Being!

[Sair]

This is just empty criticism devoid of any rational basis. What is truly irrational is the idea of potentiality becoming actual by itself, which is what you would ultimately have to believe if you reject the existence of an unmoved mover, or uncaused cause. It is out of absolute respect for the fact that contingent objects cannot produce themselves from nothing that an honest person has no choice but to accept the existence of a necessary timeless non-physical intelligent cause.

The Idea that we have no basis for presenting such a case is nonsense.

If you are talking about a personal god, that is, the God of Classical Theism that all monotheists assert exists, you are not talking about ‘mere existence’ or ‘potentiality’. You are talking about an actual, specific entity with definite characteristics. If you just believe in a potentiality that imparts being to other things by being being itself, that is not anything like the kind of god upon which Christian faith is built, no matter how the medieval philosophers tried to spin it.

Such an entity, being-itself, if anything, is much closer to the pantheistic god - the essence and actuality present in the universe, the creative force of nature.

But if you’re asserting that your god exists ‘beyond’ the universe - that is, beyond everything that exists, that just is a ridiculous claim. Even if it were possible to conceive of an existence beyond existence, we have no way of knowing whether there is or is not such an entity, what it might be like, if it is even possible. Why waste time investing faith in it?

 

[Sair]

Ah yes Sair! We meet again, spinning your tall tales of evolutionary rubbish on here too.

I have already read and studied everything I need to know about Christianity, from the time I even believed in it, wholeheartedly.

Perhaps you should do some reading and observing yourself before dismissing as ‘rubbish’ one of the most elegantly explanatory theories ever proposed and continually verified by the scientific community.

 

[belorg]

Your responses are particularly unhelpful. Regardless if you actually have a good argument or not, no one could ever know because they wouldn’t be able to learn from you. Yes, I’m a bit frustrated, at least mentally speaking.

Simple assertions to the contrary help no one.

What is there to learn. The only thing you need to understand my argument is the proper application of logic. So, there is no assertion anywhere.
My argument is really very simple: if there is a possible world in which change is impossible, then chnage cannot be possible and since change obviously is possible it follows that there cannot be a world in which it is impossible.
Sio, if you want to counter my argument, you must refute the premise that says that there is a possible world that is immutable. If you can do thta, my argument fails, if you can"t, it succeeds. There is nothing to be frustrated about, except perhaps your inability to counter my argument.

I will only say this much more. The rejection of final causality is one move you could make. But if you make that move, as I was hinting at in my puzzle, we would be presented with an odd scenario indeed… a chain of beings that each rely on an outside member entirely for their existence but yet have no first member to ground the chain, meaning that there would also be no reason for each member in the chain to exist. It’s about as weird as it gets.
Good luck

First of all, this ‘odd scenario’ does not follow from anything I said and secondly, the secnario may be odd, butit has never been never proven logically impossible.

 

[Sair]

God has no properties. God IS pure existence. This Pure Existence is Pure Goodness, Pure Truth, is Pure Beauty, etc. These are not his properties, Each and many more terms are Who he is, they are not a part of God. They are simply our puny method of saying who he is. That’s all.

This is simply a game with words, pretending that properties are not properties, for the purpose of claiming that a complex being with a definite nature and specific attributes is not what it is. Any entity that is pure existence - formless, devoid of character, open to any possible permutation (for if otherwise, it has moved beyond pure existence into particular existence) - can be neither truth nor falsehood, goodness nor evil, beauty nor ugliness (nor even blandness). All of these are definable qualities - we can say what they are and what they are not, relatively or otherwise. The very fact that there is such a thing as apophatic theology, via negativa, is testament to the fact that believers are bending over backwards in the attempt to claim that their god is something substantial and worth believing in, whilst at the same time being something completely insubstantial. It’s all a game with words - “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” (thank you, Shakespeare - your words will always be more eloquent than mine…)

 

[Jesusaves777]

I have already read and studied everything I need to know about Christianity, from the time I even believed in it, wholeheartedly.

Perhaps you should do some reading and observing yourself before dismissing as ‘rubbish’ one of the most elegantly explanatory theories ever proposed and continually verified by the scientific community.

Verified by whom? Names, references, CREDIBLE sources…anything this time. For a person who used to “wholeheartedly” believe in Christianity…hopefully that doesn’t mean you just went to summer youth camp and all the sudden you thought you were a Christian. Observe is a word I hear from you a lot. It has been said by even by scientists that it cannot be observed…have you observed it and can it be observed by someone without an atheist worldview (even then condemning it to junk science)I had asked you several times for several questions that you did not answer.

 

[Jesusaves777]

What is there to learn. The only thing you need to understand my argument is the proper application of logic. So, there is no assertion anywhere.
My argument is really very simple: if there is a possible world in which change is impossible, then chnage cannot be possible and since change obviously is possible it follows that there cannot be a world in which it is impossible.
Sio, if you want to counter my argument, you must refute the premise that says that there is a possible world that is immutable. If you can do thta, my argument fails, if you can"t, it succeeds. There is nothing to be frustrated about, except perhaps your inability to counter my argument.

First of all, this ‘odd scenario’ does not follow from anything I said and secondly, the secnario may be odd, butit has never been never proven logically impossible.

Oh my goodness Sair, An application of logic? Perhaps you’re not familiar with the definition…log·ic
/ˈläjik/
Noun
Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity: “experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic”.
A particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference: “Aristotelian logic”.
Synonyms
reason
Please look at some of the key words here in the definition. And I’m also sure that in the English language there is this thing called inductive reasoning, you can talk all you want but without any proof to back up your ethos…then your reasoning (and logic) falls apart.

 

[Shike]

So, there is no assertion anywhere.

I was referring to your individual replies to the statements that I made two posts ago. It is frustrating to talk to someone who answers like that. I have patience but, of course, it has its limits.

My argument is really very simple: if there is a possible world in which change is impossible, then chnage cannot be possible and since change obviously is possible it follows that there cannot be a world in which it is impossible.

I think I really do understand your argument–my comments were made only to point out your unhelpful style. And sure, I agree that your argument works as long as we do not equivocate on the meaning of impossibility. But there most certainly is an equivocation. There is a difference between impossibility per se and impossibility per accidens. Your wG is a simple case of impossibility per accidens. Why? Because you chose what “things” to include and what to exclude. In wG, even though change would never occur ever (this must be understood in atemporal language since there would be no time at all), it would only be the case because of happenstance, not because of the nature of God or even the nature of change (although non-existent) in wG. In sum, the nature of God is not doing the work in wG, but instead, it is your selection of “things” that is doing the per accidens work.

Only if it is logically impossible for change to not occur in wG then you have a valid argument (aside from the other things pointed out by duran).

You are smart enough to come up with this argument. You are also smart enough to see what I am saying here.

First of all, this ‘odd scenario’ does not follow from anything I said and secondly, the secnario may be odd, butit has never been never proven logically impossible.

It is actually a classic case of logical contradiction: loosely, entity A derives its meaning from entity B and entity A has no meaning–this is what you get when you work with instrumental causes.

 

[belorg]

I was referring to your individual replies to the statements that I made two posts ago. It is frustrating to talk to someone who answers like that. I have patience but, of course, it has its limits.

Some of your questions are simply unanswerable.

I think I really do understand your argument–my comments were made only to point out your unhelpful style. And sure, I agree that your argument works as long as we do not equivocate on the meaning of impossibility. But there most certainly is an equivocation. There is a difference between impossibility per se and impossibility per accidens. Your wG is a simple case of impossibility per accidens. Why? Because you chose what “things” to include and what to exclude. In wG, even though change would never occur ever (this must be understood in atemporal language since there would be no time at all), it would only be the case because of happenstance, not because of the nature of God or even the nature of change (although non-existent) in wG. In sum, the nature of God is not doing the work in wG, but instead, it is your selection of “things” that is doing the per accidens work.

It is precisely because I do not want to equivocate that I use modal logic and more specifically S5. Even if I choose what to include in wG (and that is a most preposterous thing to say because I am working from the standard Catholic definition of God), as long as the world I choose is a possible world, the argument works.
What you will have to deny is that wG is a possible world. That’s the only way to counter my argument.

Only if it is logically impossible for change to not occur in wG then you have a valid argument (aside from the other things pointed out by duran).

Yes, of course. And if "per accidens’ some mutable entity weere to pop into existence in wG, then chnage would be possible, but if we belive that things can pop into existence from nothing, we would not be having this discussion.

You are smart enough to come up with this argument. You are also smart enough to see what I am saying here.

But you are also smart enough to see that you have the burden to show the logical possibility of change in wG

It is actually a classic case of logical contradiction: loosely, entity A derives its meaning from entity B and entity A has no meaning–this is what you get when you work with instrumental causes.

Everything that exists has meaning, shike. So there can be no A without meaning. There is a huge difference between ‘meaning’ and reason of existence, or cause of existence. Moreover, in an infinite regress, there is no entity A . You are positing an frist cause when there is no furst cause.
And what Is a classic case of logical contradiction is for entity B to derive its potency from entity A, and entity A has no potency. If, as Thomists do, you claim that catuality and potentiality are two distinct things, you are stuck with a logical conttadiction.

 

[belorg]

Oh my goodness Sair, An application of logic? Perhaps you’re not familiar with the definition…log·ic
/ˈläjik/
Noun
Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity: “experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic”.
A particular system or codification of the principles of proof and inference: “Aristotelian logic”.
Synonyms
reason
Please look at some of the key words here in the definition. And I’m also sure that in the English language there is this thing called inductive reasoning, you can talk all you want but without any proof to back up your ethos…then your reasoning (and logic) falls apart.

Just for your information, I am not Sair.
As for the rest of your reply, I fail to see any relevance here.

 

[Shike]

It is precisely because I do not want to equivocate that I use modal logic and more specifically S5. Even if I choose what to include in wG (and that is a most preposterous thing to say because I am working from the standard Catholic definition of God), as long as the world I choose is a possible world, the argument works.
What you will have to deny is that wG is a possible world. That’s the only way to counter my argument.

It is not modal logic to define a possible world where change, by definition, cannot exist. It is not God’s nature that is doing the work of immutability, it is your methodological exclusion of any entity that can change. Even if anything were to just pop into existence, it could not be a part of the possible world you define… by definition because you limit the world to “contain” God merely.

In other words, the transfer of immutability from God to the wG (possible world) would make the immutability in question necessarily extrinsic and besides the point.

I suppose I could say that there is a possible world that only has pennies and nothing else–which we will call wP. It is impossible in wP for there to exist anything other than pennies. But since in our world we know that nickels exist, then we know that pennies do not exist. And this is simply because whatever is impossible in a possible world is impossible in all possible worlds. Reductio ad absurdum, QED.

It don’t work.

 

[Sair]

It is not modal logic to define a possible world where change, by definition, cannot exist. It is not God’s nature that is doing the work of immutability, it is your methodological exclusion of any entity that can change. Even if anything were to just pop into existence, it could not be a part of the possible world you define… by definition because you limit the world to “contain” God merely.

In other words, the transfer of immutability from God to the wG (possible world) would make the immutability in question necessarily extrinsic and besides the point.

I suppose I could say that there is a possible world that only has pennies and nothing else–which we will call wP. It is impossible in wP for there to exist anything other than pennies. But since in our world we know that nickels exist, then we know that pennies do not exist. And this is simply because whatever is impossible in a possible world is impossible in all possible worlds. Reductio ad absurdum, QED.

It don’t work.

Is not this the nature of logic, though? That one can make and defend any assertion, no matter how absurd from the point of view of our own material reality, provided there is no inherent contradiction?

 

[belorg]

It is not modal logic to define a possible world where change, by definition, cannot exist. It is not God’s nature that is doing the work of immutability, it is your methodological exclusion of any entity that can change. Even if anything were to just pop into existence, it could not be a part of the possible world you define… by definition because you limit the world to “contain” God merely.

In other words, the transfer of immutability from God to the wG (possible world) would make the immutability in question necessarily extrinsic and besides the point.

I suppose I could say that there is a possible world that only has pennies and nothing else–which we will call wP. It is impossible in wP for there to exist anything other than pennies. But since in our world we know that nickels exist, then we know that pennies do not exist. And this is simply because whatever is impossible in a possible world is impossible in all possible worlds. Reductio ad absurdum, QED.

It don’t work.

Sorry, but this last examploe only shows that you do not understand what ‘possible’ means.
If there is a possible world that has pennies and nothing else, that does not mean that anything else *is impossible *there, it merely means that nothing else exists there.
So, it is not just by positing a world with only pennies that you get a wP in which nothing else is possible.
If, however, there are reasons to believe that there is a possible wolrd with only pennies and if pennies are told to be the basis of all other sorts of coins, and if it is furthermore asserted than pennies cannot change, then the existence of a world with nickels would mean that at least one of the previous three premises is false.And that, Shike, is the situation we are in.
We have claims that there is a God, that God is immutable and that God is the creator of everything. IOW it is logically impossible for anything to exist that is not created by God. If we then posit a possible world with only God, then,it is not “my methodological exclusion of any entity that can change” that leads to the impossibility of change, rather, the exclusion of any entity that can change is a direct logical consequence of the claims made by Thomist Catholics.

 

[belorg]

Is not this the nature of logic, though? That one can make and defend any assertion, no matter how absurd from the point of view of our own material reality, provided there is no inherent contradiction?

That’s in fact how Plantinga tries to get away with his modal ontological argument. But I do much more than that in my argument.

 

[Shike]

Sorry, but this last examploe only shows that you do not understand what ‘possible’ means.
If there is a possible world that has pennies and nothing else, that does not mean that anything else *is impossible *there, it merely means that nothing else exists there.
So, it is not just by positing a world with only pennies that you get a wP in which nothing else is possible.

I of course agree. But you should apply the same line of reasoning to your own argument to shed some light on what you are in fact doing.

We have claims that there is a God, that God is immutable and that God is the creator of everything. IOW it is logically impossible for anything to exist that is not created by God.

I think it is a misinterpretation of the Thomist position if you interpret the existing apart from God’s creative act as a logical impossibility. That very well may be true, but it is the ontological necessity of God that Aquinas talked about. Further, it is very interesting that you have dropped talk about ontological analysis and let your true colors of modal logic flap in the breeze. Question, are you able to give a proper definition of what ontological analysis is?

If we then posit a possible world with only God, then,it is not “my methodological exclusion of any entity that can change” that leads to the impossibility of change, rather, the exclusion of any entity that can change is a direct logical consequence of the claims made by Thomist Catholics.

The exclusion of any entity that can change is a direct consequence of letting no other entities into your defined possible world. It is only accidentally that no beings of change enter into the picture. It really does have nothing substantially to do with the immutable nature of God or anything included into your possible world.

Like duran said, you need to be “careful” in transferring the property of a being to a world. At most such a move could only be shorthand for there is this possible world with only this being with this property. It’s very uninteresting and doesn’t do much for your argument at all because we then ask is there something in the nature of said being that is preventing other changeable beings from arising? To which we must answer, nope.

Perhaps now is the point in which you should re-write your argument in terms devoid of possible world terminology? It’s removing you too far from the real entities themselves, which are the basis for possible world terminology anyway.

Good luck!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is simply a game with words, pretending that properties are not properties, for the purpose of claiming that a complex being with a definite nature and specific attributes is not what it is. Any entity that is pure existence - formless, devoid of character, open to any possible permutation (for if otherwise, it has moved beyond pure existence into particular existence) - can be neither truth nor falsehood, goodness nor evil, beauty nor ugliness (nor even blandness). All of these are definable qualities - we can say what they are and what they are not, relatively or otherwise. The very fact that there is such a thing as apophatic theology, via negativa, is testament to the fact that believers are bending over backwards in the attempt to claim that their god is something substantial and worth believing in, whilst at the same time being something completely insubstantial. It’s all a game with words - “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” (thank you, Shakespeare - your words will always be more eloquent than mine…)

Well, if you are going to reject St. Thomas and Scholastic Philosophy out of hand there isn’t really much one can say except, what are you doing here ?

And if we point out that we ( our brothers and sisters of the 1st century) have seen him in the Person of his Son I suppose you wil call on Shakesphere and Cohen again. That doesn’ t leave much ground for discussion, does it ?

Perhaps you could begin a thread on your brand of Pantheism and we could discuss that.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I am interested in Aquinas (and any other philosopher) that talks about Being. The idea that God is that whose essence is Being, fascinates me. However, I am weak when it comes to medieval philosophy ( I am not being derogatory, I have great respect for medieval philosophy and believe it has much to offer) and would be grateful for an explanation of topics such as hacceity.

Looks like your thread kind of got hijacked. I have a good little book you can still pick up cheeply or perhaps check out at a library - BEING by Hanri Renard, S.J… It is small but powerful, may give you some headaches, but it is excellent on the subject.

By the way I think " hacceity " originated with Duns Scotus ( at least that is what Renard implies). He was trying to account for the individuation in beings and came up with a principle he called " this " or " thisness " which ( Renard points out ) explains nothing. Anyway " hacceity " was what Scotus called the principle.

 

[Sair]

Well, if you are going to reject St. Thomas and Scholastic Philosophy out of hand there isn’t really much one can say except, what are you doing here ?

And if we point out that we ( our brothers and sisters of the 1st century) have seen him in the Person of his Son I suppose you wil call on Shakesphere and Cohen again. That doesn’ t leave much ground for discussion, does it ?

Perhaps you could begin a thread on your brand of Pantheism and we could discuss that.

And is that the usual manner, then, to reject out of hand those who will not accept the veracity of esoteric metaphysical arguments, or take as fact the stories told in ancient hagiographical texts?

As for my starting a thread on my ‘brand’ of pantheism, I suspect I know how that would go - I would be told in no uncertain terms that Christianity rejects a pantheistic worldview, regardless of how it is presented. I would direct anyone who is interested to the website of the Universal Pantheist Movement, if they wish to get a grip on the form of pantheism to which I hold.

But it is a valid question, most certainly - what am I doing here? I have often wondered as much myself. If I’m honest, I have to say that I enjoy being argumentative and honing my philosophical skills (in written format, anyway), but I suspect I am far from alone in this. On another level - particularly in view of my history as a believing Catholic - putting forward my take on the various ideas presented here, in contrast (for the most part) to those of other forum posters, helps me to clarify my own thoughts and beliefs on various subjects. Please don’t think I am unappreciative of the time others take to respond to my posts, even if it is done in anger or frustration - goodness knows I’ve done so often enough myself!

 

[belorg]

I of course agree. But you should apply the same line of reasoning to your own argument to shed some light on what you are in fact doing.

I did apply this same rasoning. But you are apparently unwilling to even try to understand it, so, I don’t think there is any point in discussing this any further.

I think it is a misinterpretation of the Thomist position if you interpret the existing apart from God’s creative act as a logical impossibility. That very well may be true, but it is the ontological necessity of God that Aquinas talked about. Further, it is very interesting that you have dropped talk about ontological analysis and let your true colors of modal logic flap in the breeze. Question, are you able to give a proper definition of what ontological analysis is?

Ontological analysis is the analysis of being. So I analyse which type of being the God of Thomas and the Catholic God is. And that’s what I have been doing all along. It is only because you fail to grasp this that I ‘dropped talk about it’.

The exclusion of any entity that can change is a direct consequence of letting no other entities into your defined possible world. It is only accidentally that no beings of change enter into the picture. It really does have nothing substantially to do with the immutable nature of God or anything included into your possible world.

The exclusion of any entity that can chnage is a direct consequence of the ontologivcal analysis of what kind of being a God that immutable (as per Thomas) and the creator of everything else (as per Catholicism) is.

Like duran said, you need to be “careful” in transferring the property of a being to a world. At most such a move could only be shorthand for there is this possible world with only this being with this property. It’s very uninteresting and doesn’t do much for your argument at all because we then ask is there something in the nature of said being that is preventing other changeable beings from arising? To which we must answer, nope.

Sorry, but maybe I had better discuss this with somebody who knows what he is talking about. With all due rspect, but you are clearly not that person.

Perhaps now is the point in which you should re-write your argument in terms devoid of possible world terminology? It’s removing you too far from the real entities themselves, which are the basis for possible world terminology anyway.

Good luck!

I can revwrite it without PW terminology, in fact I have done so on many occasions, but even then you understand it. So, I’ll bow out, unless somebody lse has something interesting to add.

 

[Sair]

Verified by whom? Names, references, CREDIBLE sources…anything this time. For a person who used to “wholeheartedly” believe in Christianity…hopefully that doesn’t mean you just went to summer youth camp and all the sudden you thought you were a Christian. Observe is a word I hear from you a lot. It has been said by even by scientists that it cannot be observed…have you observed it and can it be observed by someone without an atheist worldview (even then condemning it to junk science)I had asked you several times for several questions that you did not answer.

Nope, not just a bright-eyed and bushy-tailed summer camp alumnus - a cradle Catholic, no less.

And at the risk of incurring the wrath of the moderators - as for who has verified the theory of evolution, pick any number of well-known biologists and naturalists you care to name, as well as multitudes of other less-known researchers in the field and the laboratory. I’d wager that, for every ID theorist or evolution-denier you could name, I could (with a little research, admittedly) name several who are thoroughly convinced of the fact of evolution.

Darwin didn’t simply sit in an armchair and think, “Hmm, I wonder if I can come up with an explanation for the diversity of life?” He went out and did the observing and documenting that are the bedrock of good science, before he even dared to propose his thesis.

Since then, every scientific discovery and observation that does not contradict evolution is a discovery or observation that strengthens the theory. Every fossil find, like those of Edward Cope and Othniel Marsh - and the fact that all the fossils thus far studied have fit into the general pattern of the evolutionary tree of life; the experiments of Gregor Mendel and his naming of genes (and the work of every selective breeder since the development of agriculture and animal husbandry); Alfred Wegener’s exposition of plate tectonics (and its implications for fossil discoveries in various parts of the world); the discovery of the structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick; Richard Lenski’s long-term laboratory study of the evolution of E. coli (because bacteria have a short enough lifespan for humans to observe their evolution within our own lifetimes).

All of these discoveries (and many others) strengthen the theory of evolution - to the point where most scientists (and pretty much all biologists) accept evolution as fact. You can try to fit all these things into a divine design view of reality, but it takes a lot more work and raises more questions than it answers.

It’s true there is still discussion and debate over the precise mechanisms by which evolution occurs. Natural selection is still the strongest contender; other propositions include sexual selection, also group selection (although the latter is more of a fringe theory, largely rejected by mainstream evolutionary biologists). You could, if you so wished, propose your own theory of evolution by divine intervention - if you could support it with evidence (but make sure it’s evidence of the actual designer) then you’d surely be in the running for a Nobel prize, at least. On the other hand, if you simply wish to falsify evolution altogether, all you’ll have to do is follow JBS Haldane’s suggestion and find fossil rabbits in Precambrian rocks.

 

[Sair]

Looking back over my past few posts, I hereby apologise for discussing content that is not, in any immediate sense, related to the philosophy of ‘being’. I shall endeavour to keep my posts on topic from here on!