Arguments for God

[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  

[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.

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:

I 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.

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.

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:

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.

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 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.

[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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

[humblesmurph]

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.

[hackenslash]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[hackenslash]

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.

Did 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.

Also, 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.

It 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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Fair enough, I suppose.

[humblesmurph]

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.

[hackenslash]

Indeed. He's been doing philosophy in this very thread.

[humblesmurph]

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?

[Sophus]

Sorry to butt in, but....

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.

Dogs are efficiently caused causes. Their essence, what they are, is "dogness."

This sounds Platonic.

Therefore, 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

[chrisbellekom]

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.

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.

[Jac3510]

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.