|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 17, 2015 21:14:07 GMT -5
I'm not following you rational. At what step is a necessary being assumed? The proof is meant to show that the contingent beings we see around us imply a prime necessary being. Premise #6 and your conclusion. They only imply it because you have stated it was necessary. And there are other problems as well. But suffice it to say that if a person needs arguments like these to shore up their belief in god are they sure they are theists? #6 is not a premise. It follows directly from #5. I guess he could have inserted a 5a: "but something does exist today." There are problems, but #6 is not one of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 17, 2015 21:26:19 GMT -5
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Thomas Aquinas argues on the basis that there exist things that need not necessarily exist. And if existence is not a necessity, then at one time no such objects/beings existed. The argument runs like this (paraphrasing): 1. There exist beings which may or may not be (he calls them "contingent beings") 2. If a thing can fail to exist, then at some time it didn't 3. If all things are contingent, then at one time nothing existed 4. Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something already existing 5. Therefore, if there were ever a time when nothing existed, then nothing would exist today 6. Thus not all beings are contingent. At least one being is "necessary" at any time to serve as a creator 7. There cannot be an infinite series of necessary beings, each dependent upon another for creation 8. Therefore, there exists a necessary being having of itself its own necessity. This being we call God. Ah yuck! I did not realise apologetics was going to be philosophy related! I have at least a couple of separate problems with this line of reasoning. - If I consider the big bang as a ‘whole’ and everything subsequent to the big bang as a contingent being or part. The first problem I have is applying the same rules of contingency to the whole (big bang) as we would to the parts of the universe. As far as I can see it doesn’t make sense to apply the same rules to the parts of something as we do to the whole. The big bang is not the same as the parts of the universe and could function under an entirely different set of properties. In such a set of properties the big-bang may not be reliant on a necessary being.
- Step eight also causes me some problems. Assuming I was ok with all the other steps at step eight I can’t equate the necessary being with God. God does not seem the only logical option. The necessary being could be any other being that I don’t know for certain is contingent. I don’t know for sure that the big bang was contingent on anything so I could think that it was the necessary being.
But (to Ellie and Matt10) -- number 8 does not define God at all; certainly does not define god as being the god of the holy bible. Could we agree that number 8 is valid, but leave open the question of the definition of god? Perhaps "god" is the big bang? |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 17, 2015 23:07:55 GMT -5
"No, I'm saying that there could be two (or more) necessary beings working in parallel -- two lines that never cross."
So each non-contingent being has it's own retinue of contingent beings who never intersect? That's possible, but it would also be undermining to our present theory of knowledge. Although our insight be limited and the mystery be great, we are at least assured we are apprehending all of reality, not a diminution of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 18, 2015 1:22:12 GMT -5
Premise #6 and your conclusion. They only imply it because you have stated it was necessary. And there are other problems as well. But suffice it to say that if a person needs arguments like these to shore up their belief in god are they sure they are theists? #6 is not a premise. It follows directly from #5. I guess he could have inserted a 5a: "but something does exist today." There are problems, but #6 is not one of them. My mistake. I thought you had presented a polysyllogism and statement #6, as the conclusion of a prosyllogism, becomes a premise for the final syllogism. I guess I misunderstood the structure. I think I could use a refresher logic course! |
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Dec 18, 2015 8:04:04 GMT -5
Ah yuck! I did not realise apologetics was going to be philosophy related! I have at least a couple of separate problems with this line of reasoning. - If I consider the big bang as a ‘whole’ and everything subsequent to the big bang as a contingent being or part. The first problem I have is applying the same rules of contingency to the whole (big bang) as we would to the parts of the universe. As far as I can see it doesn’t make sense to apply the same rules to the parts of something as we do to the whole. The big bang is not the same as the parts of the universe and could function under an entirely different set of properties. In such a set of properties the big-bang may not be reliant on a necessary being.
- Step eight also causes me some problems. Assuming I was ok with all the other steps at step eight I can’t equate the necessary being with God. God does not seem the only logical option. The necessary being could be any other being that I don’t know for certain is contingent. I don’t know for sure that the big bang was contingent on anything so I could think that it was the necessary being.
But (to Ellie and Matt10) -- number 8 does not define God at all; certainly does not define god as being the god of the holy bible. Could we agree that number 8 is valid, but leave open the question of the definition of god? Perhaps "god" is the big bang? If I somehow got to number 8. I don't have a real reason to label this necessary being God. I'd probably go with something along the lines of "We know there is a being having its own necessity but we don't know how this process works yet" |
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Dec 18, 2015 8:11:16 GMT -5
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT This dates back to the 11th century, I believe. Let's use this definition of God: "The being than which nothing greater can be conceived." Understand? Then here is the argument (again paraphrased a little): 1. Let's assume that God exists in the understanding but not in reality 2. premise: Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone 3. premise: God's existence in reality is conceivable 4. Therefore, if God did exist in reality, he would be greater than he is 5. Therefore, it is conceivable that there is a being greater than God is 6. Thus...going back to the definition of God...it is conceivable that there be a being greater than the being than which nothing greater can be conceived 7. This being an absurdity, we have disproven statement 1. It follows that "the being than which nothing greater can be conceived" does exist. What happens if I can’t conceive of a being which nothing greater can be conceived? Theoretically this makes sense but in a practical sense I can’t do this. I couldn’t even conceive enough of a being to post on the how do we define God thread let alone conceive of a being for which nothing greater can be conceived. Assuming that I could hold in my understanding this God I get completely stuck at premise two. I can’t understand how this is true. It does not describe my reality at all. For many things the existence in my understanding is far greater than the reality.   |
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 18, 2015 9:44:05 GMT -5
The ontological argument has made an impressive comeback in theological circles. To me, it's all just wordplay. I don't think anyone is ever convinced by it because it just feels slippery.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 18, 2015 9:53:10 GMT -5
What happens if I can’t conceive of a being which nothing greater can be conceived? You might have disproved one of the premises.Sounds like you think the logical integrity of the argument is sound but it is founded on untrue premises.sounds fair. I think the argument was for theists. I personally am having a difficult time with the structure/flow of the argument. |
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 18, 2015 17:53:16 GMT -5
THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT This dates back to the 11th century, I believe. Let's use this definition of God: "The being than which nothing greater can be conceived." Understand? Then here is the argument (again paraphrased a little): 1. Let's assume that God exists in the understanding but not in reality 2. premise: Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone 3. premise: God's existence in reality is conceivable 4. Therefore, if God did exist in reality, he would be greater than he is 5. Therefore, it is conceivable that there is a being greater than God is 6. Thus...going back to the definition of God...it is conceivable that there be a being greater than the being than which nothing greater can be conceived 7. This being an absurdity, we have disproven statement 1. It follows that "the being than which nothing greater can be conceived" does exist. What happens if I can’t conceive of a being which nothing greater can be conceived? Theoretically this makes sense but in a practical sense I can’t do this. I couldn’t even conceive enough of a being to post on the how do we define God thread let alone conceive of a being for which nothing greater can be conceived. Assuming that I could hold in my understanding this God I get completely stuck at premise two. I can’t understand how this is true. It does not describe my reality at all. For many things the existence in my understanding is far greater than the reality. Ellie, I have enjoyed your concise analysis of the two arguments offered so far. My thinking resonates with much of what you have said. In particular, when you say; "What happens if I can't conceive of a being which nothing greater can be conceived?" that seems congruent with the realm that I have referenced as unknowable. I remain comfortable with the possibility of an existence of a reality that is beyond the comprehension of humans. Your posts have triggered two other thoughts. First, I am captivated by this concept, "reality". You say; ". . . . my understanding is far greater than the reality." My mind engages the challenge. Suppose you are the center of reality and allow yourself to begin moving toward the outer boundary of reality. As you go you observe, measure, describe, predict and hypothesize about all of the entities contained within your reality. Eventually you will encounter a barrier, it is the furthest edge of your reality. Suppose there is a sign on this barrier proclaiming that you can go no further. What happens next? Do you return home knowing that you have identified, classified and completely described every phenomena/process in your reality? Do you revel in the fact that every question in your reality will be answerable? Do you draw solace from the superiority of your knowledge and your independence from any entity (real or imagined) lurking beyond your reality? Or do you flee in terror from the barrier grasped by an awareness of "nothingness"? Beyond that barrier is nothing. Your impermanent reality floats in a sea of nothingness. And you are forced to accept that the summation of your existence, your meaning and your purpose is naught. Or do you slip your backpack from your back and settle down with your back against the barrier and reflect on what you have experienced. You have journeyed to the edge of your reality and have gained an appreciation of how small your part is in that reality. You reflect on the awareness that although small almost to the point of insignificance you have been a part of a whole, and without you the whole would have been different in some very small but perhaps important way. And you reflect on the fact that although you can not breach the barrier with your intellect, your experiences enable you to embrace the numinous mystery beyond with awe. The other thought that flitted through my bemused mind was the awareness that we are all members of an " exclusive" group bounded my the limits of our experiences and imagination. We are all members of the impermanent group sharing and experiencing the ritual we label "life". |
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Dec 18, 2015 19:04:00 GMT -5
THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(or, the Argument from Design)
Now we go all the way back to Socrates. The general gist of the argument is that any fool can look around him and see that the world was designed, and therefore needs an intelligent designer.
In 1802 William Paley updated the argument like this:
"Suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think … that, for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for a stone [that happened to be lying on the ground]?… For this reason, and for no other; namely, that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, if a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it."
Of course, then along came Darwin and natural selection. Darwin also had a problem with evil; he was hung up on the idea of an omni-everything creator and just didn't think the creation looked designed at all, because of all the misery everywhere he looked. Surely an omni-everything creator could do better.
Nevertheless, various forms of the teleological argument abound today. We're probably all familiar with I.D.'s claim of irreducible complexity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 18, 2015 21:07:15 GMT -5
No one cares about ontological or teleological arguments today. What matters is whether you're born bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and have sex appeal and you can compete in the marketplace of ideas and production. We're beholden today to a God of utility.
|
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 19, 2015 11:36:52 GMT -5
No one cares about ontological or teleological arguments today. What matters is whether you're born bright-eyed and bushy-tailed and have sex appeal and you can compete in the marketplace of ideas and production. We're beholden today to a God of utility. Function over form. |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 19, 2015 12:01:28 GMT -5
Absolutely. Capitalism's tendency is to assign a dollar amount to each and every human being. It is biased in favor of the strong and hostile to the weak. With rare exceptions, capitalism is a conspiracy that enjoys unanimous consent between capitalists and workers. Leftist politics may assail the lifestyle and excesses of the wealthy, but they rarely reject the ideological order of capitalism. And if they do, the alternative of communism has a record of being bad company and ill-comfort.
|
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Dec 19, 2015 22:42:29 GMT -5
What happens if I can’t conceive of a being which nothing greater can be conceived? Theoretically this makes sense but in a practical sense I can’t do this. I couldn’t even conceive enough of a being to post on the how do we define God thread let alone conceive of a being for which nothing greater can be conceived. Assuming that I could hold in my understanding this God I get completely stuck at premise two. I can’t understand how this is true. It does not describe my reality at all. For many things the existence in my understanding is far greater than the reality. Ellie, I have enjoyed your concise analysis of the two arguments offered so far. My thinking resonates with much of what you have said. In particular, when you say; "What happens if I can't conceive of a being which nothing greater can be conceived?" that seems congruent with the realm that I have referenced as unknowable. I remain comfortable with the possibility of an existence of a reality that is beyond the comprehension of humans. Although it might not always appear that way from my comments I remain quite open even hopeful of a reality beyond human comprehension. I must admit since posting the comment it occurs to me that I may be applying a different definition of reality than what is meant in the Ontological argument. I understood reality as my reality and my understanding to be my imagination. My imagination pretty much always conjures up something greater than my reality. My reality constantly changes so even if I had the capacity to measure and completely describe everything in my reality I think there would be always something new to observe. However, I find your questions thought provoking so I’ll assume I’ve reached the edge of my reality and attempt to answer some of them as best I can. I’ll add the caveat that my answers may change with time. If someone could be all knowing and have all questions already answered and nothing more to learn and no problems to solve I think that would be sad. If every question was answerable but not everything yet known that is a different scenario. In that case there remains the exciting prospect of answering more questions combined with the reassurance that the answer exists. Above is the paragraph I most identify with. I have considered the possibility that the meaning of my life may be what my life is to me and the people and things my life touches. It’s quite fascinating. Even if my life may be almost insignificant on a universe scale I have been a part of something remarkable. Experiencing conscious life for even a fleeting moment in the amazing world in which we live is awesome in itself. Were it possible to reach the barrier of what can be known by intellect and have experiences of a mystery beyond the barrier that’s fine. I would appreciate that for its wonder.  |
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 20, 2015 9:50:24 GMT -5
Ellie, thanks so much for your thoughtful response. My guess is that we are on similar paths in our quest for an understanding of the meaning and purpose of life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 20, 2015 9:55:46 GMT -5
Absolutely. Capitalism's tendency is to assign a dollar amount to each and every human being. It is biased in favor of the strong and hostile to the weak. With rare exceptions, capitalism is a conspiracy that enjoys unanimous consent between capitalists and workers. Leftist politics may assail the lifestyle and excesses of the wealthy, but they rarely reject the ideological order of capitalism. And if they do, the alternative of communism has a record of being bad company and ill-comfort. I like the first four sentences -- especially the fourth. It boggles the mind how the capitalists have brainwashed the workers into willingly and/or unwittingly participating in the conspiracy (as opposed to those who wittingly but begrudgingly participate because they do not perceive a workable alternative.) As for your fifth sentence, yes, rejection is rare even among leftist politicians, but Bernie Sanders is a refreshing exception. Your last sentence seems to address only one alternative to capitalism -- communism. There are other alternatives that, while allowing capitalism its role in a vibrant economy, temper it through the rule of law to ameliorate the more unpleasant outcomes of a founding principle of capitalism, greed. |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 20, 2015 11:31:55 GMT -5
Higher minimum wages ... that should arrest the injustice of markets that proceed too freely from being politicized even further.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Dec 22, 2015 12:04:10 GMT -5
Christmas teaches kids to love their belongings and to equate the two but it doesn't teach us to reflect for long on where our prosperity comes from. The human being naturally serves. Formerly this tended to be some concept of a nationalistic or ethnically-based God. In capitalism, that deference takes the form of an allegiance to the capitalistic system and the management/ownership class. This is not a bad thing in of itself so long as one understands it for what it is, and isn't.
Not all ambition is greed. A vibrant economy will always resemble a pyramid for the sheer fact that we're not all born equal and ambition and creativity must be rewarded to be harnessed. We need minimum wages tied closer to a socialist principle, however, and this principle needs to be applied to all nations. We fret about smog here in the USA. Poor China! Their smoggy cities are enduring capitalism's too-free access to cheaper labor and environmental restrictions.
|
|
