and just make them yourself--for the benefit of the board, of course.

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

Quote from: "Parsifal"Where?  In several places.  Here is one from Mark.  

QuoteMark 11
11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.   
11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.   
11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

There are several similar passages, the gist of which is: pray, believe and you'll receive.

Now, I know many Christians say that the lack of faith leads to the lack of answered prayer (in 99,99999999% (or something like that) of cases, whereas the remainder is impossible to distinguish from things that would any way have happened, like getting better from a cold, or finding a parking space at the mall).  Otherwise, it wasn't part of God's plan.  But the point is, can so many devout christians really lack faith?  And, nowhere in the Bible does the Lord Jesus say "Whatsoever ye desire, when ye pray and believe that ye received them, AND PROVIDED IT IS PART OF MY PLAN, ye shall receive them.

So, either God lied (but the Bible seems to exclude that possibility) or he doesn't exist.  I'm opting for the latter.

Aha. Since you think this proves God lied or doesn't exist, I'm sure you would be willing to see if your view stands under scrutiny, especially since you recognize that Mark was written well after the time of Christ, and the author would have been just as familiar as the difficulty which you site.

Unless he meant something else. In which case, your argument wouldn't hold. So let's see.

What was this promise in connection to. While you look at that, I'll give you a hint--when you answer me this, please be sure to include the connection with the mountain being thown into the sea. The two ideas are extremely important.

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

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Matthew, in chpt 21, verse 22"And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Quote from: "Mark, in chpt 11, verse 24"Therefore I say unto you, what things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

Quote from: "John, in chpt 14, verses 13 and 14"And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.

Quote from: " ... and in chpt 16, verse 23, "And in that day ye shall ask me nothing.  Verily, verily I say unto you, whatever ye shall ask the Father in my name, He will give it to you

It's worth noting that these are unequivocal promises of positive granting of prayer, too.

"All the apples are red. You can have them."

What does that sentence mean?

On one hand, you could call me an idiot because not all the apples in the world are red. But perhaps I only like green apples. And perhaps we are in the grocery store and we both get to the apple stand at the last time and there are only three left. Then, my sentence make sense. "All" can mean a universal all; it can also mean all within a given set.

Second, suppose in our scenario a third person walks up and pushes you out of the way and takes your tasty red apples. He then looks at you and says, "Hey, he said I could have them!" Your response, of course, would be to say that I wasn't talking to him; I was talking to you. People make a very common and terrible mistake of assuming the Bible was written to them. A very, very great deal of problems would be resolved if people would ask the question, "Who is being addressed?" Just because the Bible uses the word you (and be sure to distinguish between its singular and plural usage, as that makes a very big difference in many texts) doesn't mean it is talking to you personally.

That should get you going in seeing why those passages aren't a problem.

Ok,
so reading through the argument, even if the argument is true, you end up with a deity that cares nothing about what you or i do... you end up with a deist position, not a theist position. So all your work is still ahead of you, trying to get from a deist position of "there is a god" to Yahweh or Allah.

Now to the interesting parts: :-) you will end up with a material, substantial god. A god you can kick around, and see on radar screens...

As for the perfections segment of the argument, i will care to quote @RosaRubicondior
http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/201 ... ience.html (http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2010/06/on-fallacy-of-gods-inerrant-omniscience.html)

QuoteAha. Since you think this proves God lied or doesn't exist, I'm sure you would be willing to see if your view stands under scrutiny, especially since you recognize that Mark was written well after the time of Christ, and the author would have been just as familiar as the difficulty which you site.

Unless he meant something else. In which case, your argument wouldn't hold. So let's see.

What was this promise in connection to. While you look at that, I'll give you a hint--when you answer me this, please be sure to include the connection with the mountain being thown into the sea. The two ideas are extremely important.

Jac, I'm stumped.  But this is exactly my point.  In order to "believe" you have to take the Bible out of context and "interpret" it.  So, when God says, believe and you'll receive, he didn't actually mean believe and you'll receive.

So, sorry, you will have to explain to me why believing is not receiving.

Oh and yes, quite funny.  Everyone that wrote about Jesus, never met him.  And we're supposed to believe EVERYTHING they wrote, regardless of the contradictions.

Quote from: "_7654_"Ok,
so reading through the argument, even if the argument is true, you end up with a deity that cares nothing about what you or i do... you end up with a deist position, not a theist position. So all your work is still ahead of you, trying to get from a deist position of "there is a god" to Yahweh or Allah.

If all perfections obtain in God, he cannot be deistic.

QuoteNow to the interesting parts: :-) you will end up with a material, substantial god. A god you can kick around, and see on radar screens...

A couple of issues here.

1. Any property can only be related to a substance essentially or accidentally. Clearly, being is not an essential property, because if it were, then all essences would exist, including unicorns and my four hundred plus unborn brothers (plus one, to infinity). Being, then, is an accidental property, and that by definition. An accidental property is that which does not change what a thing actually is. Whether or not something exists, it still is what it is. The hundred dollar bill I don't have in my pocket is still a hundred dollar bill, even if it were (that is, even if it had existence).

Now, existence is unique among accidental properties. Most accidental properties are subsequent to substances. You can't talk about a brown thing until you have a thing to be brown. Thus, to use a word picture, most accidental properties are laid on top of a substance. Being, on the other hand, lies under every substance, and not only under every substance, but under every property. "White" has its being just as much as my skin; that my skin is white means that my skin has being and the white that my skin is has its own being.

That is just the nature of being, just as whiteness or any other accidental property has its own nature.

2. What makes you think God would be material? The whole argument is that being itself must exist within itself. It cannot be material. You'll have to demonstrate that to be the case.

QuoteAs for the perfections segment of the argument, i will care to quote @RosaRubicondior
http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/201 ... ience.html (http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/2010/06/on-fallacy-of-gods-inerrant-omniscience.html)

Again, I'll ask that we don't get into source wars. I have absolutely no problem with you using someone else's argument. All arguments are eventually someone else's. I only ask that you make them yourself. Even if I took the time to read all of these links, it isn't fair to ask other members of the board to do the same. I'll respond to any argument you put forward. Please just put them forward yourself rather than saying, "Well this guy says . . . go check it out!"

On that note, are you aware that the first article you linked me to actually is in support of the very principle you claimed it was against? You quoted, ""Historically, this reasoning has found few defenders because, as has variously been pointed out, the claim that in the case of accidentally ordered efficient causes “no change of form is perpetuated save in virtue of something permanent [End Page 233] which is not a part of the succession” is not at all obvious.3 Yet without this premise the argument collapses." The very next sentence says, "In this brief note, I should like to take up the challenge of showing that, given the metaphysical parameters within which Scotus is operating, his claim is indeed valid and that while his argument for the existence of God in the Ordinatio ultimately fails, it does not fail for this reason."

I'm not sure, then, how this resource has any bearing on our discussion other than to point out that there are scholars who agree with me (at least on this point) . . .

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

Quote from: "Parsifal"Jac, I'm stumped.  But this is exactly my point.  In order to "believe" you have to take the Bible out of context and "interpret" it.  So, when God says, believe and you'll receive, he didn't actually mean believe and you'll receive.

So, sorry, you will have to explain to me why believing is not receiving.

Oh and yes, quite funny.  Everyone that wrote about Jesus, never met him.  And we're supposed to believe EVERYTHING they wrote, regardless of the contradictions.

With all due respect, Parsifal, you asked me if I had even bothered reading the Bible, so I'm asking you to explain it to me. You didn't answer my question. There is nothing to be stumped by. What is the context of the statement Jesus made in Mark 11? What had just happened that caused Him to make the statement? What was the theme He was dealing with at that time, and--I'm helping you here, now--how does the context link with and inform His mention of the mountains being moved?

It's a very simple question. If you read the text, you'll find the answer there in black and white (or red and white, depending on your version, I suppose).

I'm trying to help you with your explanation. I'm not going to give you a straight "this is why." Your first post to me gave me very good reason for believing that this is all just a gotcha. I am engaged in serious discussion with serious people on serious issues here. I have found most of the members here to be worthy of the utmost respect for the simple reason that they aren't playing games and are willing to discuss these issues, as am I. That's the foundation of real debate. I'm not interested in preaching or being preached at. So for the time being, this is how we will proceed. If you want to know why those who believe today don't receive when Jesus seems to say that they will, then answer my question. What is the context in which Jesus made this statement? What had just happened that lead to this dialogue, and how does that connect with the idea of moving mountains?

Right, Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing figs outside of the fig season.

Quote11:13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

.

Then he cast out them that sold.  The next day they walk past the fig tree, which has died in the meantime, and Peter kindly points this out to the Son of God who then remarks:

Quote11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

I'm still lost.  The context does not make it any better for me.  In fact, now it even makes less sense.

I'm also trying a serious debate here, please don't belittle me.  Ad hominem arguments are often used by Christians to attack atheists.  The standard christian counter argument is always: Go look and then you'll understand.  Sorry, I've looked and now I'm even more lost.  Or, to be precise, the Bible is very precise about prayers that will be answered.  I am now even more convinced that when the Bible says that God will answer all prayers, that is what is meant.  There are no exception, provisos, or conditions.  The context here is irrelevant and does not help your argument.

Let me just elucidate, I've read your other arguments, but I'm leaving it up to my colleagues to debate you on them.  However, the God you're describing, is not the God of the Bible.  I can grasp your arguments, and am willing to concede that if such a god is found to exist based upon empirical research, we can talk.  But the God of the Bible he won't be.  I get the impression that you are using your arguments to say: if we can prove this way that a god exists, it must be the God of the Bible.  And that argument falls flat as it is a non sequitur.

QuoteJac wrote: I'm trying to help you with your explanation. I'm not going to give you a straight "this is why."

Following in the footsteps of your master?

Quote11:27 And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders,   
11:28 And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?   
11:29 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.   
11:30 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.   
11:31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him?   
11:32 But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.   
11:33 And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.

Why not?  Why answer everything with a counter question?  I thought to get to Jesus you have to become like a child.  What do children do?  They ask questions.

Quote from: "Parsifal"Right, Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing figs outside of the fig season.

Quote11:13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

.

Then he cast out them that sold.  The next day they walk past the fig tree, which has died in the meantime, and Peter kindly points this out to the Son of God who then remarks:

Quote11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

I'm still lost.  The context does not make it any better for me.  In fact, now it even makes less sense.

I'm also trying a serious debate here, please don't belittle me.  Ad hominem arguments are often used by Christians to attack atheists.  The standard christian counter argument is always: Go look and then you'll understand.  Sorry, I've looked and now I'm even more lost.  Or, to be precise, the Bible is very precise about prayers that will be answered.  I am now even more convinced that when the Bible says that God will answer all prayers, that is what is meant.  There are no exception, provisos, or conditions.  The context here is irrelevant and does not help your argument.

Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere.

The reason is still doesn't make sense, though, is that you missed two key elements. One I explicitly asked you about, and the other you just didn't mention. The latter is that Jesus was responding specifically to Peter's exclamation, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!" Therefore, the point Jesus makes about prayer is expressly tied to that particular miracle. I asked you to tie fig tree to the moving of mountains. You didn't, but I won't patronize you by asking again. The whole idea here is concerning the miraculous. Peter wants to know how Jesus could have accomplished this. Jesus says that anything is possible through faith, even up to the moving of mountains.

Now, this brings us to the salient point that answers your question: can people move mountains? Think about this for a second. If the author of Mark had moved a mountain with his prayer, would he have said, "Look at how powerful I am! I can move mountains!" No. He would have said, "Look how powerful God is. He can move mountains," which is exactly how Jesus opens His answer: "Have faith in God."

The point of the passage is not the power of prayer. It is the power of God. God can do whatever He wants. The point, then, is that we are to trust God (again, "Have faith in God"). The same word "faith" here is the word "believe" in Jesus statement concerning prayer. It fundamentally means "trust." Jesus wasn't telling the disciples how to do miracles. He wasn't telling us how to do miracles. He was tying his lesson on prayer to what had just happened, namely the miraculous. The important thing is to pray and to trust God. It is to rely on Him. To issue Him orders is not to rely on Him. Finally, all of this is set against the background of Jesus doing God's will and not His own (see John 6:38). Christians are, of course, to do the same, which is something that the first readers of Mark would have been perfectly aware of.

So, you tell me, why, according to this passage, if I am convinced that God will just give me a new car if I ask Him, He won't pony up?

QuoteLet me just elucidate, I've read your other arguments, but I'm leaving it up to my colleagues to debate you on them.  However, the God you're describing, is not the God of the Bible.  I can grasp your arguments, and am willing to concede that if such a god is found to exist based upon empirical research, we can talk.  But the God of the Bible he won't be.  I get the impression that you are using your arguments to say: if we can prove this way that a god exists, it must be the God of the Bible.  And that argument falls flat as it is a non sequitur.

We're doing natural theology first. Does God exist and what can be known about Him. The Bible is a record of special revelation. It's not hard to go from a full picture of general revelation to the record of special revelation, but we aren't there yet. We will get there, I promise you, in time. But we have to get a full orbed picture of God, first. Proving God exists in and of itself would be a feat on this site. That's all I'm arguing right now. I'll offer links to why we know that He is the same as the biblical God later.

Quote from: "Parsifal"Why not?  Why answer everything with a counter question?  I thought to get to Jesus you have to become like a child.  What do children do?  They ask questions.

I've only answered your questions with a counter question, and I've already explained why.

As far as what is going on in that passage, it helps to know something about the shame and honor culture that was Israel in the first century A.D. As that isn't directly a part of this thread, though, I'll leave it at that. If you would like, feel free to start a thread on it, though.

Quote from: "Jac3510""All the apples are red. You can have them."

What does that sentence mean?

On one hand, you could call me an idiot because not all the apples in the world are red. But perhaps I only like green apples. And perhaps we are in the grocery store and we both get to the apple stand at the last time and there are only three left. Then, my sentence make sense. "All" can mean a universal all; it can also mean all within a given set.

Second, suppose in our scenario a third person walks up and pushes you out of the way and takes your tasty red apples. He then looks at you and says, "Hey, he said I could have them!" Your response, of course, would be to say that I wasn't talking to him; I was talking to you. People make a very common and terrible mistake of assuming the Bible was written to them. A very, very great deal of problems would be resolved if people would ask the question, "Who is being addressed?" Just because the Bible uses the word you (and be sure to distinguish between its singular and plural usage, as that makes a very big difference in many texts) doesn't mean it is talking to you personally.

That should get you going in seeing why those passages aren't a problem.

Actually, what it reveals to me is exactly how much contortion believers must go through in order to explain inconvenient verses.  Not one of those verses mention conditionals (except the requirement to believe, which appears reasonable to me), partial sets, or any other favorite tools of apologetics.  

Furthermore, the imperfection of the message -- the fact that it can be, and is, misinterpreted (which is what you are saying here, and what the existence of the various sects prove as well) -- impeaches the "perfection" argument, anyway.  Certainly a perfect omnipotent being could fashion a perfect message which would not require appeals to apple-colors in order to be understood.

A propos the new car, yes, that is a good question.  Why not?  It seems to me you are trying to say that I must have faith in God doing his will.  So, if I don't have faith, God is going to stop performing His will.    Also, you seem to say that God won't cater to our whims.  Good, except that is not what is written in the gospels.  They make it clear that if I ask and believe, I will receive.  It says NOTHING about God's will.  Your arguments are trying to read something into the text that isn't there.  You have to contort the whole passage to fit your own belief, to rationalise why things don't work the way the Bible says they would.

But what about the poor down trodden Christian who has lost his job.  He prays for a job, he looks at Mark 11 and verily believes he will be employed, and yet it doesn't happen.  This isn't a whim.  This is a real need.  God says that he will take care of his followers, yet the reality doesn't bear it out.  Or the Christian who believes God will save her from cancer so she can raise her small children.  This isn't a whim.  I can barely understand your point that we can't command God to give us things we don't need, but he doesn't even give us the things we need when we pray for it.  The bottom line, prayers don't get answered, and your arguments for why they don't, are not supported by scripture, only by "reading" things that aren't there into the text.

QuoteAs far as what is going on in that passage, it helps to know something about the shame and honor culture that was Israel in the first century A.D. As that isn't directly a part of this thread, though, I'll leave it at that. If you would like, feel free to start a thread on it, though.

Yes, it is part of this thread, because it proves that the God you so desperately want to prove exists, doesn't exist.

Why do I need to understand an ancient culture's shame and honour (sorry, I am South African and use British English   ) culture?  If anything, it just shows how irrelevant the Bible is to 21st century realities.  I am also to deny evolution?

Of course, none of this addresses at all the pointlessness of praying to the Christian god, anyway:

1) He is said to know everything; meaning, he knows what you need, and he knows whether you're sincere or not.

2) If it is already a part of his plan, it was going to happen anyway.

3) If it's not a part of his plan, it may still fit in with it; but he already knows you need or want the object of your prayer.

4) If it requires a change in his plan, it will not be granted.  To argue that he changes his plan would mean to surrender the concept of this particular god's omnipotence. To argue that he doesn't change his plan means that not all prayers are answered.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Actually, what it reveals to me is exactly how much contortion believers must go through in order to explain inconvenient verses.  Not one of those verses mention conditionals (except the requirement to believe, which appears reasonable to me), partial sets, or any other favorite tools of apologetics.  

Furthermore, the imperfection of the message -- the fact that it can be, and is, misinterpreted (which is what you are saying here, and what the existence of the various sects prove as well) -- impeaches the "perfection" argument, anyway.  Certainly a perfect omnipotent being could fashion a perfect message which would not require appeals to apple-colors in order to be understood.

Perhaps, or perhaps:

"The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “ ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their heartsand turn, and I would heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it." (Matt 13:11-17)

In any case, an appeal to apple colors isn't required in and of itself. It is only required when people make false assumptions about the way a text must be read. Getting at the basic meaning of any text is a fairly simple process. It may require some work, but the process isn't complicated. You simply have to understand that it is a historical document written in a specific time and place for a specific reason to a specific people in a specific language. You only get it wrong when you start trying to read it like a 21st century newspaper.

Still worse, many people are inconsistent on this point. Suppose you wrote your wife a love-letter, and suppose another woman picked it up. Now, you are, as you know, quite a catch, and because of this, this woman gets very excited about your professed love for her. Are you wrong in appealing to intended audience and the meaning of "you"? Of course not. You are simply following the normal rules of language. Why people think that a collection of documents that were written over a fourteen hundred year period by some forty authors in three different languages, all two millennia or more ago, should be treated any differently is beyond me.

Now, all this is very fascinating stuff, but none of it has any bearing on the argument put forward. If you would like to further explore this, I would be happy to in another thread. Thanks ;) ) culture?  If anything, it just shows how irrelevant the Bible is to 21st century realities.  I am also to deny evolution?[/quote]
Again, I am going to have to ask you to trim back some of the polemic. If you want to get into a discussion on specific biblical passages, open a thread on it. I've offered to answer you there. I'd rather this thread not get taken a million miles off course.

Thank you.

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

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Of course, none of this addresses at all the pointlessness of praying to the Christian god, anyway:

1) He is said to know everything; meaning, he knows what you need, and he knows whether you're sincere or not.

2) If it is already a part of his plan, it was going to happen anyway.

3) If it's not a part of his plan, it may still fit in with it; but he already knows you need or want the object of your prayer.

4) If it requires a change in his plan, it will not be granted. To argue that he changes his plan would mean to surrender the concept of this particular god's omnipotence. To argue that he doesn't change his plan means that not all prayers are answered.

Perhaps. But whether or not it is pointless to pray to the Christian God doesn't have anything to do with the argument put forward in this thread. Again, if you want to discuss that issue, open a thread on it. I'll be more than happy to discuss it there.

Quote"The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “ ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their heartsand turn, and I would heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it." (Matt 13:11-17)

QuoteJohn 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

Seems like a bit of a contradiction here...  Jesus says in John he never hid anything from anyone, but in Matthew he says he did (presumably from people like me).  Or have I got the intended audience wrong?

Jac, you are trying to prove there is a god, and we're showing you that this god (or God) is a hopeless creature, on his own version.  Not perfect at all.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"And that raises my question, which is always the same one: where does the possibility, the idea, of god from if not from the human mind?

Maybe a philosopher should come up with a point-by-point argument for just taking the idea of God seriously in the first place.

I don't understand what you are asking for. Where did the idea of gravity come from if not from the human mind?

An idea based on an observed event (apple falling from tree) is not at all the same thing, though.

QuoteI'm aware, which is why I strongly disagree. You know that our understanding of QM is minimal at best. We can make accurate predictions within fields of probability, but we've no idea what we are actually dealing with. If we did, harmonization with Einstein would be simple enough.

The point is that QM doesn't require that nothing produce something. It appears that nothing produces something, which obviously cannot be the case. The very fact that this "nothing" is producing something means that it is something. We need to study it more. The philosophical principle holds, as does, then, the argument I've put forward (as least thus far). I hope you appreciate that to argue that a nothing (which is a contradiction in terms) can produce something is to deny the law of non-contradiction, and in that case, we are forced into absolute and complete skepticism of any and all kinds. Nothing, not even that nothing produces something, can be known.

You could be right. For me, it is because of this unknown I don't draw a conclusion either way.

QuoteYou are assuming that the PM must move from potential creation to actual creation. That is actually self-defeating, because you are assuming that there is potential in the PM, which would render it not really the PM by definition, and that the PM is temporal, which would also render it not really the PM. As we discussed in the simplicity thread, the PM is pure act. To use inappropriately tensed language, but still be the best we can do, we can say that God "has been creating" eternally. From God's perspective, His creation--every temporal moment of it--is eternal with Him. From our perspective, being temporal, we are finite compared to Him.

A final way to think about this: you are assuming that God has all the necessary conditions to create, but that "before" Creation lacked the sufficient condition, being the will to actually go ahead and create. It is, of course, true that an eternal being that meets all necessary conditions but not sufficient conditions will never move to action. The assumption, however, that God lacks the sufficient condition to create is invalid. The condition has been eternally met in Him as He is actus purus.

Can you explain how this would work? A good metaphor to work from perhaps. Is it like a snowball gathering momentum?

QuotePhilosophy studies the nature of things. Science studies the behavior of things. The latter requires empirical observation. The former, in light of empirical observation, is able to make more informed conclusions on its subject matter. We cannot say, however, that philosophical statements cannot be true or regarded as true without empirical verification. That is a position called verificationism that has long been recognized as being self-refuting, because the statement, "All statements need empirical verification before they can be known to be true" is itself not subject to empirical verification and therefore cannot be known to be true under its own definition. It is self-defeating.

I agree with you more than you might think in Epistemological terms,. Yet this sounds like an excuse to abandon evidence. I'm also not sure I see the distinction between the nature and behavior of things. Often I use the two interchangeably. Presumably you mean Philosophy asks the "why" questions and science asks the "how". Why questions are not always applicable, especially to things in nature.

QuoteWe can know God exists if each of the premises is accepted and the logic is valid. If you want to deny any of the premises, then feel free. So long, however, as the premises are accepted and the logic is valid, the conclusion is true, in this case, that God exists.

Memory could be failing me but I think you used the term before which is why I had used it. So again, I will say, logic is not enough, but it must be demonstrably true. Even within mathematics theorems must be proven, even more necessary is the onus when we are given the task of proving the existence of something in science. If God were to be proven it would occur in the field of science, not philosophy, of course, keeping in mind, as has been pointed out on this forum before, science is technically a branch of philosophy.

I think I get it now Chris.  I don't agree, but I get it.  Perfections stood out to me as weird so I questioned that.

You actually lost me much earlier because of the same weirdness.

2. All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.

I reject this. It tastes bad.  I reject Forms and entelecheia as well because they have a similar flavor.

Your definition of essence is different from mine.  For me, essence is what we perceive a thing to have.  For you, essence is what makes the thing.  To quote Sarte "existence precedes essence".  The belief that essence can exist without the thing rests on faith of the supernatural.  What is an essence of a man without the man?  A ghost, spirit, or immortal soul. Your second premise might as well read:

2. I believe in super natural beings such as ghosts, spirits, and immortal souls......

 It's short jump from belief in supernatural beings (essences) to  belief that all supernatural beings (essences) receive their  existence from  a magical supernatural being (essence) creating machine that contains all possibilities of everything.  

 I can't believe it took me this long to notice that.  Regardless of how we play around with the definition of "essences" this is where I get off the train.  It's a fundamental disagreement that will likely be covered (or already has been covered) in another thread.  

Thanks again for your efforts, I don't know why you do this, but you do it well  

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Actually, what it reveals to me is exactly how much contortion believers must go through in order to explain inconvenient verses.  Not one of those verses mention conditionals (except the requirement to believe, which appears reasonable to me), partial sets, or any other favorite tools of apologetics.  

Furthermore, the imperfection of the message -- the fact that it can be, and is, misinterpreted (which is what you are saying here, and what the existence of the various sects prove as well) -- impeaches the "perfection" argument, anyway.  Certainly a perfect omnipotent being could fashion a perfect message which would not require appeals to apple-colors in order to be understood.

Perhaps, or perhaps:

"The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “ ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their heartsand turn, and I would heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it." (Matt 13:11-17)

In any case, an appeal to apple colors isn't required in and of itself. It is only required when people make false assumptions about the way a text must be read. Getting at the basic meaning of any text is a fairly simple process. It may require some work, but the process isn't complicated. You simply have to understand that it is a historical document written in a specific time and place for a specific reason to a specific people in a specific language. You only get it wrong when you start trying to read it like a 21st century newspaper.

Still worse, many people are inconsistent on this point. Suppose you wrote your wife a love-letter, and suppose another woman picked it up. Now, you are, as you know, quite a catch, and because of this, this woman gets very excited about your professed love for her. Are you wrong in appealing to intended audience and the meaning of "you"? Of course not. You are simply following the normal rules of language. Why people think that a collection of documents that were written over a fourteen hundred year period by some forty authors in three different languages, all two millennia or more ago, should be treated any differently is beyond me.

Now, all this is very fascinating stuff, but none of it has any bearing on the argument put forward. If you would like to further explore this, I would be happy to in another thread. Thanks

The idea that any of the Bible is a reliable historical document is risible.  I'd invite you to read about its history, but somehow I doubt that will happen.

Insofar as your thread arguments are concerned, I regard philosophical "proofs" of gods to be useless.  Reality does not bow to logic.

Rather than "proofs" that have been debunked for centuries, you'd do better to present evidence.

Quote from: "Sophus"You could be right. For me, it is because of this unknown I don't draw a conclusion either way.

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.

QuoteCan you explain how this would work? A good metaphor to work from perhaps. Is it like a snowball gathering momentum?

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.

QuoteI agree with you more than you might think in Epistemological terms,. Yet this sounds like an excuse to abandon evidence. I'm also not sure I see the distinction between the nature and behavior of things. Often I use the two interchangeably. Presumably you mean Philosophy asks the "why" questions and science asks the "how". Why questions are not always applicable, especially to things in nature.

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.

QuoteMemory could be failing me but I think you used the term before which is why I had used it. So again, I will say, logic is not enough, but it must be demonstrably true. Even within mathematics theorems must be proven, even more necessary is the onus when we are given the task of proving the existence of something in science. If God were to be proven it would occur in the field of science, not philosophy, of course, keeping in mind, as has been pointed out on this forum before, science is technically a branch of philosophy.

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.

By the way, just a public note:

I'm going to give this discussion through tomorrow. Wednesday, I'll offer another argument, meaning I will edit the first post of the thread with details there and a link on that page to the first post discussing in deeper in the thread. This isn't to say, of course, that all discussion must stop on the argument from subsistent existence. It is to say that more than enough time will have been given for objections to be lodged, responded to, and defended.

That is all. Thanks for the healthy discussion.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I think I get it now Chris.  I don't agree, but I get it.  Perfections stood out to me as weird so I questioned that.

You actually lost me much earlier because of the same weirdness.

2. All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.

I reject this. It tastes bad.  I reject Forms and entelecheia as well because they have a similar flavor.

Your definition of essence is different from mine.  For me, essence is what we perceive a thing to have.  For you, essence is what makes the thing.  To quote Sarte "existence precedes essence".  The belief that essence can exist without the thing rests on faith of the supernatural.  What is an essence of a man without the man?  A ghost, spirit, or immortal soul. Your second premise might as well read:

2. I believe in super natural beings such as ghosts, spirits, and immortal souls......

 It's short jump from belief in supernatural beings (essences) to  belief that all supernatural beings (essences) receive their  existence from  a magical supernatural being (essence) creating machine that contains all possibilities of everything.  

 I can't believe it took me this long to notice that.  Regardless of how we play around with the definition of "essences" this is where I get off the train.  It's a fundamental disagreement that will likely be covered (or already has been covered) in another thread.  

Thanks again for your efforts, I don't know why you do this, but you do it well  :blink:

Quote from: "Jac3510"By the way, just a public note:

I'm going to give this discussion through tomorrow. Wednesday, I'll offer another argument, meaning I will edit the first post of the thread with details there and a link on that page to the first post discussing in deeper in the thread. This isn't to say, of course, that all discussion must stop on the argument from subsistent existence. It is to say that more than enough time will have been given for objections to be lodged, responded to, and defended.

That is all. Thanks for the healthy discussion.

Why not just make a separate thread?

Quote from: "Jac3510"Figured I'd go ahead and get this tonight while my wife is finishing up her work.

First, again, I'm not worried about the definition of words. You can define "essence" however you like. In classical philosophy, it refers to what a thing fundamentally is. If you don't want to use the word "essence" to refer to that, then, fine. Call it what-a-thing-is. The same is true with form. I do find it odd that you reject the definition and then quote Sarte, but that's another issue.

Regarding Sarte, I have nowhere argued that essences can exist without existence. That's obviously self-contradictory. In fact, in the very first premise, the statement is qualified that being, though accidental, is prior to the substance, because without being, the substance is not. So there's no faith or supernatural. The important point is that things are whatever they are. The very notion of efficient causality is impossible without this. Suppose I am a carpenter and I make a table. The sentence "I made the table" is meaningless if "table" as an essence or what-it-is was not virtually there to receive existence. If there is nothing to receive existence, then existence isn't predicated to anything, meaning nothing exists. When we say "Something exists," the something is the what-it-is, and the exists is the statement of existence. If what-it-is' aren't real concepts, then nothing in this world is real or can be known.

So, with all that, the second premise is as far removed as anything could possibly be from what I have argued. You and I have taken each other seriously until now. Let's not get into silly straw men, ok? Not that it matters, but I don't believe in the immortal soul (in the Cartesian or Greek sense of the word), nor do I believe in ghosts. Just because you define essence in that sense doesn't mean I do. If you don't like the word "essence" then rephrase my second premise as follows:

"That which a thing fundamentally is receives accidental properties through efficient causality."

And if you want to put the whole statement into non-philosophical language, read it like this:

"Things fundamentally are what they are and are not what they are not, and things can change some aspects of themselves without changing what they basically are--for example, a man can lose his hair and still be a man. So that means that some aspects of a thing, like a man's hair, aren't part of what it means to be a man; having hair or not having hair doesn't affect what a man fundamentally is. Now, what a thing fundamentally is doesn't change throughout its existence. In fact, it becomes what it is--whatever that is--the moment it comes into existence, and the moment it stops being what it is, then what it used to be no longer exists anymore (at least, in that particular instance. A man may die and cease to exist, but there are still other men. That just means that "he" is no longer a man). When things change in the sense of a man losing his hair--that is, when things change in a way that doesn't change what they fundamentally are--then the thing itself stays the same. Something caused that kind of change. Whatever it was that caused that change couldn't be what the thing fundamentally is. For example, it wasn't being a man that caused this person to go bald. It was old age or chemotherapy or a bad hair cut or whatever. So when some aspect about a thing changes that doesn't change what it basically is, we know that something caused that change other than the very definition of the thing itself. In other words, changes that don't change what a thing basically happen when something else brings about the change in the particular thing under discussion."

As you can see, it's much easier to say in philosophical terms. I can't imagine which part of that you would disagree with. Needless to say, it has nothing to do with ghosts.

EDIT: HAT TRICK! I'm getting off of here now. Got stuff to do!  :P  

Regardless of how clumsily I butcher the philosophy/logic, there is a fundamental dissonance between us that simply won't be resolved.  Your general position seems to be that if anything exists then god exists. I don't buy it.  I believe this is as close to a proper explanation of my position as I can get.  I'll let you have the last word on this one, but I'm done with this particular proof.  Thank you again for taking the time to provide it.  

I realize a discussion on skepticism will likely be forth coming. I look forward to it. I also would like to discuss morality, the bible, and the virtues of religion (or lack thereof).

Quote from: "Reginus"

Quote from: "Jac3510"By the way, just a public note:

I'm going to give this discussion through tomorrow. Wednesday, I'll offer another argument, meaning I will edit the first post of the thread with details there and a link on that page to the first post discussing in deeper in the thread. This isn't to say, of course, that all discussion must stop on the argument from subsistent existence. It is to say that more than enough time will have been given for objections to be lodged, responded to, and defended.

That is all. Thanks for the healthy discussion.

Why not just make a separate thread?

Yep.  Changing the premises after the arguments have been proffered is not nice.  It loses continuity.  Reg's right: start another thread.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Reginus"

Quote from: "Jac3510"By the way, just a public note:

I'm going to give this discussion through tomorrow. Wednesday, I'll offer another argument, meaning I will edit the first post of the thread with details there and a link on that page to the first post discussing in deeper in the thread. This isn't to say, of course, that all discussion must stop on the argument from subsistent existence. It is to say that more than enough time will have been given for objections to be lodged, responded to, and defended.

That is all. Thanks for the healthy discussion.

Why not just make a separate thread?

Yep.  Changing the premises after the arguments have been proffered is not nice.  It loses continuity.  Reg's right: start another thread.

Even if he's not changing the premises themselves, and is just adding on to the argument, he should still make a different thread simply for organization purposes, so that we don't have people arguing about a bunch of different things all in one thread.

Oh, and Jac, what exactly do you mean by "pure being"?

HS, to be very honest, I really couldn't follow your post. There's nothing really to have a "last word" on. I hope out of all this that all you've gotten hasn't just been "if anything exists, God exists." 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. Since everything is caused by that cause, then every effect is present in an unlimited way by that cause."

I really can't comment anymore on what you said. If you want to clarify, feel free.

To others, as far as me making another thread, my intention is not to edit the original argument out of the first post, but just to add to to it. Ultimately, I'll let the mods decide on this. There are more than a few arguments that need to be considered, and each have different goals. The argument from simplicity, I think, is the most comprehensive. It's also the most difficult. There are other versions of this one as well (Scotus immediately comes to mind), but we'll move on to other types. My only concern about making other threads is that I don't want to litter the philosophy board with various individual arguments that could just be subsumed under one thread. Yes, Reginus is right that a drawback of this is that people could end up discussing different arguments. So it's up to the mods/community how this should all be organized. Next two on the docket are the arguments from the nature of morality and rationality. I haven't decided which to do first yet. Maybe the almighty coin toss . . .

Quote from: "Reginus"Oh, and Jac, what exactly do you mean by "pure being"?

The philosophical term is subsistent existence. It is that which for which the essence and existence are not distinguished. In other words, it is that which has existence as its nature, as opposed to everything in this world, which has a nature to which existence is added so that the thing becomes real. Obviously, we can get more technical with this, but I think this covers the basic idea.

New thread please. They provide focus and a boundary to the discussion thus preventing de-rails. And it's not like it cost anything to start a new thread.

Quote from: "Jac3510"HS, to be very honest, I really couldn't follow your post. There's nothing really to have a "last word" on. I hope out of all this that all you've gotten hasn't just been "if anything exists, God exists." 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. Since everything is caused by that cause, then every effect is present in an unlimited way by that cause."

I really can't comment anymore on what you said. If you want to clarify, feel free.

Damn, I thought it was pretty straightforward.  Basically, the idea that essence is prior to existence is dependent on god, or a god like thing, therefore you can't start a proof of god with the idea that essence is prior to existence.   How else could man's essence be prior to his existence without God?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Damn, I thought it was pretty straightforward.  Basically, the idea that essence is prior to existence is dependent on god, or a god like thing, therefore you can't start a proof of god with the idea that essence is prior to existence.   How else could man's essence be prior to his existence without God?

But how does it rely on God? It may conclude in God, but I don't see how it relies on Him. There is a difference in the two.

In answer to your question, I can certainly sympathize with your objection . . . but I think it is even broader than what you are saying. If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence. It becomes a necessary line of thought. If there is no God, then it really doesn't make sense to call anything by anything. A man isn't a 'man.' It's just a set of molecules collected in a particular way. There is no real difference between "what" a man is and "what" a tree is. At best, that's just a human invention. We see things that look alike and we just label them. That doesn't mean your really are a human being. That's just what we choose to call you.

So on atheism, nothing is anything. In reality, the argument from subsistent existence just expounds on the fact that if things are what they are, then, ultimately, God exists. It could be reduced to:

1. If things are what they are, then God exists
2. Things are what they are
3. Therefore, God exists

That, however, is hardly as robust and would require even more explaining than this thread has required. And in any case, that is a different argument than:

1. If God exists, then things are what they are
2. God exists
3. Therefore, things are what they are

That isn't my argument. It is logically valid, but deeply unsound. (1) just isn't necessarily true, and it leaves (2) with no support. That's just an assumption. I've not argued that. So, you can argue that things aren't really anything, which would basically be a rejection of the first few premises of the argument. The logical corollary, however, is that nothing is anything, which ultimately makes knowledge impossible.

As an aside, even your argument doesn't get you away from Aquinas simpler second way. Perhaps we can expound on that later.

edit:

BTW, Mike, there is an important sense in which I agree that existence precedes essence. I follow Aquinas, not Avicenna, on the matter. I said it in my very first premise. Although existence is an accidental property, it is prior to all other properties, including the essential properties, because it is the property that makes things be. We cannot apprehend a single nature without first judging the nature to exist. That, however, does not change my argument that there is a distinction between existence and essence, and that until an essence receives existence, it does not exist at all.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Damn, I thought it was pretty straightforward.  Basically, the idea that essence is prior to existence is dependent on god, or a god like thing, therefore you can't start a proof of god with the idea that essence is prior to existence.   How else could man's essence be prior to his existence without God?

But how does it rely on God? It may conclude in God, but I don't see how it relies on Him. There is a difference in the two.

In answer to your question, I can certainly sympathize with your objection . . . but I think it is even broader than what you are saying. If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence. It becomes a necessary line of thought. If there is no God, then it really doesn't make sense to call anything by anything. A man isn't a 'man.' It's just a set of molecules collected in a particular way. There is no real difference between "what" a man is and "what" a tree is. At best, that's just a human invention. We see things that look alike and we just label them. That doesn't mean your really are a human being. That's just what we choose to call you.

So on atheism, nothing is anything. In reality, the argument from subsistent existence just expounds on the fact that if things are what they are, then, ultimately, God exists. It could be reduced to:

1. If things are what they are, then God exists
2. Things are what they are
3. Therefore, God exists

That, however, is hardly as robust and would require even more explaining than this thread has required. And in any case, that is a different argument than:

1. If God exists, then things are what they are
2. God exists
3. Therefore, things are what they are

That isn't my argument. It is logically valid, but deeply unsound. (1) just isn't necessarily true, and it leaves (2) with no support. That's just an assumption. I've not argued that. So, you can argue that things aren't really anything, which would basically be a rejection of the first few premises of the argument. The logical corollary, however, is that nothing is anything, which ultimately makes knowledge impossible.

As an aside, even your argument doesn't get you away from Aquinas simpler second way. Perhaps we can expound on that later.

The theist is just as ignorant of reality as the atheist. You don't know things are what they appear to be.  You can't know without God.  You can't prove God.  What you have presented is not a proof. It's a coherent idea of what god may be.  If it were a proof, it would prove something.  If any proof of god actually proved god, there wouldn't be so many atheists.  How many people do you know who reject 2=2=4?

You don't know that there is such a prior thing as treeness that is combined with some other stuff to make trees.  You assume it.  That assumption entails God.  That's fine.  Your faith is strong, but your proof is weak.

Quote from: "Jac3510"If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence. It becomes a necessary line of thought. If there is no God, then it really doesn't make sense to call anything by anything. A man isn't a 'man.' It's just a set of molecules collected in a particular way. There is no real difference between "what" a man is and "what" a tree is. At best, that's just a human invention. We see things that look alike and we just label them. That doesn't mean your really are a human being. That's just what we choose to call you.

Surely you can't mean that.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Jac3510"If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence. It becomes a necessary line of thought. If there is no God, then it really doesn't make sense to call anything by anything. A man isn't a 'man.' It's just a set of molecules collected in a particular way. There is no real difference between "what" a man is and "what" a tree is. At best, that's just a human invention. We see things that look alike and we just label them. That doesn't mean your really are a human being. That's just what we choose to call you.

Surely you can't mean that.

I think he does mean it.  This is the base of his argument.  This is just the first time he put it in plain English.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"The theist is just as ignorant of reality as the atheist. You don't know things are what they appear to be.  You can't know without God.  You can't prove God.  What you have presented is not a proof. It's a coherent idea of what god may be.  If it were a proof, it would prove something.  If any proof of god actually proved god, there wouldn't be so many atheists.  How many people do you know who reject 2=2=4?

You don't know that there is such a prior thing as treeness that is combined with some other stuff to make trees.  You assume it.  That assumption entails God.  That's fine.  Your faith is strong, but your proof is weak.

Mike, you are making assertions without backing them up.  The first, second, third, fourth, and seventh statements are just bald assertions. They've no place in a reasonable discussion about . . . well . . . anything. You wouldn't let me get away with that, and for good reason.

And why are you appealing to the beliefs of others to decide if something is true? Truth is decided by vote.

edit:

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "i_am_i[quote="Jac3510"]If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence. It becomes a necessary line of thought. If there is no God, then it really doesn't make sense to call anything by anything. A man isn't a 'man.' It's just a set of molecules collected in a particular way. There is no real difference between "what" a man is and "what" a tree is. At best, that's just a human invention. We see things that look alike and we just label them. That doesn't mean your really are a human being. That's just what we choose to call you.

Surely you can't mean that.

I think he does mean it. This is the base of his argument. This is just the first time he put it in plain English.[/quote]
Of course I mean it. It's the logically necessary conclusion of atheism. I got it from Dawkins, actually. One of the few things he said that was actually right . . .

In any case, there is a difference in the base of an argument and a logical corollary. Mike, you've accused me of starting with God when I did no such thing. Now you're accusing me of starting with the necessary conclusion of atheism, which again, is false.

If you want to be intellectually honest, you can look at the proof and demonstrate where the argument is logically invalid (where it commits a fallacy) or where you disagree with the premises. The closely you have done is to deny the existence comes before essence, and even then, you didn't offer any response to my clarification. Otherwise, every single one of your responses has been an objection to labels. You've not interacted with the ideas. Now, you can choose to reject the conclusion without reason, but that my friend, is nothing more than faith. "It's wrong because I say it is" isn't an argument.

Of course, you don't have to justify your disbelief to me or anyone else. But when you disagree with a conclusion, the only honest way to do so is to challenge the logic or the premises. Challenging labels and appealing to popular vote doesn't cut it.

Disagreement is fine. I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I've said that from the beginning and will maintain that throughout. Broad dismissals, however, are disrespectful. Whatever our disagreements on whatever points of logic and philosophy or conclusions, there's not need for that.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"The theist is just as ignorant of reality as the atheist. You don't know things are what they appear to be.  You can't know without God.  You can't prove God.  What you have presented is not a proof. It's a coherent idea of what god may be.  If it were a proof, it would prove something.  If any proof of god actually proved god, there wouldn't be so many atheists.  How many people do you know who reject 2=2=4?

You don't know that there is such a prior thing as treeness that is combined with some other stuff to make trees.  You assume it.  That assumption entails God.  That's fine.  Your faith is strong, but your proof is weak.

I didn't realize that assertions without evidence were valid. In that case, I'll just assert that God exists and be done with it. I'd come to expect more.

And why are you appealing to the beliefs of others to decide if something is true? Truth is decided by vote.

edit:

Quote from: "Jac3510"If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence. It becomes a necessary line of thought. If there is no God, then it really doesn't make sense to call anything by anything. A man isn't a 'man.' It's just a set of molecules collected in a particular way. There is no real difference between "what" a man is and "what" a tree is. At best, that's just a human invention. We see things that look alike and we just label them. That doesn't mean your really are a human being. That's just what we choose to call you.

Quote from: "i_am_iSurely you can't mean that.

[quote="humblesmurph"]I think he does mean it. This is the base of his argument. This is just the first time he put it in plain English.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Of course I mean it. It's the logically necessary conclusion of atheism. I got it from Dawkins, actually. One of the few things he said that was actually right . . .

In any case, there is a difference in the base of an argument and a logical corollary. Mike, you've accused me of starting with God when I did no such thing. Now you're accusing me of starting with the necessary conclusion of atheism, which again, is false.

If you want to be intellectually honest, you can look at the proof and demonstrate where the argument is logically invalid (where it commits a fallacy) or where you disagree with the premises. The closely you have done is to deny the existence comes before essence, and even then, you didn't offer any response to my clarification. Otherwise, every single one of your responses has been an objection to labels. You've not interacted with the ideas. Now, you can choose to reject the conclusion without reason, but that my friend, is nothing more than faith. "It's wrong because I say it is" isn't an argument.

Of course, you don't have to justify your disbelief to me or anyone else. But when you disagree with a conclusion, the only honest way to do so is to challenge the logic or the premises. Challenging labels and appealing to popular vote doesn't cut it.

Disagreement is fine. I don't expect to change anyone's mind. I've said that from the beginning and will maintain that throughout. Broad dismissals, however, are disrespectful. Whatever our disagreements on whatever points of logic and philosophy or conclusions, there's not need for that.

[/quote]


I have told you why I reject your proof. Three times. In plain English.  Your "clarification" was not clear.  You didn't answer my point blank question.  The first 2 premises of your proof of God is dependent on essence being prior to existence.

Just answer one question in plain English:

If a thing has an essence before it comes into existence, where did the essence come from?

Quote from: "Jac3510"But when you disagree with a conclusion, the only honest way to do so is to challenge the logic or the premises.

Okay. How is this: "If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence" logical?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"If a thing has an essence before it comes into existence, where did the essence come from?

1. I don't know how you mean this, so I'll answer it in two ways:

a. If by "thing" you mean "an existing thing," then the whole question is illogical.
b. If by "thing" you mean "a logical construct," then it comes from reality itself. Trees are trees. Birds are birds. People are people.

2. The fact that you pose this as a disagreement presents a logical problem for you. It's not logical to reject a position because you don't like it's consequences. If a family member is accused of murder, it is illogical of me to declare that they aren't guilty because I don't want them to go to jail. Likewise, if essences must come from God, then their existence points to God. It isn't logical to deny their existence because you want to deny God.

Looking again at the first three points in my argument:

1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2. All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3. Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.

All (1) means is that things receive their existence from something else. You don't have you existence as a necessary part of what you are (whatever that is), because if it did, you would have always existed. That, of course, presumes that things are what they are. That is the definition of an essence--"what-a-thing-is."

(2) just means that the only way a change can happen to a thing is if something else acts on it. A man loses his hair because of old age, etc. He doesn't lose his hair by virtue of being a man. A brown table becomes black because someone painted it black. It doesn't become black by virtue of being a table.

(3) just combines those two ideas. If a thing isn't the cause of changes in itself, then it isn't responsible for bringing itself into existence. Just like something else makes all changes in me, something else brought me into existence.

That is all the first three points mean. The only way around that is to argue that things aren't really what they are. When someone says, "I don't believe in essences or forms," that is what they are saying. Trees aren't trees. People aren't people. Cats aren't cats. If you do believe that things are what they are, and if you agree that "existence" isn't a part of a thing's basic definition, form, nature, or whatever you want to call it, then you have agreed with the first premise in my argument. If you agree that what things are don't change things (i.e., tables don't change their own color), then you agree with the second premise. The first conclusion is logically necessary. Things don't bring themselves into existence. They get their existence from something else, be it a table maker or mom and dad or whatever.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Jac3510"But when you disagree with a conclusion, the only honest way to do so is to challenge the logic or the premises.

Okay. How is this: "If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence" logical?

That's not part of my argument. That is a summary of the conclusion. It's logical because of 1-21 in the argument presented.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"If a thing has an essence before it comes into existence, where did the essence come from?

1. I don't know how you mean this, so I'll answer it in two ways:

a. If by "thing" you mean "an existing thing," then the whole question is illogical.
b. If by "thing" you mean "a logical construct," then it comes from reality itself. Trees are trees. Birds are birds. People are people.

2. The fact that you pose this as a disagreement presents a logical problem for you. It's not logical to reject a position because you don't like it's consequences. If a family member is accused of murder, it is illogical of me to declare that they aren't guilty because I don't want them to go to jail. Likewise, if essences must come from God, then their existence points to God. It isn't logical to deny their existence because you want to deny God.

Looking again at the first three points in my argument:

1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2. All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3. Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.

All (1) means is that things receive their existence from something else. You don't have you existence as a necessary part of what you are (whatever that is), because if it did, you would have always existed. That, of course, presumes that things are what they are. That is the definition of an essence--"what-a-thing-is."

(2) just means that the only way a change can happen to a thing is if something else acts on it. A man loses his hair because of old age, etc. He doesn't lose his hair by virtue of being a man. A brown table becomes black because someone painted it black. It doesn't become black by virtue of being a table.

(3) just combines those two ideas. If a thing isn't the cause of changes in itself, then it isn't responsible for bringing itself into existence. Just like something else makes all changes in me, something else brought me into existence.

That is all the first three points mean. The only way around that is to argue that things aren't really what they are. When someone says, "I don't believe in essences or forms," that is what they are saying. Trees aren't trees. People aren't people. Cats aren't cats. If you do believe that things are what they are, and if you agree that "existence" isn't a part of a thing's basic definition, form, nature, or whatever you want to call it, then you have agreed with the first premise in my argument. If you agree that what things are don't change things (i.e., tables don't change their own color), then you agree with the second premise. The first conclusion is logically necessary. Things don't bring themselves into existence. They get their existence from something else, be it a table maker or mom and dad or whatever.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Jac3510"But when you disagree with a conclusion, the only honest way to do so is to challenge the logic or the premises.

Okay. How is this: "If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence" logical?

That's not part of my argument. That is a summary of the conclusion. It's logical because of 1-21 in the argument presented.

Not exactly plain English, but I'll work with it.  You seem to be saying that essence comes from reality.  Essence is stuff.  

Is it your position that reality makes stuff?  

Isn't "reality" just another name for God?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Not exactly plain English, but I'll work with it.  You seem to be saying that essence comes from reality.  Essence is stuff.  

Is it your position that reality makes stuff?

Yes. What else would make stuff?

QuoteIsn't "reality" just another name for God?

No. God is the cause of reality. He is not reality itself. To say that God is reality would be pantheism.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Is it your position that reality makes stuff?

Quote from: "Jac3510"Yes. What else would make stuff?

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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

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 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.

With all due respect, this entire thread is irrefutable evidence of the lengths that can be gone to by those who think that their umbilicus is a source of information concerning reality, and it's guff from beginning (see what I did there?) to end.

Quote from: "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?

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

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "Jac3510"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 (http://www.richardghowe.com/Infinite.pdf) in confirmation of this point:

Quote from: "Richard Howe"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.

QuoteMostly, 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.

QuoteThis 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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Allow me to quote from Richard Howe (http://www.richardghowe.com/Infinite.pdf) in confirmation of this point:

Quote from: "Richard Howe"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).

QuoteThe 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?

QuoteSo, 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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteRather, 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.

QuoteNote 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.

QuoteAs 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.

QuoteThis, 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.

QuoteThat 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'?

QuoteNothing 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.

QuoteMorever, 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.

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteFinally, 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.

QuoteAs 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.

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

Quote from: "Jac3510"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.

QuoteI 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?

QuoteNot "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.

QuoteI 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.

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?

Goddamn, this is exactly why I hate philosophy.

Quote from: "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?

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.

Quote from: "deekayfry"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.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "deekayfry"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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"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.

QuoteAlso, 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.

Quote from: "hackenslash"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?

Quote from: "hackenslash"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.

I have emphasized the passage which I think reduces your definition to virtual meaninglessness.  Why not just call it thinking and be done with it?

I really don't want to derail the discussion, but equating "any thinking" with "philosophy" does nothing to clarify philosophy, or thinking, for that matter.

It's not the 'any thinking' but the act of appraisal that is philosophy, in the form of attempting to draw conclusions about reality. When I think about having a beer, I'm not doing philosophy, but when I think about the nature of reality, I am, by default.

So your reduction exposes meaninglessness, but you were focusing on the wrong bit and missed the prize.  

Quote from: "hackenslash"It's not the 'any thinking' but the act of appraisal that is philosophy, in the form of attempting to draw conclusions about reality. When I think about having a beer, I'm not doing philosophy, but when I think about the nature of reality, I am, by default.

So your reduction exposes meaninglessness, but you were focusing on the wrong bit and missed the prize.  

Thumpalumpacus seems unconvinced.
Can you give a practical example of philosophy exploring a contemporary problem?

Empiricism is a school of philosophy, so think of any scientific experiment for an example.

Translation: I have no answer, so I'm running away now.

Don't worry, I get that a lot.

Would you like to point out where I called you a name? I'd be really interested in seeing that.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Translation: I have no answer, so I'm running away now.

Don't worry, I get that a lot.

Would you like to point out where I called you a name? I'd be really interested in seeing that.

I looked, You didn't call any member of this board a name.  You referred to someone Jac quoted as something rather derogatory (and kind of funny).

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "hackenslash"rants

Hey, congratz. You are one of the few people on this planet who has earned a permignore.

I'm perfectly content to have civil conversation. I won't waste my time with that kind of ranting. If anyone wants to wade through all the name calling and rhetoric and find something that resembles a rational point and raise it, I'll be glad to address them. Not you. Consider this the last word of communication between us.

Hah! That figures, that really figures. Along comes someone who not only plays your game but plays it far better than you so you put him on ignore.

The way I see it is that you, sir, have been exposed both by hack and by yourself as an agenda-driven amateur. My suggestion is that you save your peanuts for the zoo.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Hah! That figures, that really figures. Along comes someone who not only plays your game but plays it far better than you so you put him on ignore.

The way I see it is that you, sir, have been exposed both by hack and by yourself as an agenda-driven amateur. My suggestion is that you save your peanuts for the zoo.

It is a simple matter of respect, i_am_i. I don't engage in discussion with brilliant yet disrespectful Christians. Getting put on ignore says nothing about the strength of the argument. It says everything about whether or not the person is capable of reasonable discourse. May I recommend Adler's comments on the matter (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5631), posted here and for the most part embraced by this very community?

You can assign me whatever motivation you like if it makes you feel better. That would only expose you as agenda-driven, looking for a reason to dismiss someone rather than have to seriously consider their arguments. But I trust that you are a better person than that. I suspect that you are just the kind of person who recognizes that something is decided to be true based on the merits of its position, not rhetorical value or the motivations of the person from whom it comes. Still more, I fully believe you to be the kind of person who values truth, wherever it may lead, and as such, you don't strike me as the kind of person who isn't looking for an excuse to write another person off. Am I right in all this, that you are primarily after interesting, respectful, and engaging discussion so that everyone comes away better off than they were before?

As it happens, I have nothing but respect for the poster. The guff he posted, however, is another matter entirely. I have absolutely no respect for that, because it's the usual pseudo-intellectual drivel I've come to expect from navel-gazers.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Hah! That figures, that really figures. Along comes someone who not only plays your game but plays it far better than you so you put him on ignore.

The way I see it is that you, sir, have been exposed both by hack and by yourself as an agenda-driven amateur. My suggestion is that you save your peanuts for the zoo.

It is a simple matter of respect, i_am_i. I don't engage in discussion with brilliant yet disrespectful Christians. Getting put on ignore says nothing about the strength of the argument. It says everything about whether or not the person is capable of reasonable discourse. May I recommend Adler's comments on the matter (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5631), posted here and for the most part embraced by this very community?

You can assign me whatever motivation you like if it makes you feel better. That would only expose you as agenda-driven, looking for a reason to dismiss someone rather than have to seriously consider their arguments. But I trust that you are a better person than that. I suspect that you are just the kind of person who recognizes that something is decided to be true based on the merits of its position, not rhetorical value or the motivations of the person from whom it comes. Still more, I fully believe you to be the kind of person who values truth, wherever it may lead, and as such, you don't strike me as the kind of person who isn't looking for an excuse to write another person off. Am I right in all this, that you are primarily after interesting, respectful, and engaging discussion so that everyone comes away better off than they were before?

I don't get the slightest impression that what you came here for is "interesting, respectful, and engaging discussion so that everyone comes away better off than they were before." You want to play by your rules and yours alone, and I do not intend to   accept homework assigments from you or anyone else, I'm not here for that.

Your high-minded approach is very off-putting. It makes you seem pretentious. If you could drop all the highfalutin rhetoric and just say what's on your mind...but you can't, or won't. You've already said that you don't do plain English. That being the case - cash me out. This game is fixed.

Quote from: "i_am_i"I don't get the slightest impression that what you came here for is "interesting, respectful, and engaging discussion so that everyone comes away better off than they were before." You want to play by your rules and yours alone, and I do not intend to   accept homework assigments from you or anyone else, I'm not here for that.

Your high-minded approach is very off-putting. It makes you seem pretentious. If you could drop all the highfalutin rhetoric and just say what's on your mind...but you can't, or won't. You've already said that you don't do plain English. That being the case - cash me in. This game is fixed.

If not treating you like a child is fixing the game, then I'm guilty as charged. You are asking me to have a technical discussion without appealing to technical concepts, which is impossible. I've offered to state things plainly, at which time you can question that is unclear. It's up to you if you want to engage in discussion.

As far as your opinion of me, I'm terribly sorry to hear it, but the rules I want to play by aren't mine. They are the rules of civil discourse. Nothing more and nothing less.

Jac,

If I may make 2 suggestions:  First, please take Hackenslash off ignore.  Second, Hackenslash, play nice please.  

As for your questions Jac, All I can do is direct you towards my Mad Lib.  Read it again, if you don't understand it, PM me what you are having trouble with.  Absent that, I think it prudent that I STFU and let you and Hackenslash have a cordial, respectful go at it.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Jac,

If I may make 2 suggestions:  First, please take Hackenslash off ignore.  Second, Hackenslash, play nice please.  

As for your questions Jac, All I can do is direct you towards my Mad Lib.  Read it again, if you don't understand it, PM me what you are having trouble with.  Absent that, I think it prudent that I STFU and let you and Hackenslash have a cordial, respectful go at it.

1. It is apparent that Hack and I have a different idea as to what constitutes productive public discussion. If he wants to work out those differences, the PM box works perfectly well. So long as we can agree on the groundwork for discussion, I'm more than willing to continue this (and any other) conversation.

2. I'll work my way through your other post again and offer a reply later. If I still need clarification to make an educated response, I'll shoot you a PM.

Either way, I've settled on looking at the nature of rationality next. I'd like to let the morality discussion in the PW thread cool a bit more before looking at a formal argument from morality.

Quote from: "Jac3510"1. Just to pick on your verbiage a bit more, notice that you say we can't "observe pure nothing." By definition, if it could be observed, then it would be a something. I know you know this. My point is that we can't even think about nothing.

Yup. Nothing would have to be alone to even "exist". I know, more sticky verbiage.  

QuoteThat is far more exciting that, "Hey, look, nothing is doing that!" That's just blind, irrational faith.

2. It is not, then, just more likely that something has always existed. It is necessary that something has always existed.

3. Just noting that something has always existed does not require it to be a deity, but nor is a deity excluded from that which has always existed. It remains to be seen what the nature of that which as always existed is.

You're right that it would have to first be proven to be nothing in order for it to not be faith. I'm not well read enough on the subject currently to say that it has or hasn't.

I'll respond to the rest next chance I get.

Believe me, I am playing nice. Ask Tank what happens when the gloves come off.

Edit: It has been requested of me that I tone it down a bit, so that people can see how this progresses, and I have agreed. I would like it made absolutely clear that I have in no way attacked the poster, I have only attacked his ideas. That some have difficulty separating their ideas from themselves is an issue, but it isn't really mine. Bad ideas exist only to be destroyed.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Believe me, I am playing nice. Ask Tank what happens when the gloves come off.

 If you and I ever disagree about something, feel free to call my ideas drivel and fuck wittery.  The shit is funny as hell actually.  I personally appreciate your colorful language. However, you can make the same arguments without it.

It appears that Jac3510 ain't getting in the ring unless you don some gloves with a little more padding.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"I don't get the slightest impression that what you came here for is "interesting, respectful, and engaging discussion so that everyone comes away better off than they were before." You want to play by your rules and yours alone, and I do not intend to   accept homework assigments from you or anyone else, I'm not here for that.

Your high-minded approach is very off-putting. It makes you seem pretentious. If you could drop all the highfalutin rhetoric and just say what's on your mind...but you can't, or won't. You've already said that you don't do plain English. That being the case - cash me out. This game is fixed.

If not treating you like a child is fixing the game, then I'm guilty as charged. You are asking me to have a technical discussion without appealing to technical concepts, which is impossible. I've offered to state things plainly, at which time you can question that is unclear. It's up to you if you want to engage in discussion.

As far as your opinion of me, I'm terribly sorry to hear it, but the rules I want to play by aren't mine. They are the rules of civil discourse. Nothing more and nothing less.

I'll tell you what, Chris. How about you and I start all over again. Let's wipe the slate clean and start over, what do you say?

I'll list your Argument from Subsistent Existence, and then I'll ask two questions and then you answer them. Surely that's okay, right? Surely that's allowed.

So here we go:

An Argument from Subsistent Existence

1.   Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2.   All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3.   Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.
4.   Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.
5.   Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent.
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.
8.   A first causal being cannot receive its being from outside itself.
9.   Therefore, there must be a being which does not receive its being through efficient causality, but for which being is its essence. Being which exists in itself is called subsistent existence.
10.   A first causal being is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
11.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
12.   All non-subsistent being is part of an essentially ordered efficiently causal chain of being.
13.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all things.
14.   All perfections must have an efficient cause.
15.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all perfections.
16.   The effect of any efficient cause pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause.
17.   Therefore, perfections exist virtually in subsistent existence.
18.   A perfection is obtained in being.
19.   Therefore, all perfections obtain in subsistent existence.
20.   A being which obtains all perfections is, by definition, God.
21. Therefore, God exists.

What is "God," and why do you spell it with a capital G?

Quote from: "Jac3510"The mistake you are making is to confuse deductive conclusions with correspondence. You can give me a set of data and I can create any number of possible stories to explain how the data came to be the way it is. The story may be internally coherent, and it may be coherent with the evidence, but the question remains, why should we believe this story to be true? Different disciplines answer that question in different ways. Science answers by saying, "This story, if true, makes these predictions. If this is true, the it should mean that is true about that issue. Is it?" That's the principle of prediction leading to falsification. Many disciplines, however, can't use that same principle. History is one example. You can develop a story to explain the historical data, but you can't make predictions based on that story, because you are studying a one-time event. This is the difference between forensic and operational science.

Yes and no. Operational science* plays a role in forensic science. Often claims about what has happened in the past can be tested for truth value. Naturally, Wagner's theory dealt with a very long history which is still in the process of being made; thus can be observed.  Same with evolution. In quantum physics too you will see scientists testing, experimenting and making predictions so as to make conclusions about what has happened in our universe's past. That is to say the means by which they occurred are still occurring, not one time events. And I believe you stated the Prime Mover is something that is existing.

*- A suspiciously Creationist like term.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "deekayfry"Why does it take a list of 21 points to prove a God?

Because if they were condensed into three, you would complain that I was making too many assumptions. Observe:

1. That which contains all perfections is God.
2. The First Cause contains all perfections.
3. Therefore, God exists.

You will ask me to justify both of these statements. That's why it takes 21, because that breaks it down into the necessary points in which the underlying issues can be properly discussed.

I am not asking you to justify nothing.

My questions were rhetorical.

BTW, pardon the pun  

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"An Argument from Subsistent Existence

1.   Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2.   All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3.   Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.
4.   Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.
5.   Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent.
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.
8.   A first causal being cannot receive its being from outside itself.
9.   Therefore, there must be a being which does not receive its being through efficient causality, but for which being is its essence. Being which exists in itself is called subsistent existence.
10.   A first causal being is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
11.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
12.   All non-subsistent being is part of an essentially ordered efficiently causal chain of being.
13.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all things.
14.   All perfections must have an efficient cause.
15.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all perfections.
16.   The effect of any efficient cause pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause.
17.   Therefore, perfections exist virtually in subsistent existence.
18.   A perfection is obtained in being.
19.   Therefore, all perfections obtain in subsistent existence.
20.   A being which obtains all perfections is, by definition, God.
21. Therefore, God exists.

What is "God," and why do you spell it with a capital G?

UHHHHHHHHH  

This all reads like a fricken' advanced calculus problem!

If A is in B and B is in C
 and we take D' to be the greatest upper bound
 such that the subset of all real numbers lie on the imaginary Fourier Plane in Langrangian space,
 C shall only exist when the Ordinal Numbers are less than equal to the root of 66

(I dropped out of that course within a few days, btw)

UHHHHHHHHHHHH

Plain English, Spanish, Italian, Japanese whatever...

Why can't anyone tell me about God like a pen?  Rather why can't anyone take God to me?

If you sit a pen on the desk in front of me, I can observe that said pen is of a certain length and width and circumference and has weight.  It has a certain color or several colors.
If I bite on the pen I get the taste of plastic and ink.
If I take it and melt it down and put in an x-ray florescent I can determine its compounds.

Any reasonable man or woman will be able to fundamentally understand the basic premise and properties of a pen in terms of color, weight, and dimensions.  Taste certainly, compounds?   Not so much.

Yet it when it comes to proving divinity, in my mind it doesn't matter what religion it is at this point, when it comes to proving it we get

Accidental property
Causal being
Essence
Subsistence existence?

Ergo, I am serious when I asked if someone can call God up and have her come over and drink a cup of coffee.  It isn't about convincing me to believe or not to believe.  Habeus Corpus is what I am asking for, not an intellectual alphabet soup.

I don't blame you for your position regarding hackenslash's posts, Jac3510.  Mixing invective with philosophy is entertaining for the writer, and sometimes for readers, but for the one whose arguments are the subject of such an approach, it's a bit frustrating.  Trying to wade through the vituperation to apprehend the actual content is no doubt an unsatisfying experience.

I usually enjoy well written screeds, and in fact enjoyed the anti-apologetics portions of your posts, hackenslash.  I did notice before it came up in this thread that you'd done a very skillful job of avoiding any insults aimed directly at Jac3510. Though others who have argued in a similar fashion, and indeed their (and his) arguments themselves weren't spared. The extensive use of "fuckwit" is somewhat tedious, however. I'd enjoy seeing you clothe your scorn in more varied raiment.  Many epithets come to mind; "dullard," "boob," "dolt," "dope," "puddin'head," "grifter," "mountebank," "clown," "charlatan," "quack," "fraud," "con artist," "noxious gas bag," and so on...  

I do think that the telling punctures which your arguments seem to inflict should have the desired effect of producing dismay in your opponent, with only a sprinkling of tasty polemics when you absolutely can't resist. This and the above are not even suggestions, merely observations.

I've been enjoying this thread a lot, but as a philosopher, I'm not a bad carpenter, so I don't have any laser bright insights to offer.

A couple of  points I'd like to make, though. One is that philosophically, perhaps, there is no way one might profitably think about "nothing," but to extend that to the field of physics, especially quantum mechanics, is a dubious proposition.  Physicists are only beginning to understand what exactly "nothing" actually means. It seems right now that it's entirely possible for something to come from nothing. (As it's currently understood by physicists.) If the fabric of space-time is constantly in a flux of virtual particles popping in and out of existence, then there needs to be compelling reason to assume that "previous" to the existence of our universe a similar sort of thing could not occur.  I have not heard one yet.  Hawking said something along the lines of, "Talking about 'before the universe existed' is like talking about 'what's south of the South Pole.'" If that analogy were only carried a step further, one thinks of interplanetary space and other planets...
From the perspective of the current state of knowledge, we cannot know with any certainty what the situation was at the very moment our universe came into existence.  At that point, reality as we understand it did not even exist. So right now, and for the foreseeable future, in my opinion there is simply no definitive statement that can be made, other than "The evidence seems to strongly suggest that our universe had a beginning." (Including, "Something cannot come from nothing.")  On the other hand, perhaps it's true that there is no such thing as nothing.  Maybe something has always existed ("interplanetary space," in the above extended analogy), and our universe is only a manifestation of whatever that something is. Call it the Prime Mover, or the Multi-verse, or any number of other names. When we get to that point, it's a matter of conjecture versus faith. Jac3510, you can dismiss the subject if it seems to help your argument, but I, for one, simply write off your write-off, so to speak.  

Second, if there was an irrefutable philosophical proof of a "Prime Mover" or any other variety of deity, then pretty much all  honest philosophers would be theists.  That is not the case.  I want to be very clear, though.  I think that you are an honest philosopher, Jac3510, but there are others with at least your level of expertise in the field who don't find your arguments persuasive.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "hackenslash"rants

Hey, congratz. You are one of the few people on this planet who has earned a permignore.

I'm perfectly content to have civil conversation. I won't waste my time with that kind of ranting. If anyone wants to wade through all the name calling and rhetoric and find something that resembles a rational point and raise it, I'll be glad to address them. Not you. Consider this the last word of communication between us.

edit: foe'd

Very unimpressed and disappointed by this Chris, please engage with hack again. Just because hack has a rather abrasive delivery does not allow you to dismiss his points out of hand. He is new here and is getting used to the way things are done around here. Address hack's points please and concentrate on the discussion not the personalities.

Hack, you need to think whether your message or your style is more important to you and this forum, I for one think your message is way, way more important than your normal style which does not suit this particular forum very well. It took me a while to get used to it, but it is worth it.

This is a discussion the like of which I have not witnessed on the internet before and I want to see it carry on with all participants adding their particular views.

I know we have two adults here with diametrically opposed views and I'm sure that each of you is capable of behaving in an adult manner. I know it's difficult to ignore the sparks of a flame war sometimes but please, please do try to get back to discussing the issue and not sniping at each other as there is simply no need.

Regards to both
Chris

Quote from: "hackenslash"Believe me, I am playing nice. Ask Tank what happens when the gloves come off.

Edit: It has been requested of me that I tone it down a bit, so that people can see how this progresses, and I have agreed. I would like it made absolutely clear that I have in no way attacked the poster, I have only attacked his ideas. That some have difficulty separating their ideas from themselves is an issue, but it isn't really mine. Bad ideas exist only to be destroyed.

I can confirm that hack's rhetoric can be exquisite to read as he demolishes the ignorant, foolish and unintelligent 'flock follower' theist who is really utterly clueless about the arguments they are spouting.

However I am very, very much looking forward to Chris and Hack have at it (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg528.imageshack.us%2Fimg528%2F3306%2Fswordfightri0.gif&hash=aa141cd47fc1c44d1516f31cccddc6cbc31ab0e6) in a gentlemanly manner with no (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg519.imageshack.us%2Fimg519%2F7140%2Ftongeyh1.gif&hash=9f9005fccb5e042ca9112a653155198c57a062f1) or (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.imageshack.us%2Fimg829%2F3352%2Fdramaqueen.gif&hash=85216eef2587c0e2b6cf8ad16250ef0fb8952818) if at all possible.

Hello all and hello Jac3510

It seems that the discussion is moving towards form rather than content.

I'd like to get into the originally posted content.

In my opinion there may be a slight flaw in your reasoning.

It apears to be a line from point a to point b, but it isn't, it's circular

Look:

1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2. through 17.
18. A perfection is obtained in being.
19. Therefore, all perfections obtain in subsistent existence.
20. A being which obtains all perfections is, by definition, [strike:hcls331f]God.[/strike:hcls331f] still a being
21. Therefore, [strike:hcls331f]God exists.[/strike:hcls331f] beings exist.

and that brings you back to:

1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).

What you did manage to do is prove in a sufficient matter that with the existance of one god there must be a varitable multitude of them.

Regards,

Chris B.

Quote from: "i_am_i"I'll tell you what, Chris. How about you and I start all over again. Let's wipe the slate clean and start over, what do you say?

I'll list your Argument from Subsistent Existence, and then I'll ask two questions and then you answer them. Surely that's okay, right? Surely that's allowed.

That's all that's expected.

QuoteWhat is "God," and why do you spell it with a capital G?

A "being" (in the popular sense of the word - in the technical sense, see the simplicity thread) in which dwells all perfections. In other words, that which is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, etc.

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

Quote from: "Sophus"Yes and no. Operational science* plays a role in forensic science. Often claims about what has happened in the past can be tested for truth value. Naturally, Wagner's theory dealt with a very long history which is still in the process of being made; thus can be observed.  Same with evolution. In quantum physics too you will see scientists testing, experimenting and making predictions so as to make conclusions about what has happened in our universe's past. That is to say the means by which they occurred are still occurring, not one time events. And I believe you stated the Prime Mover is something that is existing.

*- A suspiciously Creationist like term.

Meh, the term is one I picked up from Geisler. I couldn't care less what you call it. The distinction is valid. You can't do a test in the lab to find out if America invaded Iraq. You can put together all the data, and it conclusively points in that direction, but there is no repeatable formula (nothing operable) that can be done in a lab setting to demonstrate it.

Now, certainly, operational science plays a role in getting our historical data together. I just finished watching season four of Dexter. He does a great deal of this kind of work. He tests things in a lab. DNA swabbing is certainly operational. But the statement, "Your DNA was found on the victim, and therefore, you are guilty" is not operational. It is forensic. That doesn't make it invalid. It means that the way you know someone is guilty is different from the way you know that E=MC^2. The latter can be confirmed at any given moment in a lab. The former is a historical matter that is confirmed by necessary logical deduction, in this case:

1. The DNA found on the victim belongs to the killer;
2. John's DNA is found on the victim;
3. Therefore, John is the killer.

(1) and (2) have to be proven, but if they are, (3) is the necessary conclusion. My argument works precisely the same way. To ask me for evidence would be like asking a prosecutor for evidence of the above.

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

Quote from: "deekayfry"Why can't anyone tell me about God like a pen?  Rather why can't anyone take God to me?

Because a pen is a sensible being, meaning it can be observed by the senses. God is not. Rather than being technical and telling that's a category mistake, let me give you an example.

Suppose you give me a tour of Harvard. Yous show me all the buildings, tell me its history, introduce me to the faculty and staff, we meet various students, and we and even have a lunch with the president. Now, at the end of this, suppose I looked at you and said, "That is all very nice. Can you show me the college now?" That would be absurd. That is what you have been doing the whole time. It's an inappropriate question to ask because the college is not a singular thing; it is a collective thing made up of all the things you showed me, but I asked you a question that assumed the college was like a pen--something that could be singularly observed.

God is not a sensible thing. You don't sit in front of Him or beside Him. You don't measure Him. You can't go "to" Him or "away from" Him, because He stands in no relations to anything. You have to get at Him another way, which is the way I've been offering.[/quote]

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

Quote from: "Recusant"A couple of  points I'd like to make, though. One is that philosophically, perhaps, there is no way one might profitably think about "nothing," but to extend that to the field of physics, especially quantum mechanics, is a dubious proposition.  Physicists are only beginning to understand what exactly "nothing" actually means. It seems right now that it's entirely possible for something to come from nothing. (As it's currently understood by physicists.) If the fabric of space-time is constantly in a flux of virtual particles popping in and out of existence, then there needs to be compelling reason to assume that "previous" to the existence of our universe a similar sort of thing could not occur.  I have not heard one yet.  Hawking said something along the lines of, "Talking about 'before the universe existed' is like talking about 'what's south of the South Pole.'" If that analogy were only carried a step further, one thinks of interplanetary space and other planets...
From the perspective of the current state of knowledge, we cannot know with any certainty what the situation was at the very moment our universe came into existence.  At that point, reality as we understand it did not even exist. So right now, and for the foreseeable future, in my opinion there is simply no definitive statement that can be made, other than "The evidence seems to strongly suggest that our universe had a beginning." (Including, "Something cannot come from nothing.")  On the other hand, perhaps it's true that there is no such thing as nothing.  Maybe something has always existed ("interplanetary space," in the above extended analogy), and our universe is only a manifestation of whatever that something is. Call it the Prime Mover, or the Multi-verse, or any number of other names. When we get to that point, it's a matter of conjecture versus faith. Jac3510, you can dismiss the subject if it seems to help your argument, but I, for one, simply write off your write-off, so to speak.  

Second, if there was an irrefutable philosophical proof of a "Prime Mover" or any other variety of deity, then pretty much all  honest philosophers would be theists.  That is not the case.  I want to be very clear, though.  I think that you are an honest philosopher, Jac3510, but there are others with at least your level of expertise in the field who don't find your arguments persuasive.

I agree with most of what you said in the first part, Rec. For what it is worth, most of your observations, while correct, would apply more of a discussion to the Kalaam CA, which takes its main evidence for God the coming into existence of the universe and then demanding an explanation for that, which obviously, by definition, cannot be within the universe. Aquinas rejected it, as he should have given the state of knowledge in his day. It has gained some strength today with the standard BB model, but it's hardly definitive, as anything in science can change tomorrow. All scientific conclusions are always tentative for that very reason. We'll explore that one in more detail later, though. My argument, in this thread, is not scientific. It is philosophical, in that I'm not requiring us to go back in time for the FC. The universe could be eternal for all I care. That doesn't change my argument one iota.

As for your second point, I both agree and disagree. The problem with philosophers is not that they don't find the argument convincing. Most would agree that it is in every way. The problem, as penfold is getting at in the simplicity thread, is that this proof starts from a particular position that most philosophers reject. Specifically, this proof starts with ontology, which, to use pen's words, other philosophers find "shockingly naive." The reasons are more historical than philosophical and trace back through Descarte and the world in which he found himself. In many ways, the history of philosophy is like a bad horror movie, or better, a collection of bad horror movies. The same plot keeps being replayed over and over, including the same silly mistakes that, you would think, no rational person would make. And yet in each movie, the same thing happens each time. So whether Abailard, Descarte, Kant, or a host of any others, the problems remain. People confuse some discipline such as math for philosophy. Today, the current breakdown is thanks to the fact that we have confused physics and linguistics for philosophy, and that thanks to Kant and Wittgenstein. All that is to say an analytical philosopher would reject my argument not on logical grounds, but on the entire notion that it can't get off the ground because (1) speaks about something we can't speak about, namely, reality; and secondarily, because it relies on the  notion of causality in reality which, thanks to Hume, they believe we cannot posit.

So the problem, for them, is with the starting point, not the argument itself.

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

Quote from: "Tank"Very unimpressed and disappointed by this Chris, please engage with hack again. Just because hack has a rather abrasive delivery does not allow you to dismiss his points out of hand. He is new here and is getting used to the way things are done around here. Address hack's points please and concentrate on the discussion not the personalities.

Not nearly as disappointed and unimpressed as I was by his remarks, Chris. You can fault me if you like, but I don't tolerate that kind of discussion from anyone on either side. It's his choice how he wishes to conduct himself. It is my choice what kind of conduct I will entertain. I wouldn't put up with someone talking about my wife that way. I wouldn't put up with someone talking about my friends that way. I don't put up with Christians talking about atheists that way. It is disrespectful of the highest order, and, in my mind, where there is no respect, there is no discussion. Preaching, perhaps. Entertainment, always. The rational exchange of ideas? Never.

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

Quote from: "chrisbellekom"In my opinion there may be a slight flaw in your reasoning.

It apears to be a line from point a to point b, but it isn't, it's circular

Look:

1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2. through 17.
18. A perfection is obtained in being.
19. Therefore, all perfections obtain in subsistent existence.
20. A being which obtains all perfections is, by definition, [strike:1r85lo3b]God.[/strike:1r85lo3b] still a being
21. Therefore, [strike:1r85lo3b]God exists.[/strike:1r85lo3b] beings exist.

and that brings you back to:

1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).

What you did manage to do is prove in a sufficient matter that with the existance of one god there must be a varitable multitude of them.

Hey, Chris.

I would encourage you to read through the simplicity thread. I've been asked more than once to avoid technical language, but this is the very reason. This argument employs quite a bit of technical language, but I spent a great deal of time simplifying it before posting. One of the "common" words I used was "being," and because of that usage, there is an apparent problem.

In the strictest of sense, God is not a being. If you look at the argument very carefully, you will notice that at the end of (9), the definition of "subsistent existence is" being which exists in itself." It is not proper to call subsistent existence a being, and strictly speaking, we can't even call it being. It is, rather, the cause of being. I can recast the argument to more technically reflect this distinction, but it will be even more difficult to follow that it is now.

Now, this is evident in the very part you quoted. Notice in 18 that we are not talking about "a" being, but being--that is, the act of being. This is where the technical distinction begins. The perfection of being is different from the substance of being, except in the FC, in which the perfection is the property (although, still more technically, the FC is not a property at all--we can explain if necessary; we should say, the perfection is the essence). Thus, it is evident that "being" in the sensible world, be it the act or the property, is, at best, only analogically related to being in the FC, for the simple reason that, in us, being is diversified, whereas in it, being is united. In other words, we have no comprehension of being in this matter. We only know of it through necessary deduction.

Now, if (18) does not speak of "a" being, then the subsistent existence in (19) is not "a" being, either, which comports with the end of (9). (20) uses the words "a being" in the common sense. It could be better read, "We call that in which all perfections obtain God."

I don't know how much clearer this is, but it certainly addresses the issue of circularity. As for your argument that there must be no god or many gods, Leibniz' law of identity disallows it. A thing must differ by something to be different, yet since being makes all that is real (without being, something is not real), then the cause of being is the cause of all. Thus, the cause of being cannot be "incomplete" in any way, because that would imply that there was some thing it lacked, which would be impossible, since it is the cause of all things. Thus, if there were two FCs, they would be identical in absolutely every way, including their existence, meaning there would, in fact, only be one.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Sophus"Yes and no. Operational science* plays a role in forensic science. Often claims about what has happened in the past can be tested for truth value. Naturally, Wagner's theory dealt with a very long history which is still in the process of being made; thus can be observed.  Same with evolution. In quantum physics too you will see scientists testing, experimenting and making predictions so as to make conclusions about what has happened in our universe's past. That is to say the means by which they occurred are still occurring, not one time events. And I believe you stated the Prime Mover is something that is existing.

*- A suspiciously Creationist like term.

Meh, the term is one I picked up from Geisler. I couldn't care less what you call it. The distinction is valid. You can't do a test in the lab to find out if America invaded Iraq. You can put together all the data, and it conclusively points in that direction, but there is no repeatable formula (nothing operable) that can be done in a lab setting to demonstrate it.

Now, certainly, operational science plays a role in getting our historical data together. I just finished watching season four of Dexter. He does a great deal of this kind of work. He tests things in a lab. DNA swabbing is certainly operational. But the statement, "Your DNA was found on the victim, and therefore, you are guilty" is not operational. It is forensic. That doesn't make it invalid. It means that the way you know someone is guilty is different from the way you know that E=MC^2. The latter can be confirmed at any given moment in a lab. The former is a historical matter that is confirmed by necessary logical deduction, in this case:
1. The DNA found on the victim belongs to the killer;
2. John's DNA is found on the victim;
3. Therefore, John is the killer.

(1) and (2) have to be proven, but if they are, (3) is the necessary conclusion. My argument works precisely the same way. To ask me for evidence would be like asking a prosecutor for evidence of the above.

This is a bit of an oversimplified example but I know what you mean. I think we're on the same page that there are ways for science to gaze into the past and explain historical and pre-historical events though. The Ice Age as one example. That being said, where is our disagreement?  

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Tank"Very unimpressed and disappointed by this Chris, please engage with hack again. Just because hack has a rather abrasive delivery does not allow you to dismiss his points out of hand. He is new here and is getting used to the way things are done around here. Address hack's points please and concentrate on the discussion not the personalities.

Not nearly as disappointed and unimpressed as I was by his remarks, Chris. You can fault me if you like, but I don't tolerate that kind of discussion from anyone on either side. It's his choice how he wishes to conduct himself. It is my choice what kind of conduct I will entertain. I wouldn't put up with someone talking about my wife that way. I wouldn't put up with someone talking about my friends that way. I don't put up with Christians talking about atheists that way. It is disrespectful of the highest order, and, in my mind, where there is no respect, there is no discussion. Preaching, perhaps. Entertainment, always. The rational exchange of ideas? Never.

You read my posts you will have noticed I also took Hack to task for his behaviour. Now are you going to engage with a 'new improved polite Hack' and get on with the discussion or not? That's the point isn't it? Are you going to un-foe Hack and engage in a meaningful discussion if he will?

Edit: Took out 'If' as it sounded like I was having a dig at Chris ignoring something which I doubt he did.

Quote from: "Tank"You read my posts you will have noticed I also took Hack to task for his behaviour. Now are you going to engage with a 'new improved polite Hack' and get on with the discussion or not? That's the point isn't it? Are you going to un-foe Hack and engage in a meaningful discussion if he will?

I've already stated that I am willing to have a meaningful conversation with anyone. It must be noted, though, that just because you or anyone on this board tells him to "play nice" doesn't mean he will. That is a decision he has to come to himself.

So, put it this way: until he tells me that he wants to "play nice," there won't be any discussion between the two of us. It is, again, a simple matter of respect. It isn't personal. I will un-foe him and allow him to make that statement publicly, if he likes, as he has not taken the opportunity to do so privately. It's completely his choice. If he wants to engage my positions in a mutually respectful manner, I am game. If not, the foe button still works.

edit: took out the "master" comment as, in this context, it could be taken negatively.

Hack and Jac3510

I doubt that either of you will change the mind of the other on this issue. However it is highly interesting, entertaining and informative to watch this joust even though it will end in a 'victory' for both of you, as neither is going to admit defeat. The best that we can hope for is that you agree to differ and at the end of the day there is nothing, absolutly noting, wrong with that. It's the adult thing to do.

I want to watch this contest of world views and I want to be able to make my own mind up about what I read.

Please re-engage and continue and let the memes do the fighting, not the egos.

Regards
Chris

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Tank"You read my posts you will have noticed I also took Hack to task for his behaviour. Now are you going to engage with a 'new improved polite Hack' and get on with the discussion or not? That's the point isn't it? Are you going to un-foe Hack and engage in a meaningful discussion if he will?

I've already stated that I am willing to have a meaningful conversation with anyone. It must be noted, though, that just because you or anyone on this board tells him to "play nice" doesn't mean he will. That is a decision he has to come to himself.

So, put it this way: until he tells me that he wants to "play nice," there won't be any discussion between the two of us. It is, again, a simple matter of respect. It isn't personal. I will un-foe him and allow him to make that statement publicly, if he likes, as he has not taken the opportunity to do so privately. It's completely his choice. If he wants to engage my positions in a mutually respectful manner, I am game. If not, the foe button still works.

edit: took out the "master" comment as, in this context, it could be taken negatively.

Quote from: "Hack"Edit: It has been requested of me that I tone it down a bit, so that people can see how this progresses, and I have agreed. I would like it made absolutely clear that I have in no way attacked the poster, I have only attacked his ideas. That some have difficulty separating their ideas from themselves is an issue, but it isn't really mine. Bad ideas exist only to be destroyed.

Good. Problem solved! You can un-foe Hack and get on with it.  

Seconds out, round two and lets have a good clean fight Ding! Ding!

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Tank"You read my posts you will have noticed I also took Hack to task for his behaviour. Now are you going to engage with a 'new improved polite Hack' and get on with the discussion or not? That's the point isn't it? Are you going to un-foe Hack and engage in a meaningful discussion if he will?

I've already stated that I am willing to have a meaningful conversation with anyone. It must be noted, though, that just because you or anyone on this board tells him to "play nice" doesn't mean he will. That is a decision he has to come to himself.

So, put it this way: until he tells me that he wants to "play nice," there won't be any discussion between the two of us. It is, again, a simple matter of respect. It isn't personal. I will un-foe him and allow him to make that statement publicly, if he likes, as he has not taken the opportunity to do so privately. It's completely his choice. If he wants to engage my positions in a mutually respectful manner, I am game. If not, the foe button still works.

edit: took out the "master" comment as, in this context, it could be taken negatively.

Just to put a note of assurance into this for jac. Tank has set out a very good reasoned request to hack, and although it's up to hack to ignore that request or not, I can tell you that the thread won't last long if he doesn't. But not just hack. The thread won't last long unless everyone acknowledges that this is a forum for serious discussion of the topic at hand, and no sarcasm, snide comments, or any other form of baiting will be tolerated.

So jac please be assured that everyone will play by the rules, or will be shown the exit. I don't think it has gotten out of hand, but it is a good time to remind everyone that I won't put up with people wasting everyones' time with anything but thoughtful discourse. This thread is extremely complicated and hard to follow, and doesn't need any sidetracking to make it more difficult.

Thanks everyone, for your cooperation.

OK, I'm going to take some time and begin at the beginning, in order to ensure that I don't miss anything. This may take some time, and probably quite a few posts, but I'm going to crack on.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"I'll tell you what, Chris. How about you and I start all over again. Let's wipe the slate clean and start over, what do you say?

I'll list your Argument from Subsistent Existence, and then I'll ask two questions and then you answer them. Surely that's okay, right? Surely that's allowed.

That's all that's expected.

QuoteWhat is "God," and why do you spell it with a capital G?

A "being" (in the popular sense of the word - in the technical sense, see the simplicity thread) in which dwells all perfections. In other words, that which is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present, etc.

I see. Well, who discovered this being, who figured all this out? The idea has to have come from somewhere.

And why is this being that someone discovered or figured out called "God" with a capital G?

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "Tank"You read my posts you will have noticed I also took Hack to task for his behaviour. Now are you going to engage with a 'new improved polite Hack' and get on with the discussion or not? That's the point isn't it? Are you going to un-foe Hack and engage in a meaningful discussion if he will?

I've already stated that I am willing to have a meaningful conversation with anyone. It must be noted, though, that just because you or anyone on this board tells him to "play nice" doesn't mean he will. That is a decision he has to come to himself.

So, put it this way: until he tells me that he wants to "play nice," there won't be any discussion between the two of us. It is, again, a simple matter of respect. It isn't personal. I will un-foe him and allow him to make that statement publicly, if he likes, as he has not taken the opportunity to do so privately. It's completely his choice. If he wants to engage my positions in a mutually respectful manner, I am game. If not, the foe button still works.

edit: took out the "master" comment as, in this context, it could be taken negatively.

Just to put a note of assurance into this for jac. Tank has set out a very good reasoned request to hack, and although it's up to hack to ignore that request or not, I can tell you that the thread won't last long if he doesn't. But not just hack. The thread won't last long unless everyone acknowledges that this is a forum for serious discussion of the topic at hand, and no sarcasm, snide comments, or any other form of baiting will be tolerated.

So jac please be assured that everyone will play by the rules, or will be shown the exit. I don't think it has gotten out of hand, but it is a good time to remind everyone that I won't put up with people wasting everyones' time with anything but thoughtful discourse. This thread is extremely complicated and hard to follow, and doesn't need any sidetracking to make it more difficult.

Thanks everyone, for your cooperation.

Fair enough on all counts.

As it stands, Hack challenged my opening statement with special pleading, which I acknowledged and modified. The mistake was strictly with my presentation, as my argument is based on Aquinas' own, and I offered Aquinas' own words to demonstrate where I had mis-stepped. Again, the issue is that I pointed to the necessity of a FC because an infinite regress is impossible, whereas the converse is true. An infinite regress is impossible because it would deny a FC. We know the FC exists because an essentially ordered causal chain requires a non-contingent cause to account for its existence. Let me explain by way of two illustrations, one Aquinas' own, and one modern.

Suppose you see a rock moving. What is causing the movement? You notice it is being pushed by a stick. The movement of the stick is causing the movement of the rock. What is causing the movement of the stick? A hand is pushing the stick. The movement of the hand is causing the movement of the stick. What is causing the movement of the hand? The person to whom the hand belongs. He is the first cause in this sense. He is not first in time, for his movement is temporally simultaneous with the rock's movement. He is the first in priority, which our language recognizes, as we may well say, "He moved the rock." That would be true, even though his movement of the rock was through two intermediate causes. Now, there could theoretically be an infinite set of intermediate causes, but unless there is a first cause, there will never be any movement.

This can be illustrated by a boxcar train. You can have an infinite boxcar chain very simply by hooking them up in a circle. They will, however, never move unless there is an engine--a first cause--to pull them.

Accidentally ordered causal chains can regress infinitely because each efficient cause is capable of causing the effect in and of itself. If I hit a ball and the ball hits the window and the window breaks, I can remove myself as soon as the ball is hit and the window will still break. My grandfather can die and my child will still live. For all philosophy knows (science may know otherwise), humans have existed eternally. Not so with an essentially ordered causal chain. If you remove the engine, the boxcars stop moving. If you remove the person, the rock stops moving. Essentially ordered causal chains, because they are essentially ordered, require a first cause to account for efficient causality.

There is, then, no special pleading, as per Hack's original charge. Since being is an accidental property of all things (though prior to all things; HS is right that existence precedes essence), and since all essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality, then all being is received through efficient causality; since all essentially ordered efficient causes require a prime mover, and since all being comes through efficient causality,then all being comes from the prime mover; therefore, the prime mover is not efficiently caused but has its being within itself, which we technically call subsistent existence. Since all effects are virtually present in their causes and since the prime mover is the cause of all things, then all effects are virtually present in the prime mover. Since all perfections are effects and since all effects are virtually in the prime mover, all perfections are virtually present in the prime mover. Since perfections are obtained in being, and since the prime mover has its being in itself, then all perfections are obtained in the prime mover. That which obtains all perfections is commonly referred to as God. Therefore, God exists.

Hack - looking forward to the discussion.

edit:

Quote from: "i_am_i"I see. Well, who discovered this being, who figured all this out? The idea has to have come from somewhere.

Who knows who discovered it historically? Who discovered fire? I don't know, but I use it every day. The origin of an argument isn't important. The question is whether or not it is true. To judge something as true or not based on its origin is illogical. If you found out your elementary school teacher was a rapist, you wouldn't conclude your times tables were false.

Ideas are to be judged on their merits, not on where they came from.

Quote from: "Jac3510"1.   Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2.   All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3.   Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.
4.   Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.
5.   Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent.
6.   There cannot be an infinite regress of essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.

Here's my first objection, and it's along the lines of the fallacy of equivocation. Here we have two very different usages of the word 'being'. This may seem like a minor objection, but it's actually a whopper, because the second usage is one I'm going to be voicing a very strong objection to shortly as we move through the argument.

The second issue also arises here, in the form of the premise itself, which rests on a) something that can't be demonstrated and b) a misunderstanding of what the word 'infinite' means. This word has a very specific meaning. It isn't a quantity. This objection must be addressed, as this usage is central to the entire argument. This premise (P6) is a commission of the bare assertion fallacy.

There are other issues as well, though none quite as big as that one. From here on in, I'll be referencing the objections from the point where the fallacy becomes clear.

Quote7.   Therefore, for any series of essentially ordered efficiently caused beings, there must be a first causal being.

And here is the major objection with regard to the equivocation above. You will need to select another word for this sense of being to avoid the fallacy. I can see a problem on the horizon for you in this regard, namely that the only word available for this sense of 'being' is 'entity', which is not actually equivalent to 'being'. A being is an entity, but an entity is not necessarily a being. I would have no objection to the word 'entity', but I will certainly object if this entity is actually to have any intent, unless that intent is justified. The universe is an entity, but it is not a being.

Quote8.   A first causal being cannot receive its being from outside itself.

Setting aside the equivocation and the objectionable use of the word 'being' for a moment, there is something that is being overlooked in this premise, namely the concept of a 'brute fact'. I understand that you have objections to the way I presented this earlier, but the objections still stand.

Quote9.   Therefore, there must be a being which does not receive its being through efficient causality, but for which being is its essence. Being which exists in itself is called subsistent existence.
10.   A first causal being is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
11.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.
12.   All non-subsistent being is part of an essentially ordered efficiently causal chain of being.
13.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all things.

Well done. Apart (again) from the use of the word 'being', you've just described the universe.

Quote14.   All perfections must have an efficient cause.
15.   Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all perfections.

I'm going to leave this for now, but I will come back to it when I get to your definition of 'perfection'

Quote16.   The effect of any efficient cause pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause.

What is meant here by 'virtually'. I know of several rigorous definitions, none of which make any sense in this context.

Quote17.   Therefore, perfections exist virtually in subsistent existence.

Well, apart from objections to 'perfections', which I will come to, the term 'subsistent existence', in the sense you are employing it, is tautological. In the context of this definition, subsistence is existence. This is unnecessarily clouding the issue.

Quote18.   A perfection is obtained in being.

This, I have to object to, for all kinds of reasons. Firstly, this is a sudden entry into the ontological argument. You might just have said 'maximal greatness' and had done with it. The objections to this line of argumentation are many, not least that there are many things that would not be considered 'perfect' by existence. I can raise all the standard objections here without breaking a sweat. The obvious one is that an entity that could create a universe without existing would be far more impressive than an extant one, thus attaining a level of perfection, even given your definition, that is not attanable by an extant entity, thus refuting the extant entity's perfection. Frankly, all I really need say about this is that it's a bare assertion, and therefore fallacious.

Quote19.   Therefore, all perfections obtain in subsistent existence.

Again, tautology aside, this is bare assertion.

Quote20.   A being which obtains all perfections is, by definition, God.

This is again an assertion that must be justified, not least by actually defining god.

Quote21.   Therefore, God exists.

This 'therefore' is unattached. The argument is invalid. You haven't demonstrated that there is any such thing as 'an entity which obtains all perfections', you have only asserted that, should such an entity exist, it would be god by definition (again, setting aside my objection to that). There is no logic chain between one assertion and the other. The argument is simply incomplete, and riddled with fallacies.

Moving on to your definitions, I'll only deal with the ones I object to.

QuoteSubsistent being - Being that has its own nature essentially rather than accidentally.

I have to object to this, because this constitutes a contradiction. You described 'accident' as:

QuoteAccident - an aspect of a thing that can change without changing what the thing fundamentally is; i.e., hair color, height, weight, number of limbs, etc.

Since what the thing fundamentally is is its essence, and an accident is something that cannot change its essence, then ALL things have their own natures essentially rather than accidentally.

QuotePerfection - For our purposes, a non-limiting predicate corresponding to potency in its subject; i.e., sight (in eyes), knowledge (in minds), power (in beings), etc.

So what you're talking about here is the three omnis, or at least it looks very much like you're attempting to sneak the omnis in under the radar. Of course, that isn't going to work, since one of the omnis is logically absurd and self-refuting, one of the other two is refuted by the aforementioned self-refuting one, and the third would provide a means to evidence that this entity exists.

QuotePredicates like "tall" are not perfections as they are actually expressions of limitations (we are "tall" only in that our being is limited to a certain dimensional extension).

This is wrong. 'tall' is not an expression of a limitation. It certainly describes a single dimensional extansion, but not to the exclusion of any others.

I shall await your response to this post before I respond to later posts, just in case you still feel you don't want to talk to me. The olive branch has been proffered. The ball is in your court.

Just what I was looking for, Hack. Thank you very much for the sensible response.

Quote from: "hackenslash"

Quote from: "Jac3510"1.   Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2.   All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3.   Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.
4.   Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.
5.   Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent.
6.   There cannot be an infinite regress of essentially ordered efficiently caused beings.

Here's my first objection, and it's along the lines of the fallacy of equivocation. Here we have two very different usages of the word 'being'. This may seem like a minor objection, but it's actually a whopper, because the second usage is one I'm going to be voicing a very strong objection to shortly as we move through the argument.

The second issue also arises here, in the form of the premise itself, which rests on a) something that can't be demonstrated and b) a misunderstanding of what the word 'infinite' means. This word has a very specific meaning. It isn't a quantity. This objection must be addressed, as this usage is central to the entire argument. This premise (P6) is a commission of the bare assertion fallacy.

There are other issues as well, though none quite as big as that one. From here on in, I'll be referencing the objections from the point where the fallacy becomes clear.

I made reference to this difficulty earlier, I think to Sophus, but I'm not sure to whom. However, I am going to leave it to you to be more specific. In which of these premises is the word "being" used differently? You assert that it is. You need to demonstrate that to be the case.

Your second issue only mentions "the premise." You don't specify which one, so I can't demonstrate which one you want.

Third, we've already covered the fact that 6 is stated improperly. We can ignore the infinite regress all the way around. We can rephrase this section as follows:

1.   Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2.   All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3.   Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.
4.   Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.
5.   Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent (which is to say, all essences are contingent)
6.   That which is contingent must rely on that which is not contingent for its existence.
7.     Therefore, essentially ordered efficient causes rely on a non-contingent (that is, necessary) cause for their being, which is called a first cause

I'll hold off on the rest, including discussions on definitions, until they come up in the argument. No reason to get ahead of ourselves. The only definition we need to deal with is "accident" since you objected to it. You said:

QuoteSince what the thing fundamentally is is its essence, and an accident is something that cannot change its essence, then ALL things have their own natures essentially rather than accidentally.

This is just trivially true. I never argued that things have their essences accidentally. I said certain properties are received accidentally, i.e., whiteness, baldness, and being. These things do not change what a thing is. Your objection is unclear. Perhaps you just misread me?

Hack and Jac - 2010

Sounds epic.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"I see. Well, who discovered this being, who figured all this out? The idea has to have come from somewhere.

Who knows who discovered it historically? Who discovered fire? I don't know, but I use it every day.

Do you use capital G "God" every day? If so, how?

Quote from: "Jac3510"I made reference to this difficulty earlier, I think to Sophus, but I'm not sure to whom. However, I am going to leave it to you to be more specific. In which of these premises is the word "being" used differently? You assert that it is. You need to demonstrate that to be the case.

In (P1), you employ being as a property, in the sense of 'having existence'. In (P6) you employ it as an entity or 'a being'. You must pick one or the other before we can proceed.

QuoteYour second issue only mentions "the premise." You don't specify which one, so I can't demonstrate which one you want.

Err, I did specify which premise, namely (P6).

QuoteThird, we've already covered the fact that 6 is stated improperly.

Well, I'm working from the beginning onward, with no reference to the objections of others, so I ask that you humour me in this regard. I apologise if it means rehashing what others have already said, but I'm concentrating only on your posts in this thread for now, so that I don't become sidetracked. In any event, I don't think it's just improperly stated, it's a bare assertion.

QuoteWe can ignore the infinite regress all the way around.

I'm sorry, but we can't. You have yet to demonstrate that you are working from anything like a rigorous definition of 'infinite'. You have also to demonstrate that infinite regress is not possible. As it happens, even were you to demonstrate this in a robust fashion, it wouldn't put a dent in my argument, because I already have the entity that halts the regress, as detailed in an earlier post. If you would like me to edit out the invective so that you can deal with the very solid objections in that post, say the word. There are some pretty damning points in that post, and they won't be going away anytime soon.

1

Quote1.   Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).

There is a glaring problem here. Can essence exist without being? Is it possible for something to be without essence? If these things are possible, then your definitions are in deep trouble.

Quote2.   All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3.   Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.

This overlooks the conept of the brute fact once more. Existence itself is a brute fact.

Quote4.   Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.

Can something that has no being have 'essence'?

Quote5.   Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent (which is to say, all essences are contingent)

Again, what of brute facts? Surely a brute fact requires no cause, efficient or otherwise. Since existence is a brute fact, whether you posit an agent or not (big clue: the external agent also requires existence), it requires no external agent. Moreover, since the universe is 'that which exists', and existence is a brute fact, we can state quite simply that the universe is a brute fact, and requires no cause. I'd be happy to justify my definition of 'universe', if you wish, and I know for a fact it will stand any test you throw at it.

Quote6.   That which is contingent must rely on that which is not contingent for its existence.

Sorry, but this is just absurd. The concept of a chain applies to contingency in precisely the same way it applies to causality. This is trivial to demonstrate with a simple example. Life (as we know it) is contingent upon the existence of carbon, which is contingent upon the triple-alpha process, which is contingent upon stellar death, which is...

Need I go on?

Quote7.     Therefore, essentially ordered efficient causes rely on a non-contingent (that is, necessary) cause for their being, which is called a first cause

And once again, with the premises leading to this conclusion being thoroughly dubious (and in some cases flat out wrong), the conclusion is unsound.

QuoteI'll hold off on the rest, including discussions on definitions, until they come up in the argument. No reason to get ahead of ourselves. The only definition we need to deal with is "accident" since you objected to it. You said:

QuoteSince what the thing fundamentally is is its essence, and an accident is something that cannot change its essence, then ALL things have their own natures essentially rather than accidentally.

This is just trivially true. I never argued that things have their essences accidentally. I said certain properties are received accidentally, i.e., whiteness, baldness, and being. These things do not change what a thing is. Your objection is unclear. Perhaps you just misread me?

My objection was actually to the definition of 'subsistent being' (which still includes the equivocatory usage, BTW). You are either contradicting yourself or unnecessarily obfuscating with a tautology. If that is the case, then your definition of 'subsistent beings' is without utility, because it includes ALL beings (and indeed all entities.

Now, I ask that, in your next post, you deal with the real objections I have raised to your entire line of argumentation, which are as follows:

1. Choose a sense of the word 'being' and adhere to that sense and only that sense, and choose a different word for the other sense.
2. Demonstrate that your use of 'infinity' is rigorous, and that you actually understand what it means. This is critical, because your assertion that infinite regress is not possible is the core of your argument and hasn't, IMO, been remotely addressed.
3. Demonstrate that you have grasped the concept of a 'brute fact', and demonstrate that this concept, which is a defeater for your entire argument, does not apply in this case.

Quote from: "Sophus"Hack and Jac - 2010

Sounds epic. :pop:  while we watch?

Quote from: "hackenslash"1. Choose a sense of the word 'being' and adhere to that sense and only that sense, and choose a different word for the other sense.
2. Demonstrate that your use of 'infinity' is rigorous, and that you actually understand what it means. This is critical, because your assertion that infinite regress is not possible is the core of your argument and hasn't, IMO, been remotely addressed.
3. Demonstrate that you have grasped the concept of a 'brute fact', and demonstrate that this concept, which is a defeater for your entire argument, does not apply in this case.

I'll cover these first, since this is at the top of your list, then line by line the rest.

1. The restatement already provided solves the issue. In either case, it turns out there was no equivocation since a "being" in P6 is "that which has being [as a property]," and the property of being is that which is referred to in P1. As I said, however, the restatement is what you need to deal with, as that is the intended argument.

2. The argument does not rely on infinity at all, much less is it at the core of my argument. I have already said as much. You can ignore it if you like, but the restatement makes clear that we don't believe in the FC because an infinity is impossible. As I have said repeatedly now to you, my original presentation was mis-stated. Aquinas himself did not argue for the FC from an impossible infinite, and nor am I. My inclusion of that was a mistake on my part which has now been corrected.

3. You did not bring up brute facts until P8. I stopped at P7, because P1-7 was rephrased to account for the infinity problem in relation to the FC, which also accounts for the supposed problem of equivocation. I no more ignored that than I ignored your question on perfections. We'll get to it when the time comes. Now that you have decided to bring the brute fact argument against the first part of the argument, I will deal with it as you raise it in the discussion below.

With that out of the way . . .

QuoteIn (P1), you employ being as a property, in the sense of 'having existence'. In (P6) you employ it as an entity or 'a being'. You must pick one or the other before we can proceed.

See the rephrase.

QuoteErr, I did specify which premise, namely (P6).

See the rephrase.

QuoteWell, I'm working from the beginning onward, with no reference to the objections of others, so I ask that you humour me in this regard. I apologise if it means rehashing what others have already said, but I'm concentrating only on your posts in this thread for now, so that I don't become sidetracked. In any event, I don't think it's just improperly stated, it's a bare assertion.

I said "we've already covered," not "I've already covered." You and I have already had this discussion. In any case, it was covered again in the rephrase. So . . .

See the rephrase.

QuoteI'm sorry, but we can't. You have yet to demonstrate that you are working from anything like a rigorous definition of 'infinite'. You have also to demonstrate that infinite regress is not possible. As it happens, even were you to demonstrate this in a robust fashion, it wouldn't put a dent in my argument, because I already have the entity that halts the regress, as detailed in an earlier post. If you would like me to edit out the invective so that you can deal with the very solid objections in that post, say the word. There are some pretty damning points in that post, and they won't be going away anytime soon.

The rephrase never mentions an infinite. It has no part of the argument. So . . .

See the rephrase.

Quote

Quote1.   Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).

There is a glaring problem here. Can essence exist without being? Is it possible for something to be without essence? If these things are possible, then your definitions are in deep trouble.

Essences cannot exist without being. You are just asking "Can something be without being?" We are capable of talking about these things in abstraction, however, to help us identify what is going on. "Essence"--which is to say, what-a-thing-is--is a meaningful concept apart from existence. Unicorns have an essence, even though they don't actually exist. They only exist in our minds.

Let me give two pieces of background information to make this clearer to our readers.

1. Individual words point to essences. "Dog," "Cat," "Tree," and "Man" are all words. They point to concepts, which are in some sense reflective of realty (although the way in which that reflection works is a matter of very, very deep dispute). Each of these concepts can be analyzed and broken down into component parts. Thus common to "dog," "cat," and "man," is the concept "animality," etc. These words, by themselves, however, do not tell us that any of these things actually are, that is, that they exist. For that, you have to add a predicate. "Men are" is not a complete sentence in English and is thus bad grammar, although in a language like Greek, that isn't the case: anthropos estin is perfectly meaningful and would probably be translated into English as, "Mankind exists."

In the sentence "Mankind exists" we have a distinction between the essence of man and the existence of man. The first word "mankind" calls to mind a concept. The second word "exists" predicates something to that concept, namely, existence.

2. None of the singular words above contain within themselves the concept of existence. They point to natures or essences--what-a-thing-is--but not to whether or not they exist. Anselm's ontological argument fails precisely because it does not recognize this. A "maximally great being"--the words point to an essence, what-the-thing-is--is not changed by adding the concept "existence." This is actually because existence is conceptually empty. This requires a bit of explaining but is extremely important to explain in detail P1.

a. When we encounter something, say a man, our mind apprehends the thing's nature---that is, what it is. For our argument it doesn't matter if it does this by means of the immaterial form being pressed on our mind as in Aristotle or if our mind constructs an image of sensory data as in Descarte. What is important is that when we encounter a thing, we identify what it is. I am walking down the street, and I meet a man. "Man" is the thing I meet. This apprehension of nature or essence is called simple apprehension. The mind apprehends natures or essences. Such natures are conceptually meaningful, as discussed above. The concept "man" has quite a bit of meaning.

b. We do not, however, perceive the existence of a thing through simple apprehension. The reason is evident enough when you try to conceptualize existence. You can have a meaningful concept of man, or dog, or cat, or anything else sensible. You can have no meaningful concept of existence. As stated above, it is empty. Existence just is. It cannot be broken down any further, which is why, again, doesn't add anything to a concept. Since apprehension only deals with concepts, and there is no concept being apprehended in existence, then we are dealing with something else. The perceive that a thing is is called judgment in scholastic philosophy. That is,we judge a thing to exist. Now, we cannot apprehend anything without first judging it exists, nor can we judge anything exists without apprehending its nature. This is because, in reality, all things, if they are real, exist. It is absurd to try to apprehend a non-existent thing, and we cannot judge that a thing exists if the thing isn't anything.

Thus, while existence and essence are found in the same things in reality, they can be, and must be, distinguished in a logical and philosophical sense. In other words, and this is the important point, existence and essence are not the same thing. And of course, things that are not the same must be different, which is to say, they are distinguished. Both our language and our thoughts force this distinction. "Man exists" makes the distinction evident.

A final note, this is even true of things that have only cognitive existence, such as unicorns (and Hack would argue, God ). Thus, we can endow "nothing" with existence--and we must do so--to talk about it. "Nothing" becomes a concept that is given existence in our mind, although, like existence itself, as a concept, it is meaningless.

So the first premise is a fairly obvious point. Being is an accidental property of all essences.

Quote

Quote2.   All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3.   Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.

This overlooks the conept of the brute fact once more. Existence itself is a brute fact.

Yes, existence is a brute fact. It's relationship to essence is not. The equality of essence with existence is not only not a brute fact, it is false.

Quote

Quote4.   Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.

Can something that has no being have 'essence'?

Logically, yes. A further distinction may be helpful here.

I mentioned above the possibility of cognitive existence. This would be opposed to what we might call real existence. The former refers to things that exist only in the mind and the latter to things that exist outside the mind. Another way to talk about real existence--those things that exist outside the mind--is to say the thing has its existence within itself.

Everyone agrees that unicorns exist differently from horses. The first does not have its existence in itself. It has its existence in the mind. The latter has its existence in itself (and very often, in our minds as well). Essences in reality have their being in themselves. When discussing the concept, they can, and must, as shown above, be distinguished.

Quote

Quote5.   Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent (which is to say, all essences are contingent)

Again, what of brute facts? Surely a brute fact requires no cause, efficient or otherwise. Since existence is a brute fact, whether you posit an agent or not (big clue: the external agent also requires existence), it requires no external agent. Moreover, since the universe is 'that which exists', and existence is a brute fact, we can state quite simply that the universe is a brute fact, and requires no cause. I'd be happy to justify my definition of 'universe', if you wish, and I know for a fact it will stand any test you throw at it.

This is proof that your "brute fact" argument fails. Let's say that my existence is a brute fact. If "a brute fact requires no cause," then my existence requires no cause. But surely that is absurd, for my existence most certainly needs a cause. I have my parents to thank for that.

This is one of the places I am finding your argument a bit silly so far. You are so worried about proving me wrong, that you don't stop to look at the statement you are disagreeing with. Do you really think that I gave myself existence? That's absurd. Do you really think that you are not a contingent being? That is absurd. Things don't give themselves existence. They don't bring themselves into existence. They don't take themselves out of existence. Yesterday, the house I am in was not here. It had no existence. It then received its existence in the mind of an architect, and soon, it came into existence. Today, it has its existence in itself. But tomorrow, it will be gone again. It will be torn down and paved over, and it will have no existence anywhere except in the minds of people who remember it. This proves two things:

1. That we can, must, and do talk about things all the time that don't exist, and therefore, the two terms are distinguished; and
2. Things don't bring themselves into existence. They are brought into existence by other things.

This principle is so obviously true it is just utterly silly to try to deny it.

Quote

Quote6.   That which is contingent must rely on that which is not contingent for its existence.

Sorry, but this is just absurd. The concept of a chain applies to contingency in precisely the same way it applies to causality. This is trivial to demonstrate with a simple example. Life (as we know it) is contingent upon the existence of carbon, which is contingent upon the triple-alpha process, which is contingent upon stellar death, which is...

Need I go on?

It's not absurd. It's obvious. Your statement doesn't disagree with mine at all. You are just further explaining the meaning of contingency.

Quote

Quote7.     Therefore, essentially ordered efficient causes rely on a non-contingent (that is, necessary) cause for their being, which is called a first cause

And once again, with the premises leading to this conclusion being thoroughly dubious (and in some cases flat out wrong), the conclusion is unsound.

Considering the fact that your entire argument rests upon a false equation between essence and existence, which is obviously false on any level and simply absurd, there's nothing unsound about the conclusion. You are free, of course, to try again, or to demonstrate that, in fact, essence and existence are one in the same thing.

We'll deal with subsistent existence when we get there.

Quote from: "Jac3510"1. The restatement already provided solves the issue. In either case, it turns out there was no equivocation since a "being" in P6 is "that which has being [as a property]," and the property of being is that which is referred to in P1. As I said, however, the restatement is what you need to deal with, as that is the intended argument.

I already dealt with that restatement, which doesn't solve your problem but introduces the further problem of being circular. You quoted Aquinas thus:

QuoteSince there must be a first mover, therefore there cannot be an infinite regress.

This is a clear case of circular reasoning. Your first statement was, in essence, 'there cannot be infinite regress so there must be a PM', now you are saying, 'there must be a PM, so there cannot be an infinite regress'. You're simply switching the statements around, while both statements are blind assertions. Either formulation is clearly begging the question. This formulation does not help your argument.

Quote2. The argument does not rely on infinity at all, much less is it at the core of my argument. I have already said as much. You can ignore it if you like, but the restatement makes clear that we don't believe in the FC because an infinity is impossible. As I have said repeatedly now to you, my original presentation was mis-stated. Aquinas himself did not argue for the FC from an impossible infinite, and nor am I. My inclusion of that was a mistake on my part which has now been corrected.

No, the restatement simply swaps the statements, and in no way addresses the objection that both statements are mere blind assertions, with no evidential support. In any event, are you now retracting the statement that an infinite regress is impossible? Your entire argument from contingency and causality rests upon this, since any assertion of a prime mover requires this. Without the impossibility of infinite regress, no prime mover is necessary, however you slice it. This requires of you that you address my objection to your use of infinity.

Quote3. Existence certainly is a brute facts. The relationship between essence and existence is not. More importantly, you did not bring up brute facts until P8. I stopped at P7, because P1-7 was rephrased to account for the infinity problem in relation to the FC, which also accounts for the supposed problem of equivocation.

Firstly, I brought up brute facts a good deal before that, although without explicitly using the term. Indeed, it was in my very first post, thus:

Quote from: "slackonhashish"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 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.

This post cites existence, and the universe, as a brute fact.

As for the problem of equivocation, you haven't remotely addressed it. The word being, in both of the sense you have used, has a very precise definition. In the first sense, a verb, it is simply existence. In the second, a noun, it is an entity, and one that, moreover, has will and intent implicit. This is the source of my objection. You are using two very distinct senses, and your hand-waving doesn't remotely address my objection. If you mean the second sense as merely an entity, then I have no objection, but you cannot use the two senses without committing the fallacy of equivocation, not least because it leaves the door open to the later bait and switch when you imply that this entity must have will.

QuoteSee the rephrase.

See my objection to the rephrase, which only introduces more problems.

QuoteSee the rephrase.

Already addressed. This is not discourse, not least because your rephrase was addressed quite some time ago. Is this to be the way we proceed?

QuoteI said "we've already covered," not "I've already covered." You and I have already had this discussion. In any case, it was covered again in the rephrase. So . . .

And I'd already addressed your rephrase, and have done so again above. So...

QuoteSee the rephrase.

Tedious.

QuoteEssences cannot exist without being. You are just asking "Can something be without being?" We are capable of talking about these things in abstraction, however, to help us identify what is going on. "Essence"--which is to say, what-a-thing-is--is a meaningful concept apart from existence. Unicorns have an essence, even though they don't actually exist. They only exist in our minds.

Conceptual existence is still existence, is it not? That's what the navel-gazers are always telling me.

QuoteSnip...
So the first premise is a fairly obvious point. Being is an accidental property of all essences.

This is interesting. I'll have to give this some thought.

QuoteYes, existence is a brute fact. It's relationship to essence is not. The equality of essence with existence is not only not a brute fact, it is false.

I suggest that depends on what you're talking about, The essence of the universe is, in fact, existence. That's at least one thing that defies this definition. Having said that, this is irrelevant to the point I was making, namely that your entire argument from causality and contingency overlooks the concept of brute fact. Bringing essence into this particular portion of the discussion is a bait and switch. Please deal with the objection, rather than wandering off at a tangent.

QuoteLogically, yes. A further distinction may be helpful here.

I mentioned above the possibility of cognitive existence. This would be opposed to what we might call real existence. The former refers to things that exist only in the mind and the latter to things that exist outside the mind. Another way to talk about real existence--those things that exist outside the mind--is to say the thing has its existence within itself.

Actually, I have to object here. That which exists only conceptually still has essence, under your definition. It may not be the same or equivalent to the essence of the real, but it must still have essence. All things that exist, regardless of the nature of their existence, have essence. Even Yahweh, who most certainly does not exist, has essence.

QuoteEveryone agrees that unicorns exist differently from horses. The first does not have its existence in itself. It has its existence in the mind. The latter has its existence in itself (and very often, in our minds as well). Essences in reality have their being in themselves. When discussing the concept, they can, and must, as shown above, be distinguished.

No, this isn't correct. Just because the essence is different doesn't remotely suggest that it has no essence. For something to exist, it must be. To be it has something which is intrinsically it, therefore, under your very own definition, essence.

QuoteThis is proof that your "brute fact" argument fails. Let's say that my existence is a brute fact. If "a brute fact requires no cause," then my existence requires no cause. But surely that is absurd, for my existence most certainly needs a cause. I have my parents to thank for that.

And here we have a clear case of utterly missing the point. I didn't say that your existence was a brute fact, but that existence itself was. The universe is everything which exists, including whatever, if anything, preceded the big bang, and also any creator entity. Your existence (with due regard to the simple fact that that which makes you existed long before you did, and actually requiring a cause would violate the first... ah but that's the Kalam fallacy refutation, so I'll not erect it here) does require a cause, at least within the confines of how we are currently defining you

QuoteThis is one of the places I am finding your argument a bit silly so far.

It seems silly because you have clearly misunderstood it. Read up.

QuoteYou are so worried about proving me wrong,

Actually, truth be known, I don't really care about proving you wrong. I only care about addressing what is wrong.

 

Quotethat you don't stop to look at the statement you are disagreeing with. Do you really think that I gave myself existence? That's absurd. Do you really think that you are not a contingent being? That is absurd. Things don't give themselves existence. They don't bring themselves into existence. They don't take themselves out of existence. Yesterday, the house I am in was not here. It had no existence. It then received its existence in the mind of an architect, and soon, it came into existence. Today, it has its existence in itself. But tomorrow, it will be gone again. It will be torn down and paved over, and it will have no existence anywhere except in the minds of people who remember it.

Again, still missing the point. It would have been better if you had attempted to glean the meaning of the statement rather than wandering off about what you thought it meant. What you think it meant is indeed absurd, but in no way relates to what I actually meant. I didn't say that your existence was a brute fact. I said that existence itself was.

QuoteThis proves two things:

1. That we can, must, and do talk about things all the time that don't exist, and therefore, the two terms are distinguished; and
2. Things don't bring themselves into existence. They are brought into existence by other things.

This principle is so obviously true it is just utterly silly to try to deny it.

Well, since I actually have real problem with the idea that anything, ever, began to exist, then I have no trouble denying the second part, not least because no such occurrence has ever been demonstrated. Indeed, the entire idea is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics which, unlike the second law of thermodynamics, the darling of creationists (not that I'm suggesting you are one, of course. I've seen no evidence of that), is not merely an experimental law, but a fundamental property of spacetime, and quite probably the universe. Secondly, I haven't suggested that the universe brought itself into existence, but that it's exstence, being existence itself, is a brute fact.

QuoteIt's not absurd. It's obvious. Your statement doesn't disagree with mine at all.

Excuse me? Are you serious? It flat out contradicts your statement. You are asserting that a contingent entity can only be contingent upon a non-contingent entity, which is ludicrous.

QuoteConsidering the fact that your entire argument rests upon a false equation between essence and existence, which is obviously false on any level and simply absurd, there's nothing unsound about the conclusion.

No, my entire argument rests upon the falsity of youor claims, which has little to do with any equation between essence and existence. Indeed, the lines I drew concerning those were mere sideshow trinkets to the main event, namely your failure to address any of the three points I raised above.

QuoteYou are free, of course, to try again, or to demonstrate that, in fact, essence and existence are one in the same thing.

I never suggested that they were the same thing. I do, however, assert that whatever exists, in whatever form, be it conceptual, platonic or real, has essence. This is not remotely the same as saying that they're the same thing, nor could they be read as such.

QuoteWe'll deal with subsistent existence when we get there.

OK, when are we going to deal with tautological tautologies?

Just to get a handle on time zones Hack is in the UK, Jac where are you relative to GMT?

Quote from: "Tank"Just to get a handle on time zones Hack is in the UK, Jac where are you relative to GMT?

If he actually is in Atlanta right now, he's 5 hours behind GMT

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "Tank"Just to get a handle on time zones Hack is in the UK, Jac where are you relative to GMT?

If he actually is in Atlanta right now, he's 5 hours behind GMT

Cheers HS I really should use my eyes sometimes  

I'm not going to line-by-line this reply, as it would become unreadable as you are repeating yourself quite a bit. If I miss a substantive objective, feel free to bring it up for clarification.

Here is the argument as we have it so far for reference:

1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2. All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3. Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.
4. Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.
5. Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent (which is to say, all essences are contingent)
6. That which is contingent must rely on that which is not contingent for its existence.
7. Therefore, essentially ordered efficient causes rely on a non-contingent (that is, necessary) cause for their being, which is called a first cause

As to your objections thus far:

1. Dealing with the infinity - infinity is not mentioned in this argument. To continue to argue the point is a straw man.

2. Circularity - apparently, you see a circular statement in 5-7. All efficiently caused essences are contingent; that which is contingent must rely on that which is not contingent for its existence; therefore, all efficiently caused essences must rely on that which is non-contingent for their existence. You'll have to demonstrate the circularity, because I just don't see it.

3. Equivocation of 'being' - The word 'being' is used in (1) to refer to the property that makes a thing exist; in (3) the same way; (4) the same way; (5) the same way; (6) uses the word existence in the same way as 'being' in all these statements; and (7) in the same sense. Notice, further, than in all cases except (1) and (4), all uses of 'being' are preceded by the possessive pronoun. In (4), possession is the general subject (or, specifically, the lack of possession). In (1), we are talking about the general concept of being, and the rest of the statements discuss something's possession of it.

There is no equivocation here.

4. Brute facts - Brute facts are things that are so basic that cannot be further explained and must simply be accepted. Existence is a brute fact. The fact that things come into existence is not, not because it is debatable (although people have debated it), but because the nature of what it means to come into existence is debatable. You can't just yell "Brute facts!" and except that to serve as an objection. So rather than testing me to see if I can find an objection somewhere in the concept, you state it clearly. "PX is untrue because it is simply Y is simply true, which PX does not recognize."

Now, I do want to quote a few things you stated only because the deep misunderstanding of the argument they convey, and I will use them as a chance to clarify:

QuoteI suggest that depends on what you're talking about, The essence of the universe is, in fact, existence.

This is absurd. Essence is what a thing is. The universe may exist, but they universe is not existence. If it were existence itself, then to say, "Mankind exists" would be to say "Mankind is the universe" or something related. The universe may be all that exists (it isn't), but being all that exists means that it is not itself existence. You are simply wrong on this point.

Quote

QuoteI mentioned above the possibility of cognitive existence. This would be opposed to what we might call real existence. The former refers to things that exist only in the mind and the latter to things that exist outside the mind. Another way to talk about real existence--those things that exist outside the mind--is to say the thing has its existence within itself.

Actually, I have to object here. That which exists only conceptually still has essence, under your definition. It may not be the same or equivalent to the essence of the real, but it must still have essence. All things that exist, regardless of the nature of their existence, have essence. Even Yahweh, who most certainly does not exist, has essence.

I never even used the word essence. Why are you saying that things with cognitive existence don't have essence? This is at least twice you have done this, Hack. I never used the word "infinite" in my restatement, and yet you insist it is the crux of my argument. Here, I never mention essence, and you spend your entire time talking about essence. As a matter of fact, to help you understand this concept better, the essence of the cognitive is exactly the same as the essence of the real. The difference is whether or not the essence has its existence in itself (which would make it real) or only in the mind (which would make it cognitive). Your misunderstanding is further demonstrated here:

Quote

QuoteEveryone agrees that unicorns exist differently from horses. The first does not have its existence in itself. It has its existence in the mind. The latter has its existence in itself (and very often, in our minds as well). Essences in reality have their being in themselves. When discussing the concept, they can, and must, as shown above, be distinguished.

No, this isn't correct. Just because the essence is different doesn't remotely suggest that it has no essence. For something to exist, it must be. To be it has something which is intrinsically it, therefore, under your very own definition, essence.

Again, I never said nor implied that something has no essence. That is self-contradictory, sense an essence is what a thing is. A thing cannot be something without essence. What I did say is that essences with cognitive existence exist differently than essences with real existence. The former have their existence only in the mind, while the latter have their existence in themselves.

QuoteWell, since I actually have real problem with the idea that anything, ever, began to exist, then I have no trouble denying the second part, not least because no such occurrence has ever been demonstrated. Indeed, the entire idea is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics which, unlike the second law of thermodynamics, the darling of creationists (not that I'm suggesting you are one, of course. I've seen no evidence of that), is not merely an experimental law, but a fundamental property of spacetime, and quite probably the universe. Secondly, I haven't suggested that the universe brought itself into existence, but that it's exstence, being existence itself, is a brute fact.

I know you don't mean this. You can't tell me that you have always existed. The stuff that makes you up may have always existed, but you have not always existed. Therefore, your lack of a problem with the idea that anything ever began to exist is a serious problem for me. It shows a continued misunderstanding on your part of what an essence is.

What you are is distinct from what you are made up of;
That you are is distinct from both what you are and what you are made up of.

This goes back to a central philosophical assumption of mine, namely, things are what they are and are not what they are not. Dogs are not trees, even though both are made up of the same matter. This dog is not the same as that dog. This dog did not always exist. Why is this all true? It's all in P1:

Being is an accidental property of all efficiently caused causes

Dogs are efficiently caused causes. Their essence, what they are, is "dogness." That, of course, can be broken down into various essential properties (i.e., animality). That essence does not include the concept of existence anymore than unicorn includes the concept of existence. Some dogs exist. Other dogs don't. Therefore, existence is added to the essence of dogs to make them exist. Sometimes, that existence is merely cognitive, meaning that the dog only has existence in the mind. Sometimes, that existence is real, meaning that the dog has its existence in itself and can thus be said to exist in the real world apart from the mind. In any case, that being is added to the essence makes being an accidental property. Being is therefore distinguished from essence.

So, in sum, you need to do the following:

1. Demonstrate circularity in my restated argument
2. Demonstrate equivocation in my restated argument
3. Demonstrate reference to infinity in my restated argument
4. Demonstrate what brute facts contradicts which premise in my restated argument
5. Demonstrate that you understand the concept of essence
6. Demonstrate that your own view does not require mean things like you, me, and dogs have existed for all eternity

Any of these that you cannot do must be recanted.

As far as when we move on to the next portion of the argument, it will be when, at minimum, the terms are clear, and at most, when you agree that the argument presented in 1-7 is valid. There's no need to go any further if the argument at any stage is invalid.

Actually, I'm really beginning to wonder if this is actually worth my time and effort. I'm off to bed now, but I'll come back and go over this one more time, as you are getting seriously confused about which of my objections refer to which of your arguments. I'll give it one more pass tomorrow, but this is getting seriously tedious. It seems that you are having difficulty keeping track, based on your last post.

Edit: On second thought, and just to demolish any possibility of accusations of running away, leave this with me. I am going to dissect this entire thread and present it in one pass. It will take me a couple of days, but I'll get it done. My intent is to show that there is no argument here, and that my opponent cannot keep track of his own arguments, which is the conclusion that I have drawn, given his attaching objections to the wrong arguments, and his inability to keep track of his own arguments from one post to the next.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Empiricism is a school of philosophy, so think of any scientific experiment for an example.

Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but reality can be interrogated without appeal to a school of philosophy.  Were the first cavemen who discovered the principles of, say, building a fire, Empiricists?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "hackenslash"Empiricism is a school of philosophy, so think of any scientific experiment for an example.

Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but reality can be interrogated without appeal to a school of philosophy.  Were the first cavemen who discovered the principles of, say, building a fire, Empiricists?

I would guess so, yes.  They likely first came to know of fire from lightning.  In trying to replicate nature, they likely had to experiment with different methods.  From that experimentation, a reliable method for creating fire arouse.  If this reasonably assumable sequence of events happened, these cavemen were practicing empiricism.

Yes, they were. They were applying inductive reasoning which, while it may not be formalised philosophy, is still philosophy by definition. Any appraisal of reality by any intellectual means, whether that be by empirical or other means, is philosophy.

I do understand your objection to this, and it is one that I actually share for the most part. Those for whom I have the least tolerance are the navel-gazers. This isn't because philosophy is a bad thing, but because philosophy has been hijacked by idiots who think that logic alone is the path to truth or, as I like to put it, that the umbilicus is a source of information about the world.

Take Jac, here, who seems like a nice enough fellow, but one who hasn't realised that what really elucidates reality is evidence, and that thought alone cannot get you to any conclusions. That's why these so-called 'proofs' of god are entirely worthless. Frankly, I could demolish his entire argument with one question: Where is your evidence? Answer? They have none, which is why they resort to such pathetic nonsense to attempt to support their fantasies. All of their arguments are entirely circular, becaus they operate from the assumption that this entity exists. There is no escaping that. This is also why I say that what's being engaged here is not philosophy, but theology. It has no utility, and bears precisely the same resemblance to philosophy as a chocolate fireguard does to something useful.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "hackenslash"Empiricism is a school of philosophy, so think of any scientific experiment for an example.

Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but reality can be interrogated without appeal to a school of philosophy.  Were the first cavemen who discovered the principles of, say, building a fire, Empiricists?

I would guess so, yes.  They likely first came to know of fire from lightning.  In trying to replicate nature, they likely had to experiment with different methods.  From that experimentation, a reliable method for creating fire arouse.  If this reasonably assumable sequence of events happened, these cavemen were practicing empiricism.

My question is, were they Empiricists?  Did they have an internally consistent philosophy of discovery?  Doubtful.  

Also, experimentation is doing, and not thinking.  It may rest on assumptions, but that doesn't mean that those assumptions are verified, or even codified, by philosophy.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"My question is, were they Empricists?

Yes, because they were applying inductive reasoning. First, they saw fire. When they got close, they found it made them feel warm. They learned first to keep the fire alight, and then to make it themselves. This is pure induction.

QuoteDid they have an internally consistent philosophy of discovery?  Doubtful.

Internal consistency isn't necessary for philosophy. All that is required is the pursuit of knowledge by thought, and by other means.

QuoteAlso, experimentation is doing, and not thinking.

And what of experimental design? What of assessment of results? Those require thought, even at the most primitive lesson. You can't actually learn anything about anything without those things, and those things are philosophy.

QuoteIt may rest on assumptions, but that doesn't mean that those assumptions are verified, or even codified, by philosophy.

Again, formal codification isn't necessary, in precisely the same way that fallacious thinking doesn't need to be formally recognised as a fallacy. If it's fallacious, it's a fallacy, whether it's been recognised or not. In reality, that recognition is a function of a formal framework, which simply isn't necessary for philosophy. If you think about the earliest philosopher you can think of, who had no reference other than his own observations, he would not have been doing philosophy at the time. Only afterward, when it was recognised formally as philosophy, would it actually become philosophy, which would mean that it wasn't philosophy while he was doing it, but became so afterward, which is clearly absurd.

Fair enough, I suppose.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Fair enough, I suppose.

By the way, Thump, you are quite philosophical yourself.   Every time we disagree you point out at least a couple of fancy worded fallacies that I committed.

Indeed. He's been doing philosophy in this very thread. :lol:

hack,

if you are still awake, I have a quick question.  It seems clear to me that any logical proof of God entails assumptions that can't be proved or disproved.  Wouldn't it be easier to evaluate the argument if you highlighted those assumptions and discussed the feasibility of them?  Isn't possible that if these assumptions are shown to be feasible that the odds of a creator get significantly better than infinity to one?  Maybe even approach 50/50?

Sorry to butt in, but....

Quote from: "Jac"Essence is what a thing is. The universe may exist, but they universe is not existence. If it were existence itself, then to say, "Mankind exists" would be to say "Mankind is the universe" or something related. The universe may be all that exists (it isn't), but being all that exists means that it is not itself existence. You are simply wrong on this point.

Not that I'm intending to speak for him but I think what Hack was trying to say is matter alone (whatever fundamental comprises the universe) is existence. Existence can only exist while something exists. In this regard it can be perceived as existence itself. To exist is to be in existence. The whole can only exist if the most fundamental entity does.

QuoteDogs are efficiently caused causes. Their essence, what they are, is "dogness."

This sounds Platonic.

QuoteTherefore, existence is added to the essence of dogs to make them exist.

You've got it backwards. Essence is added to the dogs. "Existence before essence." ~Jean-Paul Sartre

QuoteHey, Chris.
==================================================
I would encourage you to read through the simplicity thread. I've been asked more than once to avoid technical language, but this is the very reason. This argument employs quite a bit of technical language, but I spent a great deal of time simplifying it before posting. One of the "common" words I used was "being," and because of that usage, there is an apparent problem.

In the strictest of sense, God is not a being. If you look at the argument very carefully, you will notice that at the end of (9), the definition of "subsistent existence is" being which exists in itself." It is not proper to call subsistent existence a being, and strictly speaking, we can't even call it being. It is, rather, the cause of being. I can recast the argument to more technically reflect this distinction, but it will be even more difficult to follow that it is now.

Now, this is evident in the very part you quoted. Notice in 18 that we are not talking about "a" being, but being--that is, the act of being. This is where the technical distinction begins. The perfection of being is different from the substance of being, except in the FC, in which the perfection is the property (although, still more technically, the FC is not a property at all--we can explain if necessary; we should say, the perfection is the essence). Thus, it is evident that "being" in the sensible world, be it the act or the property, is, at best, only analogically related to being in the FC, for the simple reason that, in us, being is diversified, whereas in it, being is united. In other words, we have no comprehension of being in this matter. We only know of it through necessary deduction.

Now, if (18) does not speak of "a" being, then the subsistent existence in (19) is not "a" being, either, which comports with the end of (9). (20) uses the words "a being" in the common sense. It could be better read, "We call that in which all perfections obtain God."

I don't know how much clearer this is, but it certainly addresses the issue of circularity. As for your argument that there must be no god or many gods, Leibniz' law of identity disallows it. A thing must differ by something to be different, yet since being makes all that is real (without being, something is not real), then the cause of being is the cause of all. Thus, the cause of being cannot be "incomplete" in any way, because that would imply that there was some thing it lacked, which would be impossible, since it is the cause of all things. Thus, if there were two FCs, they would be identical in absolutely every way, including their existence, meaning there would, in fact, only be one.

Hello jac3510 (Chris),

Before replying, first I want to thank you very much for the effort you made to explain your reasoning to me.

I am not a philosopher (well, I am, but not professionally) and the english language is not my native tongue. So I hope you will excuse me if parts of what you wrote will go completely over my head.

It seems that the english speaking forum members have enough problems grasping the individual determinations of the words in the statements you use. We need a thesaurus and a lot of time to even agree on the definitions of things like "subsistent existence" or even a simple one like "being" (Shakespeare comes to mind, but let's not deviate from my train of thought)

I see religion and the dogma of religion and the various derivatives of these interpretations for what they are and the problem you are having getting your point across as the same: An interpretation problem.

You may have a valid point trying to prove that "the thing in which all perfections are obtained" should have a name. You use the word "god". I would choose the word "everything". That would explain it all... (that might be the Toaistic world view though...)

I will stay out of the dicussion untill I had some proper time to re-read the entire thread, and tried to make some sense of it.

One final question:

How would Leibniz' law of identity deal with the existence of that in which all imperfections are obtained, and what would you call that?

Regards,

Chris B.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Actually, I'm really beginning to wonder if this is actually worth my time and effort. I'm off to bed now, but I'll come back and go over this one more time, as you are getting seriously confused about which of my objections refer to which of your arguments. I'll give it one more pass tomorrow, but this is getting seriously tedious. It seems that you are having difficulty keeping track, based on your last post.

Edit: On second thought, and just to demolish any possibility of accusations of running away, leave this with me. I am going to dissect this entire thread and present it in one pass. It will take me a couple of days, but I'll get it done. My intent is to show that there is no argument here, and that my opponent cannot keep track of his own arguments, which is the conclusion that I have drawn, given his attaching objections to the wrong arguments, and his inability to keep track of his own arguments from one post to the next.

Or you could respond to the charges laid.

This entire post here is little more than an attempt to paint me as being intellectually inferior, and thus, paint my arguments as not worth considering. As such, it's nothing more than a (thinly veiled) personal attack. It's an irrational approach to debate. Is this your normal method? (Hey look, my own thinly veiled attack)

One of us is clearly misunderstanding the other. What is problematic about your approach here is that you, unlike me, are actually assuming not only the inferiority of my intellect, but the inferiority of the intellect of everyone else on the board. They've asked you, of all people, to challenge my argument. You've been demonstrated to be absolutely wrong--at least your objections--and rather than respond, you simply declare the entire thing worthless, but that somehow, in your mercy and grace, you will condescend to the idiocy that is all of us and explain again. It is almost enough to make me want to break out in a hymn of praise to my new Lord and Master, which is hardly surprising, given my intellectual inferiority, that I would so easily be swayed by such a powerful demonstration of shear intellect.

Again, you've made several explicit charges that are blatantly false.

1. You've accused me of circularity without demonstrating. Pronouncements are not discussion.
2. You've accused me of equivocation on the word 'being,' specifically in (1) and (6), and in response, I looked at every instance of being in the first seven statements and demonstrated that it is being used in the same sense every time. You have failed to demonstrate. Again, pronouncements are not discussion.
3. You've continued to assert that infinity is the central issue, when it does not appear in the argument. Pronouncements, dear sir, are not discussion.
4. You've pronounced that concept of brute fact defeats my argument without demonstration.
5. You've clearly confused the concept of existence and essence which is central to my argument. How can the board expect you to properly critique my argument when you fail to grasp the distinction upon which my entire argument is built? Your assertion that "essence of the universe is, in fact, existence" is both a mere pronouncement and a ridiculous statement on your part. Rather than merely pronounce it false, however, I demonstrated why it is false, and your reply is to pronounce my inability to understand you. Need I repeat myself that pronouncements are not discussion?
6. Your confusion of essence and existence has led you to assert, whether knowingly or not, a type of atheistic pantheism. Again, you said, "since I actually have real problem with the idea that anything, ever, began to exist." In so stating, you are arguing that you never began to exist.

This requires more comment because it provides a great case study on which of us has fundamentally misunderstood the other. We have already made the distinction between what something is and what it is made out of. I pointed out to i_am_i that, "If there is no God, then it really doesn't make sense to call anything by anything. A man isn't a 'man.' It's just a set of molecules collected in a particular way. There is no real difference between "what" a man is and "what" a tree is. At best, that's just a human invention. We see things that look alike and we just label them. That doesn't mean your really are a human being. That's just what we choose to call you." This is a fuller statement of what it means for nothing to come into existence, in that it takes that statement and pulls out the necessary consequences. Specifically, you, as Hack, have clearly not always existed. You, then, are referring to the matter that makes you up. If you, however, are your matter, then since you are made up of the same matter as everything else, then you and everything else are just the same.

This actually provides the basis for another argument for God's existence we may call the argument from the diversity of things. As it stands, it is a major issue in philosophy anyway. It was first grappled with by Parmenides in the fifth century BC, and he concluded that there is no such thing as distinction. Anyway, I digress . . .

The point is that you have found yourself in precisely the same place as everyone else. In denying the distinction between essence and existence and asserting the equality, certain things necessarily follow, one of which, as I've now shown, is that everything is the same thing. But that is absurd.

Now, again, I've taken the time to demonstrate my positions, not to merely pronounce them. The former is discussion. The latter is preaching.

So how about rather than starting all over from scratch, why don't you start trying to demonstrate your claims. If your method is just to preach, there's not much use for debate in the first place, now is there? With that, you have a fantastic weekend. Off on an all day outing with the family at the Atlanta History Center. I am very much looking forward to a more substantive reply this time. Veiled personal attacks are no substitute for argument, and it is an offense to those who asked you to critique my argument for that to be your mere offer.

edit:

A note to all - as I said in my introduction, I've been doing forum discussion for more years than I would ever care to admit. The reason I immediately foe'd Hack is precisely this. People have a certain approach to discussion that is immediately apparent in any of their posts. Hack, unfortunately, bases his entire response on the idiocy of his opponent. He assumes it, and his arguments are to demonstrate it. As I'm far from infallible, I could be wrong, and perhaps he is one of the extremely rare few who really just had a bad run at things and this isn't his normal method. I doubt it. It wasn't the mere language that bothered me originally. It was the realization of the time I was going to spend in responding to his inane rhetoric that was nothing more than a device for covering his personal disdain. As I said before, it is a matter of respect. He has the opportunity, again, to engage the argument presented. Frankly, I don't expect him to now anymore than I did then, but perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised. I hope you all are not disappointed by the exchange. I would be if I had expected any different. Beyond that, I think the exchange until he inserted himself was very worthwhile. After that, it just became him pontificating on perceived idiocy and refusing to demonstrate his own statements. I'm sure you will all understand if I have better things to do with my time, including discussing these issues with all of you, who have, for the most part, proven perfectly willing to engage the actual ideas.

It strikes me there are a number of issues of style and presentation. Chris your posts are not immune to sounding a little patronising at times, I gather mine do to. Hack really does not suffer who he feels are fools gladly. And on RatSkep one has to deal with the likes of the moron Byers and frankly the only way to deal with a moronic idiot like him is to rubbish his ideas in the most vociferous ways. I think Hack is having to get used to dealing with you in a different way. Can you not tolerate his learning curve for the good of constructive discussion if he tries too? If Byers came here I reckon Whitney would give him 20 posts at most before showing him the door. Because of the staff structure at RatSkep and many forums trolls and morons get much too much air play before getting kicked out. The structure here of benevolent dictatorship is generally much better at rooting out extreme members. I thinks that one has to get a feel for the this forum and it took me a while.

Another issue is that the subject you're a jousting over is hideously complex and far reaching. Maybe you should could both start of something simpler and on common ground to get to appreciate each others good points.

I think if both of you just counted 10 before hitting the submit button and reread your posts as if you were the intended recipient you may moderate your own approach to each other and we won't end up in a downward spiral of mutual derision.

It would be a great misfortune if you both can't find a way to debate without belittling each other.

This also reminds me of the time I spent as  moderator at RDF. I wouldn't go near the philosophy section as people could be so spectacularly rude to each other and because of the obscure references "You're just a (insert philosophically rued term of choice)!" If you didn't have a Masters in Philosophy you wouldn't even get the reference until the other person came back with "How dare you blah, blah, blah!" And the mods would be discussing what had been said without a clue what the insult really was!  :D

Quote from: "Sophus"This sounds Platonic.

...as does a lot of stuff I've read here.

I think I need to apologize. I've become used to opening threads without noticing what category they're in. This thread is in the Philosophy category, an area that I'm basically ignorant in.

I'm on a jazz music forum and one of the thread categories there is for musicians. There we talk about tritone substitutions, drop 2 voicings, chord nomenclature, functional vs non-functional harmony, chord scales vs pitch collections, and so on, things that most non-musicians wouldn't have any understand of or even interest in at all.

So here I've blundered into this thread and shown my ass. I consider it a lesson learned. I have no business posting on this thread. My mistake.

But I'll continue reading it.

Quote from: "Tank"It strikes me there are a number of issues of style and presentation. Chris your posts are not immune to sounding a little patronising at times, I gather mine do to. Hack really does not suffer who he feels are fools gladly. And on RatSkep one has to deal with the likes of the moron Byers and frankly the only way to deal with a moronic idiot like him is to rubbish his ideas in the most vociferous ways. I think Hack is having to get used to dealing with you in a different way. Can you not tolerate his learning curve for the good of constructive discussion if he tries too? If Byers came here I reckon Whitney would give him 20 posts at most before showing him the door. Because of the staff structure at RatSkep and many forums trolls and morons get much too much air play before getting kicked out. The structure here of benevolent dictatorship is generally much better at rooting out extreme members. I thinks that one has to get a feel for the this forum and it took me a while.

Another issue is that the subject you're a jousting over is hideously complex and far reaching. Maybe you should could both start of something simpler and on common ground to get to appreciate each others good points.

I think if both of you just counted 10 before hitting the submit button and reread your posts as if you were the intended recipient you may moderate your own approach to each other and we won't end up in a downward spiral of mutual derision.

It would be a great misfortune if you both can't find a way to debate without belittling each other.

I understand the position he finds himself in. I'm not going to sit here and start throwing other Christians under the bus, but do keep in mind, I work with them for a living, so I am very, very well aware of the difficulties you face. With that said, one of the major themes of atheists generally these days is ethics, and especially in the face of religious evil, the fact that atheists can be just as moral (and some would argue more for reasons I'm sure you are aware) as any believer.

Concerning this idea of ethics and morality, whether it is subjective or objective, honesty and respect are a basic concept we should all be able to agree on. Children lose their temper. Adults reason through issues, and if they encounter a person who is unreasonable, they simply remove themselves from the debate. In my own case here, I am fully aware that I am in the minority view, yet I still trust the general judgment of the community with regard to a poster's basic intelligence and their arguments' coherence. I really don't feel like I need to try to convince anyone here (or anywhere else) that someone else is an idiot. It's enough to point out problems in positions. Our responses to arguments, I think, tell people much more about our true intellect and character than our basic positions.

With regard to my own statements, I hope you know that they aren't intended to be patronizing. I would ask that you let me know if anything comes across that way. A PM is just fine in that regard. There is an old statement I hold to be true: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." It doesn't matter, then, how fantastic or sound or logical an argument is. If the character of the person delivering it is questionable, or if the motivations are wrong, it will fall of deaf ears.

Finally, with regard to Hack, my basic position hasn't changed. I'm more than willing to engage in rational discussion of the issues with him or with anyone. I won't allow rhetorical games to substitute, however, for such discussion. As I said before, it is a matter of respect. I don't think it is so much that Hack needs to learn the board environment as it is that he needs to learn to honestly critique positions with which he disagrees. As I have emphasized, pronouncements are not debate, especially when those pronouncements are demonstrably false, as in the case of the ones he has made.

So if he wants to honestly consider my argument, then I am all up for continued discussion. My assumptions by this point are rather obvious. I hold that things are what they are, and that they are not what they are not. I hold that what we are is not the same thing as that we are; I hold that both of these are distinct from what we are made up of. He can accept them or challenge them. So long as he chooses to deal with the statements I make themselves and not misrepresent them, as he did in his last substantive reply, I look forward to discussing the issues in more detail. If he won't, then everyone loses. I lose because my arguments are not critiqued and thus are not as strong as they could be. He loses because he doesn't get to demonstrate the fallacy in one of the longest running arguments, though least popular, in Christian history. The board loses because it does not get to see the issues discussed in depth.

It's in his court.

Quote from: "hackenslash"Indeed. He's been doing philosophy in this very thread. :lol:

Uh-oh, I better go do some ritual cleansing.  

Quote from: "i_am_i"I think I need to apologize. I've become used to opening threads without noticing what category they're in. This thread is in the Philosophy category, an area that I'm basically ignorant in.

I'm on a jazz music forum and one of the thread categories there is for musicians. There we talk about tritone substitutions, drop 2 voicings, chord nomenclature, functional vs non-functional harmony, chord scales vs pitch collections, and so on, things that most non-musicians wouldn't have any understand of or even interest in at all.

So here I've blundered into this thread and shown my ass. I consider it a lesson learned. I have no business posting on this thread. My mistake.

But I'll continue reading it.

It would appear that I'm your partner in error here.

Quote from: "chrisbellekom"Hello jac3510 (Chris),

Jac is fine - there are enough Chris' on this board. ;)

Though I have and will continue to insist that at this juncture some technical vocabulary is necessary, I do promise that I am looking for ways to better communicate these concepts. Perhaps, if nothing else, this will be the primary mutual benefit between the HAF community and me. Who knows? My point is simply that I don't take it personally, and I am trying to make these admittedly difficult concepts as clear as possible.

By the way, we are all philosophers, just like we are all theologians. Some of us are just better at it than others. I, for example, am an absolutely terrible mathematician. I can barely factor a polynomial. It is rather embarrassing. But language make sense to me . . . anyway, I know that isn't what you meant, per se, but I do think it is of some importance. What "professional philosophers" do isn't all that different from what we are doing here. They are just doing it on full time, so they have developed a particular expertise in it is all. That hardly means, though, that their observations are more valuable than anyone else's. It is, as I have said before (in my view), the argument that is important, not the qualification of the person making it. A bad argument is pretty language made by a PhD is still a bad argument.

QuoteIt seems that the english speaking forum members have enough problems grasping the individual determinations of the words in the statements you use. We need a thesaurus and a lot of time to even agree on the definitions of things like "subsistent existence" or even a simple one like "being" (Shakespeare comes to mind, but let's not deviate from my train of thought)

Unfortunately, a thesaurus probably won't help, and still less a dictionary, because most of these terms are technical. I try to define them when I use them, but I know that still makes it difficult on some issues. Rest assured most of the other issues on my mind (though certainly not all) don't require nearly this level of discussion--require being the key word.

QuoteI see religion and the dogma of religion and the various derivatives of these interpretations for what they are and the problem you are having getting your point across as the same: An interpretation problem.

I would agree with you perhaps more than you might expect. The particular area of philosophy I study in is technically called hermeneutics. It comes from the name of the Greek god Hermes, who was the messenger of the gods. As such, it refers the field of study that focuses on how we communicate. It is to linguistics (the study of language) what epistemology (the study of knowledge) is to metaphysics or ontology (the study of the nature of reality). We start with the brute fact that reality exists. Metaphysics asks, "What is reality" and answers it by studying the nature of existence. Epistemology says, "How do we know things about this reality?" The two are separate, and metaphysics definitely comes before epistemology, but you really can't do one without the other, as they both raise questions about one another. Linguistics asks how we communicate what we know, and so comes after epistemology, and hermeneutics asks how we understand what is communicated. So language is the reality that hermeneutics deals with, whereas reality as it enters our mind is the reality that that epistemology deals with.

I give you all that background to make this simple statement. I am absolutely convinced that the method of interpretation one employs (which is a hermeneutical question) does more than anything else to determine the outcome of your investigation. I'll give you two quick examples to demonstrate, one from theological studies, and one from philosophical studies:

1. In theological studies, there is a school of thought called dispensationalism (I hold to it). The main idea underlying this school is that the Church and Israel are not the same thing, and that all the promises to Israel in the Old Testament are still waiting to be fulfilled in the actual Jewish people. Against this is a school called covenant theology. The main idea underlying that school is that the Church and Israel are one and the same, that Israel was replaced by the Church as God's chosen people when they rejected Christ and put Him on the Cross. As such, the promises of the Old Testament are being fulfilled in an spiritual (that is, non-literal) sense in the Church. Now, what underlies the disagreement is the method of interpretation. Dispensationalists insist on taking the text literally (which takes into account figures of speech and such). If the text says "Israel" it means Israel and if it says "Church" it means the church. Covenant theologians, however, have an allegorical (that is, non-literal) method of interpretation when it comes to prophecy, so they are allowed to conflate the two. If, then, you choose a literal hermeneutic, you are virtually guaranteed to become a dispensationlist; whereas if you choose an allegorical hermeneutic, you are virtually guaranteed to become a Covenant theologian (which is the position held be the vast majority of Christians). So yes, interpretation is the problem.

2. Modern philosophy can be distinguished into two general schools of thought: classical vs. analytical philosophy. The former follows the method I outlined above. It starts with a study of existence itself and moves out from there. The latter, however, following Descarte, Kant, and Hume, believe that we cannot know anything about the real world itself, but only our sensory perceptions of the real world. This has been humorously demonstrated in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 060678292# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=961917438060678292#)

The interpretational methods are vastly different. Those who follow classical philosophy interpret the world according to reality itself (we believe), whereas analytical philosophers find that position to be naive and instead interpret the world through our concepts and language. My side things you can talk about reality. Analytical philosophers don't.

So, yes, the main problem is with interpretation, but underlying the issue of interpretation is why we ought to interpret one way or another.

QuoteYou may have a valid point trying to prove that "the thing in which all perfections are obtained" should have a name. You use the word "god". I would choose the word "everything". That would explain it all... (that might be the Toaistic world view though...)

I will stay out of the dicussion untill I had some proper time to re-read the entire thread, and tried to make some sense of it.

The problem with the word "everything" is that it is not a thing that causes anything. It is a collective noun. "Everything" doesn't make a thing happen. Something in "everything," you or me, for instance, makes things happen. This goes back to the very same objection I leveled against both Hack and i_am_i. If "everything" or "the universe" is the cause of all being, then there is no distinction between us and everything. All is One and One is All. There is no distinction between you and me, you and your computer, you and trees, cats, dogs, or ducks. If "everything" is the cause of what you do, that includes me, my baby, the grass in my yard, etc. And likewise, you are the cause of everything I do. Now, this takes me back to the law of identity I mentioned to you in my last reply. It basically says this:

To say something is different from something else is to say it is different by something. You are different from me because there are things about you that are not the same about me (i.e., where you live, your age, the matter that makes up your body, etc.). But if everything is the cause of everything, that obscures all such distinctions. I wouldn't be able to point to anything in you and say it is different from anything in me, because everything in you was caused be me, and the very same things in me were caused by you. The causes, then, turn out to be completely identical, as would necessarily the effects. Any difference in effect would be an illusion created by our mind.

Yet obviously that is absurd. You are not me, and I am not you. So "everything" isn't the cause of everything, much less anything. We require a singular thing (roughly speaking) to be the cause of everything. The catch word to call a "thing" that has all "perfections" in it is "God." You can call it what you like, including the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster if you like. I don't care. If we agree that this thing is the cause of all being, that it transcends space, time, and matter, and that it has wisdom, will, knowledge, personhood, power, morality, existence, creativity, etc. all without measure, then what we call it isn't important. I call it God. Germans call it Gott. The Greeks call it Theos, the Hebrews Elohim, the Arabs Allah, etc. Call it Flargh. Call it whatever.

The question is simply and only what is the Cause of all things, and what can we know about it? It turns out a great deal, because all causes are known by their effects, and there are a great many effects that can be studied in this world.

QuoteOne final question:

How would Leibniz' law of identity deal with the existence of that in which all imperfections are obtained, and what would you call that?

Regards,

Chris B.

If such a thing were possible (and I don't see how it would be), Leibniz' law would probably assert that there would be an infinite of such things. The reason is that imperfection is a scale. I can be more or less imperfect. To take the example of sight, my ability to see is better than my brother's, but worse than my wife's, and I suspect it will get worse as I get older. So Leibniz would allow me to site that difference and therefore actually have a different thing.

Now, again, I don't see how you could put together an argument that would give us any reason to believe a being that obtains all imperfections (which would have to mean obtains all perfections in an imperfect way). But if someone were to construct such an argument, I would be willing to consider it.

I hope that was clearer

Quote from: "Sophus"Sorry to butt in, but.... :)

Quote

Quote from: "Jac"Essence is what a thing is. The universe may exist, but they universe is not existence. If it were existence itself, then to say, "Mankind exists" would be to say "Mankind is the universe" or something related. The universe may be all that exists (it isn't), but being all that exists means that it is not itself existence. You are simply wrong on this point.

Not that I'm intending to speak for him but I think what Hack was trying to say is matter alone (whatever fundamental comprises the universe) is existence. Existence can only exist while something exists. In this regard it can be perceived as existence itself. To exist is to be in existence. The whole can only exist if the most fundamental entity does.

But matter itself is not existence, otherwise, the sentence "matter exists" would be tautological. Things that exist certainly are made of matter, but matter is no more existence than the things that are made out of matter are existence. Besides, I believe in another post somewhere you acknowledged that thoughts are not made up of matter, though you argued (correct, I think) that they are tied to the brain, which is matter. In any case, if matter is existence, and thoughts aren't made of matter--only the brain--then while the brain exists, then thoughts wouldn't. I think most of us would have a serious time with any position that says "thoughts and ideas don't exist."

Moreover, science has taught us that energy is not matter, though the two can be converted back and forth. If they were the same, then it would be meaningless to say that they could be converted. There does seem to be a difference in an atom and the energy it has in it. If, though, matter were existence, then you couldn't argue that energy existed, which would also be absurd. Now, full disclosure, I am not a scientist! This entire paragraph could be wrong, and if it is, I am completely open to correction. This is nothing more than my understanding of the issue as I have read in the popular literature explaining the science (you know--the "plain English" everybody is after ). But it does seem that matter and energy are different. Energy may be found in matter, but something can't be in something else if they are the same thing.

Quote

QuoteDogs are efficiently caused causes. Their essence, what they are, is "dogness."

This sounds Platonic.

Or Aristotelian. The two have a different view of what is called participation. Plato thought that there was a "perfect dog" in the heavens, and that all dogs "participated" in this perfect form in one way or another. Aristotle taught (rightly, I think) that all that exists is individual. There is no perfect dog form in which all dogs participate. What the thing is, is a dog. Because it is a dog, it is not, say, a cat.

In any case, I am most definitely not a Platonist. All that exists is individual, and things are what they are, not in virtue of participating in some perfect form in heaven, but in virtue of the fact that they simply are what they are. What they are is perceived by our mind, and then we get into the epistemological questions.

Quote

QuoteTherefore, existence is added to the essence of dogs to make them exist.

You've got it backwards. Essence is added to the dogs. "Existence before essence." ~Jean-Paul Sartre

No, I believe that existence precedes essence, but while I have not read Sartre, I am willing to be that you have misinterpreted him here. Essence is not added to the dog, because the essence of the thing is that it is a dog. Even if you say, "essence is added to the dog," you are still left with the question what is a dog? And when you answer that, that is what I will label its essence or form or nature or what have you.

A little background is helpful here. Aristotle taught that existence is rooted in form. For him, for something to have an essence ultimately meant that it existed (that which did not exist was form that was not combined with matter; in other words, matterless-form didn't exist, but form gave existence to matter). In this view, essence--that is, form--precedes existence. Averroes came along and corrected Aristotle on this. He correctly deduced that we cannot perceive any essence without first judging that it exists, and thus, existence precedes essence. Now, you will note I made this statement in the first premise of my argument. Allow me to quote it for you:

"1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents)."

The bolded part makes clear that existence precedes essence. It does not follow, however, that essence is added to dogs. That is meaningless. You may as well say "Dogs are added to dogs." So existence is added to the essence dog, and in doing so, the dog exists. You could argue for semantics that the essence "dog" is added to existence, but that would make existence the essential property, which I promise you, you don't want to do. You would immediately be forced to conclude that God exists via the Ontological Argument. We should be well past that.

So in reality, the first thing that we perceive is existence, because existence gives reality to an essence. The two concepts must be distinguished.

I watched the video.  I have no proof of the outside physical world.  What I do have is the consistency and predictability of my perceptions.  I perceive that I am typing, I perceive words appearing  on a screen.  Every single time I perceive myself typing, I perceive words on a screen.  At some later time, I will perceive a response from you that is related to these words I perceive myself to be typing right now.  Every time I perceive myself typing to Chris, at some later point I perceive a related message on a screen (unless he foe'd me).

 It's the consistency and predictability of my perceptions that allow me to get along in the world even though I can never really be sure what it is that I am perceiving.  I could be in the Matrix, but If I was, I would never know it until somebody pulled the plug.

Quote from: "Jac3510"But matter itself is not existence, otherwise, the sentence "matter exists" would be tautological. Things that exist certainly are made of matter, but matter is no more existence than the things that are made out of matter are existence. Besides, I believe in another post somewhere you acknowledged that thoughts are not made up of matter, though you argued (correct, I think) that they are tied to the brain, which is matter. In any case, if matter is existence, and thoughts aren't made of matter--only the brain--then while the brain exists, then thoughts wouldn't. I think most of us would have a serious time with any position that says "thoughts and ideas don't exist."

Interesting. Does existence exist?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I watched the video.  I have no proof of the outside physical world.  What I do have is the consistency and predictability of my perceptions.  I perceive that I am typing, I perceive words appearing  on a screen.  Every single time I perceive myself typing, I perceive words on a screen.  At some later time, I will perceive a response from you that is related to these words I perceive myself to be typing right now.  Every time I perceive myself typing to Chris, at some later point I perceive a related message on a screen (unless he foe'd me).

It's the consistency and predictability of my perceptions that allow me to get along in the world even though I can never really be sure what it is that I am perceiving.  I could be in the Matrix, but If I was, I would never know it until somebody pulled the plug.

You, sir, will very likely never be foe'd :)

Yes, I think so. I think we must affirm that it does (after all, a non-existing thing can do anything, i.e., bring something into existence). But if existence exists as itself and not in something like dogs, then you have just concluded with me that what we call "subsistent existence" is real, or what other philosophers call The First Cause or The Prime Mover.

If self-existent existence is the cause of everything, then nothing is the cause of it. All that remains is examining the nature of this existence before we find God.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"Interesting. Does existence exist?

Ah, see that is the question I have been getting at in this entire thread.

Yes, I think so. I think we must affirm that it does (after all, a non-existing thing can do anything, i.e., bring something into existence).

I'd like to back up to this statement, if you don't mind, and ask you how a non-existing thing can do anything. So, how can a non-existing thing do anything?

Typo - can't do anything. A non-existent thing can't do anything, which is why, it seems to me, existence must exist in itself in some sense if it is going to bring anything else into existence.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Typo - can't do anything. A non-existent thing can't do anything, which is why, it seems to me, existence must exist in itself in some sense if it is going to bring anything else into existence.

Fair enough, got it now.

So existence causes or brings about existence, is that what you're saying?

Quote from: "Jac3510"But matter itself is not existence, otherwise, the sentence "matter exists" would be tautological. Things that exist certainly are made of matter, but matter is no more existence than the things that are made out of matter are existence. Besides, I believe in another post somewhere you acknowledged that thoughts are not made up of matter, though you argued (correct, I think) that they are tied to the brain, which is matter. In any case, if matter is existence, and thoughts aren't made of matter--only the brain--then while the brain exists, then thoughts wouldn't. I think most of us would have a serious time with any position that says "thoughts and ideas don't exist."

Moreover, science has taught us that energy is not matter, though the two can be converted back and forth. If they were the same, then it would be meaningless to say that they could be converted. There does seem to be a difference in an atom and the energy it has in it. If, though, matter were existence, then you couldn't argue that energy existed, which would also be absurd. Now, full disclosure, I am not a scientist! This entire paragraph could be wrong, and if it is, I am completely open to correction. This is nothing more than my understanding of the issue as I have read in the popular literature explaining the science (you know--the "plain English" everybody is after :D
Seriously though, I think you're right here. The question may come down to can matter sustain itself without energy? In most cases is not energy simply how the particles behave? I don't know. Fun to think about.

QuoteNo, I believe that existence precedes essence, but while I have not read Sartre, I am willing to be that you have misinterpreted him here. Essence is not added to the dog, because the essence of the thing is that it is a dog. Even if you say, "essence is added to the dog," you are still left with the question what is a dog? And when you answer that, that is what I will label its essence or form or nature or what have you.

A little background is helpful here. Aristotle taught that existence is rooted in form. For him, for something to have an essence ultimately meant that it existed (that which did not exist was form that was not combined with matter; in other words, matterless-form didn't exist, but form gave existence to matter). In this view, essence--that is, form--precedes existence. Averroes came along and corrected Aristotle on this. He correctly deduced that we cannot perceive any essence without first judging that it exists, and thus, existence precedes essence. Now, you will note I made this statement in the first premise of my argument. Allow me to quote it for you:

"1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents)."

The bolded part makes clear that existence precedes essence. It does not follow, however, that essence is added to dogs. That is meaningless. You may as well say "Dogs are added to dogs." So existence is added to the essence dog, and in doing so, the dog exists. You could argue for semantics that the essence "dog" is added to existence, but that would make existence the essential property, which I promise you, you don't want to do. You would immediately be forced to conclude that God exists via the Ontological Argument. We should be well past that.

So in reality, the first thing that we perceive is existence, because existence gives reality to an essence. The two concepts must be distinguished.

This may only be semantics. You have a different concept of essence from Sartre. If you get the chance, read this essay of his (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/works/exist/sartre.htm) for a better understanding. You'll probably enjoy it even without agreeing with it.

A snippet from the essay (actually it was originally a speech I believe)

Quote from: "Sartre"[E]xistence comes before essence â€" or, if you will, that we must begin from the subjective. What exactly do we mean by that?

If one considers an article of manufacture as, for example, a book or a paper-knife â€" one sees that it has been made by an artisan who had a conception of it; and he has paid attention, equally, to the conception of a paper-knife and to the pre-existent technique of production which is a part of that conception and is, at bottom, a formula. Thus the paper-knife is at the same time an article producible in a certain manner and one which, on the other hand, serves a definite purpose, for one cannot suppose that a man would produce a paper-knife without knowing what it was for. Let us say, then, of the paperknife that its essence â€" that is to say the sum of the formulae and the qualities which made its production and its definition possible â€" precedes its existence. The presence of such-and-such a paper-knife or book is thus determined before my eyes. Here, then, we are viewing the world from a technical standpoint, and we can say that production precedes existence...
What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world â€" and defines himself afterwards...
If, moreover, existence precedes essence and we will to exist at the same time as we fashion our image, that image is valid for all and for the entire epoch in which we find ourselves. Our responsibility is thus much greater than we had supposed, for it concerns mankind as a whole. If I am a worker, for instance, I may choose to join a Christian rather than a Communist trade union. And if, by that membership, I choose to signify that resignation is, after all, the attitude that best becomes a man, that man’s kingdom is not upon this earth, I do not commit myself alone to that view. Resignation is my will for everyone, and my action is, in consequence, a commitment on behalf of all mankind. Or if, to take a more personal case, I decide to marry and to have children, even though this decision proceeds simply from my situation, from my passion or my desire, I am thereby committing not only myself, but humanity as a whole, to the practice of monogamy. I am thus responsible for myself and for all men, and I am creating a certain image of man as I would have him to be. In fashioning myself I fashion man.

This is where paper-knifeness and dogness come from. How they are different and alike. We define a knife before its made (as it is man-made) whereas we define a dog after observing it.

Interesting, my spell checker has a problem with dogness but not knifeness?

*For the record I don't agree with everything in Sartre's paper.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"I watched the video.  I have no proof of the outside physical world.  What I do have is the consistency and predictability of my perceptions.  I perceive that I am typing, I perceive words appearing  on a screen.  Every single time I perceive myself typing, I perceive words on a screen.  At some later time, I will perceive a response from you that is related to these words I perceive myself to be typing right now.  Every time I perceive myself typing to Chris, at some later point I perceive a related message on a screen (unless he foe'd me).

It's the consistency and predictability of my perceptions that allow me to get along in the world even though I can never really be sure what it is that I am perceiving.  I could be in the Matrix, but If I was, I would never know it until somebody pulled the plug.

Quote from: "Jac3510"You, sir, will very likely never be foe'd

Your statements here are the necessary conclusion of this type of philosophy. Frankly, I think it is silly, and it gets sillier the further you go. If you take this position further, you will soon discover that you are required to believe that you aren't even talking about reality, only your perception of reality; but then, not only of your perception of reality, but your interpretation of your perception of reality; but then, not only of your interpretation, but your words by which you describe your perception of reality. "In reality," then, you've never talked about anything except words.

Now, forgive me, but that's just downright silly. There are perfectly good ways around the problem. We can start a thread on it if you would like -- it would require getting all back into that form/matter distinction thing again.

What's so silly about it?  I could be in the Matrix, I could have an immaterial whatness, but I have no reason believe that either is the case.  When I get either a call from Morpheus, or some evidence of the immaterial affecting the material, I'll change my stance.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Fair enough, got it now.

So existence causes or brings about existence, is that what you're saying?

Yes, sir, that is what I am saying. I'll hold off on all the nuances I want to get into so as not to get technical, but yes. That is what I am saying. Existence in itself brings about existence in other things.


Sophus, you are probably right that I have a different view of essence than Sartre does. I am looking forward to reading the article as I don't know his position on the matter. Thanks for the link. ;)

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"So existence causes or brings about existence, is that what you're saying?

Yes, sir, that is what I am saying. I'll hold off on all the nuances I want to get into so as not to get technical, but yes. That is what I am saying. Existence in itself brings about existence in other things.

How do you, we, human beings, know of existence?

Quote from: "i_am_i"How do you, we, human beings, know of existence?

It is what is called a brute fact. It just is, and we just know it. That's something Hack had right. Existence can't be denied. You perceive it in yourself, in your experiences, etc. If you don't exist, you can experience anything. The things you experience exist, even if they don't exist in the way you think they do (which is what HS was getting at--it's possible that nothing exists like you perceive it. See the video I linked to earlier). The bottom line is that existence is one of the very few things we can know with mathematical certainty.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"How do you, we, human beings, know of existence?

It is what is called a brute fact. It just is, and we just know it.

I don't know it. I don't know it at all. Not that that matters one way or the other.

How do you "just know it?"

Because it can't be denied. It's like trying to deny the law of non-contradiction. You end up using it to reject it. It's irrational. if you say, "Nothing exists," then the very statement you just made disproves it, for at least that statement exists. It's an impossible-not-to-know truth.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Because it can't be denied. It's like trying to deny the law of non-contradiction. You end up using it to reject it. It's irrational. if you say, "Nothing exists," then the very statement you just made disproves it, for at least that statement exists. It's an impossible-not-to-know truth.

I certainly don't think that nothing exists, going by the definition of exists. I'm just wondering what, exactly, existence is and how we're to know what existence is based solely upon our perceptions.

Quote from: "i_am_i"I certainly don't think that nothing exists, going by the definition of exists. I'm just wondering what, exactly, existence is and how we're to know what existence is through our perceptions.

Asking what existence is, is a different question from asking how we know that it is. The latter is a brute fact. As far as what it is, we don't know. Allow me to quote what I said to Penfold in the Simplicity thread on the matter:

Quote from: "I"What is existence? You can't answer that. Even when you picture it, if you try to penetrate that concept, you find there is nothing in it. But is "existence" a meaningless word? Of course not! Existence is a brute fact, and thus, it is too primal to explain. All things are explained by it.

Now, just because we can't know what it is doesn't mean we can't know a thing or two about it. To take but one example, we know that existence is a part of us, but not the whole of us, because what I am is different from the fact that I am. We can learn quite a lot, actually, by studying existence. The field that studies it is called ontology.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"I certainly don't think that nothing exists, going by the definition of exists. I'm just wondering what, exactly, existence is and how we're to know what existence is through our perceptions.

Asking what existence is, is a different question from asking how we know that it is. The latter is a brute fact. As far as what it is, we don't know. Allow me to quote what I said to Penfold in the Simplicity thread on the matter:

Quote from: "I"What is existence? You can't answer that. Even when you picture it, if you try to penetrate that concept, you find there is nothing in it. But is "existence" a meaningless word? Of course not! Existence is a brute fact, and thus, it is too primal to explain. All things are explained by it.

Now, just because we can't know what it is doesn't mean we can't know a thing or two about it. To take but one example, we know that existence is a part of us, but not the whole of us, because what I am is different from the fact that I am. We can learn quite a lot, actually, by studying existence. The field that studies it is called ontology.

You know what? I live in Atlanta. Want to get together at some point for a beer? It'll be on me.

Existence is, of course, a word, just a word. I'm sure that in your field of philosophy it has a particular meaning for the sake of argument but in the end it is only a word. And I really have no idea what that word means.

Quote from: "i_am_i"You know what? I live in Atlanta. Want to get together at some point for a beer? It'll be on me.

Existence is, of course, a word, just a word. I'm sure that in your field of philosophy it has a particular meaning for the sake of argument but in the end it is only a word. And I really have no idea what that word means.

It's not just a word, though. It is a word that points to something in reality. What is it that unicorns and fairies don't have that dogs and cats do? The latter exist. The former don't. We are talking about something real. Just because we can't conceptualize it doesn't mean it is "just a word."

And sure thing on the invite. I'm not a drinker (not for religious reasons), but shoot me a PM and we'll schedule something.

I hold existence to be axiomatic because that which doesn't exist cannot be around to ponder the nature of existence.  I know that Cogito ergo sum is hackneyed, but in the sense outlined above, it is pertinent.

Quote from: "i_am_i"You know what? I live in Atlanta. Want to get together at some point for a beer? It'll be on me.

Existence is, of course, a word, just a word. I'm sure that in your field of philosophy it has a particular meaning for the sake of argument but in the end it is only a word. And I really have no idea what that word means.

Quote from: "Jac3510"It's not just a word, though. It is a word that points to something in reality. What is it that unicorns and fairies don't have that dogs and cats do? The latter exist. The former don't. We are talking about something real. Just because we can't conceptualize it doesn't mean it is "just a word."

And sure thing on the invite. I'm not a drinker (not for religious reasons), but shoot me a PM and we'll schedule something.

Jac,  The question "What is it that unicorns and fairies don't have that dogs and cats do? is silly.  Unicorns and fairies can't have or lack anything, because they don't exist.  You know it's sounds silly, that's why the next sentence is "The latter exists".  If you were to frame the answer the same way that the you  asked the question, the answer would be "The latter has existence".   Dogs don't have existence.  Dogs exist.  Unicorn is just a word.  Fairy is just a word. Existence is just a word.

When Sarte is talking about existence being prior to essence, he means that a man comes to be, and then he defines himself.  He's talking about a thing that exists, namely, man.  That makes sense.

When you say that existence is prior to essence, you aren't talking about the existence of a particular thing, you are talking about existence as a separate concept.  That doesn't make any sense.  You don't know what existence is, because you don't know what it isn't.  You can't study non-existence.  All you can know is that things exist.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Jac,  The question "What is it that unicorns and fairies don't have that dogs and cats do? is silly.  Unicorns and fairies can't have or lack anything, because they don't exist.  You know it's sounds silly, that's why the next sentence is "The latter exists".  If you were to frame the answer the same way that the you  asked the question, the answer would be "The latter has existence".   Dogs don't have existence.  Dogs exist.  Unicorn is just a word.  Fairy is just a word. Existence is just a word.

When Sarte is talking about existence being prior to essence, he means that a man comes to be, and then he defines himself.  He's talking about a thing that exists, namely, man.  That makes sense.

When you say that existence is prior to essence, you aren't talking about the existence of a particular thing, you are talking about existence as a separate concept.  That doesn't make any sense.  You don't know what existence is, because you don't know what it isn't.  You can't study non-existence.  All you can know is that things exist.

That's fine. I do know that Sartre was an existentialist. However, if a man comes into being and then defines himself as a dog, does that make him a dog?

No, he is still a man. What-He-Is is a man. I have said repeatedly that I am not capable of caring less what you call this what-it-is-ness about a thing. The scholastics called it essence, and it makes sense from an etymological perspective. But if that word has you hung up because you are thinking of Sartre's existentialism, then by all means, call it something else. When I, as a human, ask Sartre's question, "What am I?" I am not asking whether or not I am a human. I'm asking questions related to purpose, meaning, etc. (which I believe he proposed we give to our own selves, and in that sense, we define what we are).

You can theoretically be scholastic existentialist (the former being my position), at least in this area. The point I have been trying to get across for the entire time now is that things are what they are and they are not what they are not. Dogs are not cats. Trees are not birds. People are not clouds. The earth is not the universe. The universe is not an atom.

So, I have three questions for you, one which I have asked before that you never answered:

1. If a man defines himself as a dog, does that make him a dog? If not, why not?
2. Is there a difference between what a thing is and the stuff that makes up a thing?
3. Is there a difference between the stuff that makes up a thing and the fact that the thing exists?

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Jac,  The question "What is it that unicorns and fairies don't have that dogs and cats do? is silly.  Unicorns and fairies can't have or lack anything, because they don't exist.  You know it's sounds silly, that's why the next sentence is "The latter exists".  If you were to frame the answer the same way that the you  asked the question, the answer would be "The latter has existence".   Dogs don't have existence.  Dogs exist.  Unicorn is just a word.  Fairy is just a word. Existence is just a word.

When Sarte is talking about existence being prior to essence, he means that a man comes to be, and then he defines himself.  He's talking about a thing that exists, namely, man.  That makes sense.

When you say that existence is prior to essence, you aren't talking about the existence of a particular thing, you are talking about existence as a separate concept.  That doesn't make any sense.  You don't know what existence is, because you don't know what it isn't.  You can't study non-existence.  All you can know is that things exist.

That's fine. I do know that Sartre was an existentialist. However, if a man comes into being and then defines himself as a dog, does that make him a dog?

No, he is still a man. What-He-Is is a man. I have said repeatedly that I am not capable of caring less what you call this what-it-is-ness about a thing. The scholastics called it essence, and it makes sense from an etymological perspective. But if that word has you hung up because you are thinking of Sartre's existentialism, then by all means, call it something else. When I, as a human, ask Sartre's question, "What am I?" I am not asking whether or not I am a human. I'm asking questions related to purpose, meaning, etc. (which I believe he proposed we give to our own selves, and in that sense, we define what we are).

You can theoretically be scholastic existentialist (the former being my position), at least in this area. The point I have been trying to get across for the entire time now is that things are what they are and they are not what they are not. Dogs are not cats. Trees are not birds. People are not clouds. The earth is not the universe. The universe is not an atom.

So, I have three questions for you, one which I have asked before that you never answered:

1. If a man defines himself as a dog, does that make him a dog? If not, why not?
2. Is there a difference between what a thing is and the stuff that makes up a thing?
3. Is there a difference between the stuff that makes up a thing and the fact that the thing exists?

1. No. He can't mate with dogs.    

2. No

3. No

I'm not hung up on any words.  I know what "what a thing is" is.  It's a figment of the imagination.  Just because we observe that dogs aren't men doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "what a thing is".

I have 3 questions for you.

1. Is a horse a zebra?

2. Is a tiger a lion?

3. Is a a wolf a dog?

If not, explain why.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "Jac3510"1. If a man defines himself as a dog, does that make him a dog? If not, why not?

1. No. He can't mate with dogs.

Fine, we agree here. So you agree that a man is not a dog.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "Jac3510"2. Is there a difference between what a thing is and the stuff that makes up a thing?

2. No

We strongly disagree here. You are saying that what a thing is, is what it is made up of. So consider a house. It is made up of wood and bricks. So why isn't a pile of wood and bricks a house, since what a thing is and what it is made up of the same thing? Or further, since the wood and bricks are just atoms, and you are made up of atoms, why are you not a house, since what you are and what you are made up of are the same things?

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "Jac3510"3. Is there a difference between the stuff that makes up a thing and the fact that the thing exists?

3. No

Again, we strongly disagree here. what you are saying is that a thing is, is the same thing as the stuff that it is made up of. "Existence" just refers to "stuff." But that is obviously not the case. If it were, then the sentences "Stuff exists" (that a thing is) and "stuff is stuff" (what a thing is made up of) would mean exactly the same thing, and they obviously don't. Likewise, the sentences "Dogs exist" and "Dogs are dogs" would mean exactly the same thing (since in your view, what a thing is made up of and what it is are the same thing), which they don't. Or again, saying "Unicorns exist" would mean exactly the same thing as "Unicorns are unicorns," which they don't.

QuoteI'm not hung up on any words.  I know what "what a thing is" is.  It's a figment of the imagination.  Just because we observe that dogs aren't men doesn't mean that there is such a thing as "what a thing is".

Right, so what I said before was exactly the case:

If things are what they are, that provides evidence for God's existence. It becomes a necessary line of thought. If there is no God, then it really doesn't make sense to call anything by anything. A man isn't a 'man.' It's just a set of molecules collected in a particular way. There is no real difference between "what" a man is and "what" a tree is. At best, that's just a human invention. We see things that look alike and we just label them. That doesn't mean your really are a human being. That's just what we choose to call you.

That is both the logically necessary conclusion of your position, as well as the position you've admitted to here. Men aren't really men. They aren't really dogs. Men are dogs and dogs are men, even though that contradicts your answer to my first question.

QuoteI have 3 questions for you.

1. Is a horse a zebra?

2. Is a tiger a lion?

3. Is a a wolf a dog?

If not, explain why.

In the first two, no. They are not the same thing precisely because they are not the same thing. It doesn't get any more basic than that. Horses, zebras, tigers, and lions are all their own thing. My mind recognizes them as much, and so I distinguish between them.

Now, the zebra is part of the horse family, so you can say in a sense that a zebra is a horse (not necessarily that a horse is a zebra). Tigers and lions are both cats, but tigers are not lions and cats are not necessarily tigers or lions. Wolves are part of the dog family, so we can say that a wolf is a dog. We cannot say, however, that a dog is a wolf. This is all pretty standard predicate nominative type stuff. Consider this example:

John is a football player. Football players are athletes. Athletes are people.

From this, we can say that John is a football player, an athlete, and a person. We can say football players are athletes and people. We cannot say that people are athletes, football players, or John. Nor can we say that athletes are football players or John. Nor can we say that football players are John. (As an aside, however, in your scheme we would be required to make just such statements!)

Taking this further, we can distinguish these because there are differences (differentia) between them. I am not a dog because there are differences between me and a dog. For instance, the dog is part of the canine family and I am not. But this doesn't really help in our discussion, because then we have to ask, why am I not a part of the canine family? What is the difference there? And the answer, of course, is that things are just different. It is evident. Things are what they are and they are not what they are not. I am perfectly content holding that to be a simple fact. Stars are not planets. The universe is not an atom. And this isn't a figment of my imagination. It isn't as if in the "real world," the sun is earth and earth is the sun, but that my mind just makes up a distinction. Now, if you want to hold that to be true, there's really nothing more we can say. I would just ask why the blazes you think anything so patently absurd would be true? I mean, honestly, you are telling me that the sun and the earth are the same thing. Come on. Really . . .

Jac,

In order to correctly say that a thing has a trait or property, we'd have to identify a thing that does not have that trait or property.  If all men were bald, there wouldn't be such a thing as bald men, because baldness only exists relative to heads with hair on them.

Existence is not a trait or property.  Everything exists. You exist.  I exist. The word Unicorn exists. The idea Unicorn exists.  We can't say anything about the idea of a unicorn combined with idea existence and matter.  The very notion of trying seems past absurd.

Horses are not zebras because there are predictable and consistent observable differences between them.  Likewise for lions and tigers.  Wolves are not dogs for the same reason.  However it seems you have it backwards, dogs came from wolves, so in the that sense, according to you, all dogs are wolves.  

These are not quite the same as John the footballer.  By definition, a footballer is a person.  We know this because we invented the game.   We didn't make any animals, so we can't define them.  We can only classify them based on predictable and consistent observable differences.  There is no way to know a lion logically the way you can know a bachelor or a footballer.

I think our disagreement is rather clear, although I don't think you are considering the problems with your position that I have pointed out.

First, it is evident that things are not the same as what they are made up of, which you affirm.
Second, it is evident that the fact that things are is not the same thing as what they are made up of, which you affirm.

Your argument that everything exists is just wrong. Unicorns don't exist. They may exist as an idea, but they themselves do not exist. It is a false statement to say "Unicorns exist." We can say "Unicorns exist in my mind, but not in reality," but that statement proves that existence is a property of a thing. It is not a property that adds to a concept--unicorns are still unicorns, conceptually speaking, whether or not they have their existence in themselves--but it is still a property. In other words, to assert that something does not exist is on one hand to acknowledge its cognitional existence (otherwise, we couldn't talk about it) but to deny its existence in reality. That is a property, man. Unicorns have cognitional, not real, existence. The only way that sentence is meaningful is if there is a distinction between existence and essence, in which the former is a property of the latter.

Oh sweet an ontological argument for the existence of god.

Circular arguments really make my head hurt.  

The premise relies of the conclusion, which in turn relies on the premise.

And doesn`t accually prove anything.

Anyone got a asprin please.

Quote from: "Jac3510"I think our disagreement is rather clear, although I don't think you are considering the problems with your position that I have pointed out.

First, it is evident that things are not the same as what they are made up of, which you affirm.
Second, it is evident that the fact that things are is not the same thing as what they are made up of, which you affirm.

Your argument that everything exists is just wrong. Unicorns don't exist. They may exist as an idea, but they themselves do not exist. It is a false statement to say "Unicorns exist." We can say "Unicorns exist in my mind, but not in reality," but that statement proves that existence is a property of a thing. It is not a property that adds to a concept--unicorns are still unicorns, conceptually speaking, whether or not they have their existence in themselves--but it is still a property. In other words, to assert that something does not exist is on one hand to acknowledge its cognitional existence (otherwise, we couldn't talk about it) but to deny its existence in reality. That is a property, man. Unicorns have cognitional, not real, existence. The only way that sentence is meaningful is if there is a distinction between existence and essence, in which the former is a property of the latter.

Chris, did you read my posts?  I never said that Unicorns exist.  I said the exact opposite of that.  I never affirmed that things are not the same as what they are made up of.  I said the exact opposite of that.  I never affirmed that the fact that a thing is is not the same thing as what it is made up of.  I said the exact opposite of that. Anyway, concerning [strike:26gzoyn5]conditional[/strike:26gzoyn5] cognitional  existence:

You just arbitrarily decided that the idea of a thing that exists is the same as the idea of a thing that doesn't exist.  Why?   It seems to me that they are quite different.

Unicorns do not exist in my mind.  They wouldn't fit.  The idea of Unicorns exists in my mind. This, according to you, shows that Unicorns have  cognitional existence. We couldn't speak of Unicorns otherwise. Correct?

Dogs do not exist in my mind.  They wouldn't fit.  The idea of dogs exists in my mind.  This, according to you, shows that dogs have  cognitional existence.  We couldn't speak of dogs otherwise. Correct?

They seem like the same thing.  When I close my eyes and think of a dog, I see a dog in my mind's eye.  I can think of a Unicorn in the same way.  As a matter of fact, I can think of the dog and Unicorn frolicking together in a grassy meadow with a lovely rainbow in the background.  There is no discernible difference between the idea of a dog and  the idea of the Unicorn.  They are both equally real in my mind.  They both have cognitional existence.  Are we still on the same page?

This seems all neat and tidy, but you have philosophical training.  You know what I'm about to type.  You could have saved me a lot of time by just highlighting this concept for me so we could discuss it.  You made me figure it out for myself.  Shame on you smarty pants.  Here goes:


The idea of Unicorns is fundamentally different from the idea of dogs.  You just choose to assign the label cognitional existence to both ideas.

How did the idea of a Unicorn get into my head?  somebody made it up

How did the idea of a dog get into my head?  dogs

See the difference?  Of course you do. You've seen it all along.  This is our fundamental problem.  Your position is that the idea of a Unicorn is the same type of thing as the idea of something based on consistent predictable observable traits.  This is extremely counter intuitive.

A little nit-pick here to the question are wolves dogs and are dogs wolves?

A wolf and a dog are genetically identical.  The domestic canine evolve from a wolf.  If you want to boil it down to brass tacks, yeah wolf behavior differs remarkably from domestic dog behavior, but genetically they are indistinguishable.

Wolves turned into dogs because man bred what he liked best in the dog and bred out what he did not like. During the Victorian era, designer dogs became all the rage, and this persist to this day.  This is where multiple breeds and breed standards came unto its out.

If you give a dog enough generations without outside interference they will progressively turn back into wolves.

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

What is so hard about defining existence?

If I can see, taste, feel, touch, hear, smell, perceive it, and reason upon it.  It exists!
If any of the above and any combination of the above are true.  It exists.
If all of the above are false.  It does not exist.

Existence:  Something that is there.
Non-existence:  Something that is not there.

Why do we need to have doctoral dissertations and whole Universities dedicated to defining existence?

Quote from: "deekayfry"Why do we need to have doctoral dissertations and whole Universities dedicated to defining existence?

Because if we didn't there would be a lot of out-of-work professors?

Quote from: "deekayfry"A little nit-pick here to the question are wolves dogs and are dogs wolves?

A wolf and a dog are genetically identical.  The domestic canine evolve from a wolf.  If you want to boil it down to brass tacks, yeah wolf behavior differs remarkably from domestic dog behavior, but genetically they are indistinguishable.

Wolves turned into dogs because man bred what he liked best in the dog and bred out what he did not like. During the Victorian era, designer dogs became all the rage, and this persist to this day.  This is where multiple breeds and breed standards came unto its out.

If you give a dog enough generations without outside interference they will progressively turn back into wolves.

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

Thanks deekayfry.  This is part of the regularly scheduled program.  I didn't know that they were genetically identical.  The info you just provided highlights the fact that the division between dogs and wolves has nothing to do with anything inherent about either animal.  Their division is just a product of human categorization based on observable predictable differences.  Wolves do not possess wolfness and dogs do not possess dogness.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "deekayfry"Why do we need to have doctoral dissertations and whole Universities dedicated to defining existence?

Because if we didn't there would be a lot of out-of-work professors?

God, I would kill to sit around all day and do this!

Quote from: "deekayfry"What is so hard about defining existence?

If I can see, taste, feel, touch, hear, smell, perceive it, and reason upon it.  It exists!
If any of the above and any combination of the above are true.  It exists.
If all of the above are false.  It does not exist.

Existence:  Something that is there.
Non-existence:  Something that is not there.

Why do we need to have doctoral dissertations and whole Universities dedicated to defining existence?

To defend religion.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "deekayfry"What is so hard about defining existence?

If I can see, taste, feel, touch, hear, smell, perceive it, and reason upon it.  It exists!
If any of the above and any combination of the above are true.  It exists.
If all of the above are false.  It does not exist.

Existence:  Something that is there.
Non-existence:  Something that is not there.

Why do we need to have doctoral dissertations and whole Universities dedicated to defining existence?

To defend religion.

Okay folks!  Last post of the night.  I will sign off and do NOTHING

*drum roll*

I already defend religion!

Okay folks last call is over, don't forget to leave your tip at the door and kiss the barmaid on the way out.

Yeah right......  guaranteed I'll have to harass him of the computer in a hour.....

Quote from: "deekayfry"A little nit-pick here to the question are wolves dogs and are dogs wolves?

A wolf and a dog are genetically identical.  The domestic canine evolve from a wolf.  If you want to boil it down to brass tacks, yeah wolf behavior differs remarkably from domestic dog behavior, but genetically they are indistinguishable.

Wolves turned into dogs because man bred what he liked best in the dog and bred out what he did not like. During the Victorian era, designer dogs became all the rage, and this persist to this day.  This is where multiple breeds and breed standards came unto its out.

If you give a dog enough generations without outside interference they will progressively turn back into wolves.

 

Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

This is one of the problems with relying on mental concepts as reality, we as humans often create an idea of what something is, which doesn't always match reality. Nothing really wrong with that, it made communication easier. As children we have an understanding of what a dog is (we are shown a dog or pictures of a dog) and as get older we correct and add onto the concept of what a dog is (we see other things that look similar and understand them also as a dog, as well as other biological facts like the eye of a dog lacks the amount cone cells humans have, so they can see yellow and blue, but not as well as humans can but they can't see red).

I think the problems exist when people try to make the easy to identify mental concept more important than what the thing really is. Take the mental concept of a snake, and then look at a legless lizard. If someone said look at that snake when pointing at a legless lizard, I probably wouldn't blame them since it matches most of the mental concepts of a snake, however in reality, genetically they are very different than snakes.

Hello Jac3510 ,

Rather than your use of stultifying language to prove your deity exists, I have another idea:

Let's make a bargain, shall we? You pray to your god, and we'll start believing in him the moment he shows up. :D

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "chrisbellekom"Hello jac3510 (Chris),

Jac is fine - there are enough Chris' on this board. ;)

Though I have and will continue to insist that at this juncture some technical vocabulary is necessary, I do promise that I am looking for ways to better communicate these concepts. Perhaps, if nothing else, this will be the primary mutual benefit between the HAF community and me. Who knows? My point is simply that I don't take it personally, and I am trying to make these admittedly difficult concepts as clear as possible.

By the way, we are all philosophers, just like we are all theologians. Some of us are just better at it than others. I, for example, am an absolutely terrible mathematician. I can barely factor a polynomial. It is rather embarrassing. But language make sense to me . . . anyway, I know that isn't what you meant, per se, but I do think it is of some importance. What "professional philosophers" do isn't all that different from what we are doing here. They are just doing it on full time, so they have developed a particular expertise in it is all. That hardly means, though, that their observations are more valuable than anyone else's. It is, as I have said before (in my view), the argument that is important, not the qualification of the person making it. A bad argument is pretty language made by a PhD is still a bad argument.

QuoteIt seems that the english speaking forum members have enough problems grasping the individual determinations of the words in the statements you use. We need a thesaurus and a lot of time to even agree on the definitions of things like "subsistent existence" or even a simple one like "being" (Shakespeare comes to mind, but let's not deviate from my train of thought)

Unfortunately, a thesaurus probably won't help, and still less a dictionary, because most of these terms are technical. I try to define them when I use them, but I know that still makes it difficult on some issues. Rest assured most of the other issues on my mind (though certainly not all) don't require nearly this level of discussion--require being the key word.

QuoteI see religion and the dogma of religion and the various derivatives of these interpretations for what they are and the problem you are having getting your point across as the same: An interpretation problem.

I would agree with you perhaps more than you might expect. The particular area of philosophy I study in is technically called hermeneutics. It comes from the name of the Greek god Hermes, who was the messenger of the gods. As such, it refers the field of study that focuses on how we communicate. It is to linguistics (the study of language) what epistemology (the study of knowledge) is to metaphysics or ontology (the study of the nature of reality). We start with the brute fact that reality exists. Metaphysics asks, "What is reality" and answers it by studying the nature of existence. Epistemology says, "How do we know things about this reality?" The two are separate, and metaphysics definitely comes before epistemology, but you really can't do one without the other, as they both raise questions about one another. Linguistics asks how we communicate what we know, and so comes after epistemology, and hermeneutics asks how we understand what is communicated. So language is the reality that hermeneutics deals with, whereas reality as it enters our mind is the reality that that epistemology deals with.

I give you all that background to make this simple statement. I am absolutely convinced that the method of interpretation one employs (which is a hermeneutical question) does more than anything else to determine the outcome of your investigation. I'll give you two quick examples to demonstrate, one from theological studies, and one from philosophical studies:

1. In theological studies, there is a school of thought called dispensationalism (I hold to it). The main idea underlying this school is that the Church and Israel are not the same thing, and that all the promises to Israel in the Old Testament are still waiting to be fulfilled in the actual Jewish people. Against this is a school called covenant theology. The main idea underlying that school is that the Church and Israel are one and the same, that Israel was replaced by the Church as God's chosen people when they rejected Christ and put Him on the Cross. As such, the promises of the Old Testament are being fulfilled in an spiritual (that is, non-literal) sense in the Church. Now, what underlies the disagreement is the method of interpretation. Dispensationalists insist on taking the text literally (which takes into account figures of speech and such). If the text says "Israel" it means Israel and if it says "Church" it means the church. Covenant theologians, however, have an allegorical (that is, non-literal) method of interpretation when it comes to prophecy, so they are allowed to conflate the two. If, then, you choose a literal hermeneutic, you are virtually guaranteed to become a dispensationlist; whereas if you choose an allegorical hermeneutic, you are virtually guaranteed to become a Covenant theologian (which is the position held be the vast majority of Christians). So yes, interpretation is the problem.

2. Modern philosophy can be distinguished into two general schools of thought: classical vs. analytical philosophy. The former follows the method I outlined above. It starts with a study of existence itself and moves out from there. The latter, however, following Descarte, Kant, and Hume, believe that we cannot know anything about the real world itself, but only our sensory perceptions of the real world. This has been humorously demonstrated in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 060678292# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=961917438060678292#)

The interpretational methods are vastly different. Those who follow classical philosophy interpret the world according to reality itself (we believe), whereas analytical philosophers find that position to be naive and instead interpret the world through our concepts and language. My side things you can talk about reality. Analytical philosophers don't.

So, yes, the main problem is with interpretation, but underlying the issue of interpretation is why we ought to interpret one way or another.

QuoteYou may have a valid point trying to prove that "the thing in which all perfections are obtained" should have a name. You use the word "god". I would choose the word "everything". That would explain it all... (that might be the Toaistic world view though...)

I will stay out of the dicussion untill I had some proper time to re-read the entire thread, and tried to make some sense of it.

The problem with the word "everything" is that it is not a thing that causes anything. It is a collective noun. "Everything" doesn't make a thing happen. Something in "everything," you or me, for instance, makes things happen. This goes back to the very same objection I leveled against both Hack and i_am_i. If "everything" or "the universe" is the cause of all being, then there is no distinction between us and everything. All is One and One is All. There is no distinction between you and me, you and your computer, you and trees, cats, dogs, or ducks. If "everything" is the cause of what you do, that includes me, my baby, the grass in my yard, etc. And likewise, you are the cause of everything I do. Now, this takes me back to the law of identity I mentioned to you in my last reply. It basically says this:

To say something is different from something else is to say it is different by something. You are different from me because there are things about you that are not the same about me (i.e., where you live, your age, the matter that makes up your body, etc.). But if everything is the cause of everything, that obscures all such distinctions. I wouldn't be able to point to anything in you and say it is different from anything in me, because everything in you was caused be me, and the very same things in me were caused by you. The causes, then, turn out to be completely identical, as would necessarily the effects. Any difference in effect would be an illusion created by our mind.

Yet obviously that is absurd. You are not me, and I am not you. So "everything" isn't the cause of everything, much less anything. We require a singular thing (roughly speaking) to be the cause of everything. The catch word to call a "thing" that has all "perfections" in it is "God." You can call it what you like, including the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster if you like. I don't care. If we agree that this thing is the cause of all being, that it transcends space, time, and matter, and that it has wisdom, will, knowledge, personhood, power, morality, existence, creativity, etc. all without measure, then what we call it isn't important. I call it God. Germans call it Gott. The Greeks call it Theos, the Hebrews Elohim, the Arabs Allah, etc. Call it Flargh. Call it whatever.

The question is simply and only what is the Cause of all things, and what can we know about it? It turns out a great deal, because all causes are known by their effects, and there are a great many effects that can be studied in this world.

QuoteOne final question:

How would Leibniz' law of identity deal with the existence of that in which all imperfections are obtained, and what would you call that?

Regards,

Chris B.

If such a thing were possible (and I don't see how it would be), Leibniz' law would probably assert that there would be an infinite of such things. The reason is that imperfection is a scale. I can be more or less imperfect. To take the example of sight, my ability to see is better than my brother's, but worse than my wife's, and I suspect it will get worse as I get older. So Leibniz would allow me to site that difference and therefore actually have a different thing.

Now, again, I don't see how you could put together an argument that would give us any reason to believe a being that obtains all imperfections (which would have to mean obtains all perfections in an imperfect way). But if someone were to construct such an argument, I would be willing to consider it.

I hope that was clearer :D

On Leiniz: I guess he and you are right. If the 'thing' in which all perfection is obtained can be called god/allah/jahweh/etc. than the 'thing' in which all imperfections are obtained is 'everything else' (the universe and everything it contains) proof to be found in:

QuoteLeibniz' law would probably assert that there would be an infinite of such things

Then again, In a universe of endless posibilities, maybe even a universe of endless universes. There might be something like a god somewhere... Just like there might be life elsewhere in the universe or even Terry Pratchett's flying world-turtle that holds four elephants, that holds a flat earth.

Who knows. Atheism is a religion unlike any other, but a religion nevertheless.

Kind regards,

Chris B.

Quote from: "chrisbellekom"Who knows. Atheism is a religion unlike any other, but a religion nevertheless.

Atheism is not a religion at all and theism is also not a religion.

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "chrisbellekom"Who knows. Atheism is a religion unlike any other, but a religion nevertheless.

Atheism is not a religion at all and theism is also not a religion.

Hello Davin,

A pleasure to get aquinted to you too.

Now, to coin a response to your response :D  [/quote]

Regards,

Chris B.

Quote from: "chrisbellekom"

Quote from: "Davin"

Quote from: "chrisbellekom"Who knows. Atheism is a religion unlike any other, but a religion nevertheless.

Atheism is not a religion at all and theism is also not a religion.

Hello Davin,

A pleasure to get aquinted to you too.

Now, to coin a response to your response :D  

Regards,

Chris B.[/quote]Then here's the problem: the only thing atheists have in common, is that they lack the belief in a god or gods, so the definition would have to be changed to, "A lot of people believing or not believing in the 'same' thing."

Because a lot of atheists believe in lots of different things, a further grouping would be required to say that this or that is a religion. Like those atheists that are solipsists, the ones that are materialists... etc. as well as the atheists that have yet to subscribe to any of those philosophies. So all these atheists are "believing" in various different things and still yet some are not believing in anything. So either your definition would need to be changed or atheism is not a religion.

Theism is the same way, the Greek religion is a very different belief system than Christianity and Wicca is a much different belief system than either of those. Also add in Deism which I consider the same thing as theism but a little more specific. These are all different religions (by your definition), because they're all different beliefs.

The word is good enough on its own, there is no reason to attach another meaning onto it.

Edit: I would also like to point to a theist who posted for a while on this forum called Edward the Theist who claimed that his belief in god was very different than any other belief in god, making him not part of any "shared set of beliefs" yet still a theist because he believed in a god. Also, as I have yet to see anyone who shares my all of my "beliefs," it would be very difficult to say that I'm part of a "shared set of beliefs." Yet because I don't believe in any god or gods, I'm still an atheist.

QuoteThen here's the problem: the only thing atheists have in common, is that they lack the belief in a god or gods, so the definition would have to be changed to, "A lot of people believing or not believing in the 'same' thing."

Because a lot of atheists believe in lots of different things, a further grouping would be required to say that this or that is a religion. Like those atheists that are solipsists, the ones that are materialists... etc. as well as the atheists that have yet to subscribe to any of those philosophies. So all these atheists are "believing" in various different things and still yet some are not believing in anything. So either your definition would need to be changed or atheism is not a religion.

Theism is the same way, the Greek religion is a very different belief system than Christianity and Wicca is a much different belief system than either of those. Also add in Deism which I consider the same thing as theism but a little more specific. These are all different religions (by your definition), because they're all different beliefs.

The word is good enough on its own, there is no reason to attach another meaning onto it.

Hello Davin,

Would that mean that christianity is not a religion, with it's different variations? It might get very personal though, because I think that no two persons have the exact same set of beliefs... It's like politics that way.

Regards,

Chris B.

Quote from: "chrisbellekom"Hello Davin,

Would that mean that christianity is not a religion, with it's different variations? It might get very personal though, because I think that no two persons have the exact same set of beliefs... It's like politics that way.

Regards,

Chris B.

The problem still exists that atheism is the lack of belief in any god or gods, even considering politics, it's still not a religion by any definition. Even considering politics, Christianity in itself is at least grouped by several similar beliefs, while atheism is only grouped by the lack of belief in a god or gods.

Quote from: "Jac3510"I'm not going to line-by-line this reply, as it would become unreadable as you are repeating yourself quite a bit. If I miss a substantive objective, feel free to bring it up for clarification.

I've done so several times so far, but to no avail. This entire exercise is a lesson in defining something into existence, and just how useless such a project is. Oh, and a lesson in how bad you are at it.

QuoteHere is the argument as we have it so far for reference:

1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).
2. All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.
3. Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.
4. Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.
5. Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent (which is to say, all essences are contingent)
6. That which is contingent must rely on that which is not contingent for its existence.
7. Therefore, essentially ordered efficient causes rely on a non-contingent (that is, necessary) cause for their being, which is called a first cause

As to your objections thus far:

I'll come back to this.

Quote1. Dealing with the infinity - infinity is not mentioned in this argument. To continue to argue the point is a straw man.

Actually, infinity is in this argument, albeit only by implication. This is an attempt at a proof of god. Any proof of god necessarily contains infinity, because you are suggesting god as an uncaused first cause which, by definition, must be infinite. In any event, you only removed the infinity because you knew you couldn't support your use of it. In any event, this entire argument is an argument against infinite regress, which still requires that you support your usage of 'infinite'. It doesn't matter if you remove the word from the argument, since your argument is entirely constructed against it. You are arguing both for and against infinity in different things at the same time, and either one requires that you actually understand what infinity is.

Quote2. Circularity - apparently, you see a circular statement in 5-7. All efficiently caused essences are contingent; that which is contingent must rely on that which is not contingent for its existence; therefore, all efficiently caused essences must rely on that which is non-contingent for their existence. You'll have to demonstrate the circularity, because I just don't see it.

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Frankly, you've been hopping around all over the place and failing to keep track of your own arguments. Anyway, let me demonstrate the circularity I accused you of and that you haven't addressed.

You began with your original premises 6 and 7 as follows:

Quote6. 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.

Which had it's own problem of special pleading, that you acknowledged. After you acknowledgement, you rejigged that to say that, and I quote:

QuoteThe 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.

In an argument for a first cause, this is circular reasoning, because it contains the conclusion of your argument in the premise. Further, both statements 'there is a first cause' and 'there cannot be an infinite regress' (which still both contain infinity, which you claim has been removed from your argument) are bare assertions, and therefore fallacious. For an argument it to be sound, it must be demonstrated that the premises are actually true.

Quote3. Equivocation of 'being' - The word 'being' is used in (1) to refer to the property that makes a thing exist; in (3) the same way; (4) the same way; (5) the same way; (6) uses the word existence in the same way as 'being' in all these statements; and (7) in the same sense. Notice, further, than in all cases except (1) and (4), all uses of 'being' are preceded by the possessive pronoun. In (4), possession is the general subject (or, specifically, the lack of possession). In (1), we are talking about the general concept of being, and the rest of the statements discuss something's possession of it.

There is no equivocation here.

Reading through the thread, you have actually addressed this in the above restatement, but not in a satisfactory manner. Where you had employed 'being' in the second sense (i.e. where you had used 'a being', you have now substituted it for 'an external agent', which must now be clarified. This also doesn't address my very real objection to the idea that the universe can actually have an external agent, because the universe is literally 'all that is'. I must once again make the point here that when I say 'the universe is all that there is, this does not mean that all that exists is that which arose from the big bang, but that whatever preceded the bg bang, and indeed other cosmic expansions, if they exist, are subsets of 'the universe'. There can be only one universe, and everything that exists anywhere is a subset thereof, which demolishes the concept of a 'creator of the universe' without having to go further. It's what the word means.

Quote4. Brute facts - Brute facts are things that are so basic that cannot be further explained and must simply be accepted. Existence is a brute fact. The fact that things come into existence is not, not because it is debatable (although people have debated it), but because the nature of what it means to come into existence is debatable. You can't just yell "Brute facts!" and except that to serve as an objection. So rather than testing me to see if I can find an objection somewhere in the concept, you state it clearly. "PX is untrue because it is simply Y is simply true, which PX does not recognize."

Well, if I had just yelled 'brute facts' without justifying the statement, I'd agree with you. However, since I justified this very early on by clarifying just what comprises the universe, the statement of brute facts, and indeed your evasion of the concept of brute facts in reasserting your premises, stand. Since the universe is all that exists, and since existence is a brute fact, a point you have accepted, then the universe is itself a brute fact and requires no creator.

QuoteNow, I do want to quote a few things you stated only because the deep misunderstanding of the argument they convey, and I will use them as a chance to clarify:

QuoteI suggest that depends on what you're talking about, The essence of the universe is, in fact, existence.

This is absurd. Essence is what a thing is. The universe may exist, but they universe is not existence. If it were existence itself, then to say, "Mankind exists" would be to say "Mankind is the universe" or something related. The universe may be all that exists (it isn't), but being all that exists means that it is not itself existence. You are simply wrong on this point.

Excuse me? This isn't remotely equivalent to what I said. Your fatuous restatement here is equivalent to, in the event of my saying 'ducks are birds', your responding 'you can't say that, because that's saying that all birds are ducks'. This is really poor reasoning on your part. And this fairly soon after accusing me of constructing a man whose major component is a cereal crop.

QuoteI never even used the word essence. Why are you saying that things with cognitive existence don't have essence?

Actually, I said exactly the opposite! I even said it explicitly. Please read again what I wrote.

QuoteThis is at least twice you have done this, Hack. I never used the word "infinite" in my restatement, and yet you insist it is the crux of my argument.

You don't have to use the word for it to be implicit in your argument. Your entire argument is an argument against the possibility of infinite regress, so infinity is included. Any argument constructed against the existence of something has that something as its crux.

QuoteHere, I never mention essence, and you spend your entire time talking about essence. As a matter of fact, to help you understand this concept better, the essence of the cognitive is exactly the same as the essence of the real. The difference is whether or not the essence has its existence in itself (which would make it real) or only in the mind (which would make it cognitive). Your misunderstanding is further demonstrated here:

Quote

QuoteEveryone agrees that unicorns exist differently from horses. The first does not have its existence in itself. It has its existence in the mind. The latter has its existence in itself (and very often, in our minds as well). Essences in reality have their being in themselves. When discussing the concept, they can, and must, as shown above, be distinguished.

No, this isn't correct. Just because the essence is different doesn't remotely suggest that it has no essence. For something to exist, it must be. To be it has something which is intrinsically it, therefore, under your very own definition, essence.

Again, I never said nor implied that something has no essence. That is self-contradictory, sense an essence is what a thing is. A thing cannot be something without essence. What I did say is that essences with cognitive existence exist differently than essences with real existence. The former have their existence only in the mind, while the latter have their existence in themselves.

Well, since 'what a thing is' includes the property of existence (or not), then there is a very real distinction between the essence of a conceptual thing and its real counterpart. I'm sure you'll simply say the definition is 'accidental', though.

QuoteI know you don't mean this.

Actually, I very much mean this.

QuoteYou can't tell me that you have always existed. The stuff that makes you up may have always existed, but you have not always existed.

I am a mere agglomeration of previously existing entities. Indeed, I don't actually exist in any meaningful sense, because even that which makes me up is continually replaced. I am not the same I that I was yesterday, and I will be a different I again tomorrow.

QuoteTherefore, your lack of a problem with the idea that anything ever began to exist is a serious problem for me.

I don't have a lack of problem with that idea. I have a very real problem with it, and with the idea that anything ever began to exist. I shouldn't have to restate this. We have never observed the beginning of anything. All we have ever observed is changes in state and agglomerations of previously existing matter. This is an empirical fact, and it is inescapable.

QuoteIt shows a continued misunderstanding on your part of what an essence is.

Perhaps, but you continue to show a deep misunderstanding of what constitutes existence.

QuoteWhat you are is distinct from what you are made up of;
That you are is distinct from both what you are and what you are made up of.

Already addressed this. You are arguing for an ex nihilo creation, or a prime mover. This is very much distinct from changes in state, or agglomerations of prior matter/energy.

QuoteThis goes back to a central philosophical assumption of mine, namely, things are what they are and are not what they are not. Dogs are not trees, even though both are made up of the same matter.

That isn't an assumption, it's a logical absolute, and I have never argued against it. However, this doesn't address the distinction between ex nihilo cause and changes in state. This is, again, one of Kalamity Craig's favourite bits of nonsense. The dog is a change in state, and it always existed.

QuoteThis dog is not the same as that dog. This dog did not always exist. Why is this all true? It's all in P1:

Being is an accidental property of all efficiently caused causes.

Dogs are efficiently caused causes. Their essence, what they are, is "dogness." That, of course, can be broken down into various essential properties (i.e., animality). That essence does not include the concept of existence anymore than unicorn includes the concept of existence. Some dogs exist. Other dogs don't. Therefore, existence is added to the essence of dogs to make them exist. Sometimes, that existence is merely cognitive, meaning that the dog only has existence in the mind. Sometimes, that existence is real, meaning that the dog has its existence in itself and can thus be said to exist in the real world apart from the mind. In any case, that being is added to the essence makes being an accidental property. Being is therefore distinguished from essence.

Ah, so being material is an accidental property of dogs. And what of the essence of the dog's atoms? What of the essence of the dog's energy, which DID always exist? This is what I am arguing. The 'essence of dogs' argument is entirely conceptual because it doesn't describe the existence of a thing, but the existence of a material concept. The matter/energy that comprises the dog always existed. It just happens to have come together in a concept we label 'dog'. This goes to the heart of the distinction between ex nihilo and arrangements of prior material.

QuoteSo, in sum, you need to do the following:

1. Demonstrate circularity in my restated argument

Check.

Quote2. Demonstrate equivocation in my restated argument

Addressed this, but it raises another definitional problem, namely the definition of 'agent' in your argument.

Quote3. Demonstrate reference to infinity in my restated argument

Check

Quote4. Demonstrate what brute facts contradicts which premise in my restated argument

Check.

Quote5. Demonstrate that you understand the concept of essence

Not necessary, because it doesn't address my objections to your argument.

Quote6. Demonstrate that your own view does not require mean things like you, me, and dogs have existed for all eternity

Addressed.

QuoteAs far as when we move on to the next portion of the argument, it will be when, at minimum, the terms are clear, and at most, when you agree that the argument presented in 1-7 is valid. There's no need to go any further if the argument at any stage is invalid.

It may well be valid. What it is not is sound, for the reasons stated above. You are asking that your premises, which should be axiomatic for soundness, be accepted. I cannot.

Moving on...

Quote from: "Jac3510"Or you could respond to the charges laid.

I have.

QuoteThis entire post here is little more than an attempt to paint me as being intellectually inferior, and thus, paint my arguments as not worth considering. As such, it's nothing more than a (thinly veiled) personal attack. It's an irrational approach to debate. Is this your normal method? (Hey look, my own thinly veiled attack)

Wrong. This entire post was an expression of my exasperation at your failure to grasp my points. I have no interest in painting you as intellectually inferior, not least because I don't think you are intellectually inferior. I do think that your arguments are thin, not least because they are based on premises that cannot be demonstrated.

QuoteOne of us is clearly misunderstanding the other. What is problematic about your approach here is that you, unlike me, are actually assuming not only the inferiority of my intellect, but the inferiority of the intellect of everyone else on the board. They've asked you, of all people, to challenge my argument. You've been demonstrated to be absolutely wrong--at least your objections--and rather than respond, you simply declare the entire thing worthless, but that somehow, in your mercy and grace, you will condescend to the idiocy that is all of us and explain again.

Absolutely not. Firstly, you haven't remotely demonstrated me to be wrong. Indeed, you have erroneously attached objections to the wrong arguments, which doesn't address the objections.

QuoteIt is almost enough to make me want to break out in a hymn of praise to my new Lord and Master, which is hardly surprising, given my intellectual inferiority, that I would so easily be swayed by such a powerful demonstration of shear [sic] intellect.

Self-deprecation doesn't suit you.

QuoteAgain, you've made several explicit charges that are blatantly false.

I absolutely did not.

Quote1. You've accused me of circularity without demonstrating.

I demonstrated it in the post you chose to ignore, and a couple of times since. Read up.

QuotePronouncements are not discussion.

Nice projection.

Quote2. You've accused me of equivocation on the word 'being,' specifically in (1) and (6), and in response, I looked at every instance of being in the first seven statements and demonstrated that it is being used in the same sense every time. You have failed to demonstrate. Again, pronouncements are not discussion.

Dealt with that above.

Quote3. You've continued to assert that infinity is the central issue, when it does not appear in the argument. Pronouncements, dear sir, are not discussion.

Addressed above.

Quote4. You've pronounced that concept of brute fact defeats my argument without demonstration.

Actually, I did demonstrate it, by providing a clear and robust definition of universe, and how the concept of a brute fact applies to it. Since I have demonstrated, at least as well as you have demonstrated anything, that the universe is a brute fact, your argument is defeated on those grounds alone.

Quote5. You've clearly confused the concept of existence and essence which is central to my argument. How can the board expect you to properly critique my argument when you fail to grasp the distinction upon which my entire argument is built?

ACtually, you haven't demonstrated where I equated the two. I never asserted that existence and essence are the same thing. I did make a statement concerning the essence of the universe, which you dismissed with one of the most pathetically illogical restatements this commentor has ever come across, and I've dealt with the likes of Robert Byers. This is no mean achievement. In any event, I dealt with this above.

 

QuoteYour assertion that "essence of the universe is, in fact, existence" is both a mere pronouncement and a ridiculous statement on your part. Rather than merely pronounce it false, however, I demonstrated why it is false, and your reply is to pronounce my inability to understand you. Need I repeat myself that pronouncements are not discussion?

Actually, you didn't demonstrate that it was false, nor did you remotely show that it is ridiculous. Your restatement of it was indeed ridiculous, but I already demonstrated why your restatement was erroneous and, frankly, barely rising to the level of meriting a response. This was actually the source of the frustration that drove the post you have quoted here.

Quote6. Your confusion of essence and existence has led you to assert, whether knowingly or not, a type of atheistic pantheism.

Err, no. Firstly, you haven't shown that I have confused these concepts, you've merely pronounced it, based on a woeful misunderstanding of what I actually wrote. Again, this has been dealt with above.

QuoteAgain, you said, "since I actually have real problem with the idea that anything, ever, began to exist." In so stating, you are arguing that you never began to exist.

Correct. More importantly, I stated this explicitly above, along with my justification of the statement.

QuoteThis requires more comment because it provides a great case study on which of us has fundamentally misunderstood the other. We have already made the distinction between what something is and what it is made out of. I pointed out to i_am_i that, "If there is no God, then it really doesn't make sense to call anything by anything. A man isn't a 'man.' It's just a set of molecules collected in a particular way. There is no real difference between "what" a man is and "what" a tree is. At best, that's just a human invention. We see things that look alike and we just label them. That doesn't mean your really are a human being. That's just what we choose to call you." This is a fuller statement of what it means for nothing to come into existence, in that it takes that statement and pulls out the necessary consequences. Specifically, you, as Hack, have clearly not always existed. You, then, are referring to the matter that makes you up. If you, however, are your matter, then since you are made up of the same matter as everything else, then you and everything else are just the same.

And that existence is merely conceptual, albeit also material. I am a mere concept, comprising an agglomeration of energy. More importantly, and quite damning for your argument, the first law of thermodynamics nails the idea of a beginning to the wall. This isn't navel-gazing rhetoric or the act of defining something into existence, but categorical fact. Moreover, even were I to accept your definition of 'beginning to exist' just for the sake of discussion, it would actually invoke a new problem for your line of argumentation, namely the fallacy of composition, in asserting that that which applies in the universe applies to the universe.

QuoteThis actually provides the basis for another argument for God's existence we may call the argument from the diversity of things. As it stands, it is a major issue in philosophy anyway. It was first grappled with by Parmenides in the fifth century BC, and he concluded that there is no such thing as distinction. Anyway, I digress . . .

Which just shows the value of arguments in elucidatiing reality.

QuoteThe point is that you have found yourself in precisely the same place as everyone else. In denying the distinction between essence and existence and asserting the equality, certain things necessarily follow, one of which, as I've now shown, is that everything is the same thing. But that is absurd.

Well firstly, I haven't denied the distinction between essence and existence. What I actually did was to state that, in the case of one single entity, namely the universe, existence is its essence, which is not remotely equivalent to what you are suggesting here. This alone highlights which one of us is labouring under a misapprehension.

QuoteNow, again, I've taken the time to demonstrate my positions, not to merely pronounce them. The former is discussion. The latter is preaching.

Thinly veiled accusation aside, I have demonstrated all of my positions throughout. That you have chosen to ignore or misrepresent thsoe positions and their justifications is hardly my failing.

QuoteSo how about rather than starting all over from scratch, why don't you start trying to demonstrate your claims. If your method is just to preach, there's not much use for debate in the first place, now is there?

And this is just brilliant. Accusing me of preaching. With this bit of utter fucking guff, I am done.

Respect must be earned, and you've done anything but.

Edit: Forgot to address the new formulation:

QuoteHere is the argument as we have it so far for reference:

1. Being is an accidental property of efficiently caused causes (although it is accidental in the unique sense of being prior to both essence and all other accidents).

No problem there.

Quote2. All essences receive accidental properties through efficient causality.

Blind assertion. Demonstrate that the universe received any of its properties through efficient causality. Those men in Stockholm await your response.

Quote3. Therefore, all essences receive their being through efficient causality.

The same blind assertion. These two premises demonstrate the fallacy of composition, because you are asserting this for the universe, even were we to accept that this is true within the universe, it cannot be categorically stated for the universe itself.

Quote4. Essences that have no being cannot be efficient causes.

No problem.

Quote5. Therefore, no essence can be its own efficient cause and must receive its being efficiently by from an external agent (which is to say, all essences are contingent)

Define 'agent'.

Quote6. That which is contingent must rely on that which is not contingent for its existence.

Already dealt with this several posts ago. The concept of a chain applies to contingency in precisely the same way it applies to causality. When stated within the rubric of causality, this can be restated as 'that which is caused must rely upon that which is not caused for its existence', which is clearly absurd.

Quote7. Therefore, essentially ordered efficient causes rely on a non-contingent (that is, necessary) cause for their being, which is called a first cause

Your 'therefore' is unjustified, because there are objections to your premises. Further, your conclusion is, in essence (pun intended) simply  restatement of (P6). This is the very definition of a circular argument.

Quote from: "hack"Indeed, I don't actually exist in any meaningful sense, because even that which makes me up is continually replaced. I am not the same I that I was yesterday, and I will be a different I again tomorrow.

You see, I was trying to take the time to offer a very serious response until I got to this. I'm perfectly content to let the issue rest between us here, because this is an impossible difference between the two of us. If in order to reject my argument you have to argue that you don't exist in any meaningful sense, then there's really nothing left to say.

I concede that if you don't exist in any meaningful way, then my argument doesn't work.

I just feel no need to argue that you do exist in a meaningful way. It is so amazingly self-evident that if you refuse that fact, then no other facts I present can or would be useful to discuss. This is the very core of my argument, as I have repeated like a mantra over and over in this thread: things are what they are and they are not what they are not. If in order to maintain your atheism you have to argue that you aren't really you and I am not really me ("in any meaningful sense"), then I think we have said our peace, and I think the community is more than educated enough to be able to decide on the merits of the arguments put forward.

You don't think you exist as you in any meaningful way. I do. For those who agree with me, they'll have to find some other fault in the logic. For those who agree with you, more power to them (whatever "them" is).

I would only point out the logical conclusion of your position: you have never spoken to me before, and I have never spoken to you. We have never met because we don't exist in any meaningful way, since what we were yesterday (if that is meaningful) is different from what we are today and what we will be tomorrow. That means that justice is absolutely impossible, because the person who committed the crime is not the person standing in the courtroom. No spouse has ever cheated on another. The person standing before you now is not the same person who "cheated" yesterday. You can't say what "you" will do in five years from now, because "you" won't exist.

Such a position is so patently absurd (in my very humble opinion) that if you want it, you are more than welcome to it. Sorry if that sounds a bit "patronizing." Someday I hope to be less amazed when I hear people make these claims (because yes, I've heard this before). It is always just unreal to me.

Anyway, all the best. I hope HAF has gotten what they hoped from our . . . discussion.

Of course it's unreal to you, because you can't grasp the concept of emergence. I am the emergent result of the agglomeration of pre-existing matter. I didn't begin to exist, I emerged. The same is true of everything inside our local cosmic expansion.

As it happens, I have no problem with the impossibility of infinite regress, not least because I can halt it without violating Occam's Razor. If you ever manage, in a coherent manner, to demonstrate the impossibility of infinite regress, you'll still have all your work ahead of you demonstrating the existence of a deity, and then you'll still have all your work ahead of you demonstrating that Yahweh is that deity, a concept that's utterly falsified by being given logically absurd or contradictory attributes.

Ultimately, all arguments for the existence of god are going to fail until you can actually present some evidence. If you can't do that, then you have to demonstrate that philosophy is capable of supporting an existence postulate. Otherwise you're simply trying to define something into existence. If you engage in that, then I can equally engage in defining pixies into existence. This is completely aside from the fact that your premises have been demonstrated to be either unsupportable, circular, or juts plain wrong.

Thanks for not even trying to respond to the objections, though.