Being!

[Linux]

Just so. Or perhaps I should say, ‘just-so’…

What a spectacular cop-out! Who needs thought when you have divine command? Because it makes perfect sense for a perfectly good and rational god to create rational beings in his own image and then deny them the use of reason in a few crucial areas…

You either know that an objective universal standard of good exists or you don’t.

 

[Sair]

My reasons are based on applying logic. If there are beings to which logic does not apply, then everything is possible and logical arguments for or against God make no sense at all.

That is apparently what theists rely upon - the elusiveness of any definition of God, to which any logic or science might be applied.

 

[Linux]

First, you have to show that anything nonphysical actually exists.

This has been done already.

 

[Linux]

That is apparently what theists rely upon - the elusiveness of any definition of God, to which any logic or science might be applied.

Metaphysical standards of Logic can be applied, but science cannot obviously since God is not physical.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

My reasons are based on applying logic. If there are beings to which logic does not apply, then everything is possible and logical arguments for or against God make no sense at all.

I’m confused. I was trying to point out the assumption in your argument. That G-d is beholden to some other nature in the same way we are beholden to physics. Now you seem to be saying there is some contradiction that supports your belief but I don’t see what that contradiction is.

That said though, propositions explode when we hold a contradiction to be true. Or rather they would were it possible for a contradiction to be true. Luckily for us no such thing is possible. In the causal chain however, Being precedes logic. Without rules of inference there can be no contradiction so I see no reason to expect G-d to be constrained by the rules of inference that we use.

None of this has any sort of relevance to what I said.

I was explaining the justification for the argument that G-d does not change. I was responding to your claim of special pleading.

BTW, why do you write “G-d”? That seems Jewish yo me.

Long story.

 

[Linux]

In the causal chain however, Being precedes logic. Without rules of inference there can be no contradiction so I see no reason to expect G-d to be constrained by the rules of inference that we use.

I think this is mistaken. God is the embodiment of rationality in that he is absolute perfection. God is the absolute standard of rational truth. God is truth insofar as God is the act of reality in which contingent things participate. The act of Reality is truth, and is what determines it. Truth cannot be with out reality. I think you should have said that being categorically precedes truth.

By the way this is my only critcism of your arguements.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You assume that metaphysical propositions are valid and worthwhile.

We all do. We use them all day every day. Everyone from the atheist espousing belief in a non empirical proposition that only empirical propositions can be considered true, to the mathematicians and logicians who spend all day working with metaphysical truths about non existent objects.

Scientific elucidation doesn’t rule God out, perhaps, but it does suggest that God is irrelevant and inconsequential. Why add a redundant layer of explanation?

The propositions “G-ddidit” and “Scientific Elucidation” can both be true/false simultaneously. Thus no inference about either one is can be made using the other as a premise. Nor would I consider G-d a multiplication of entities because an explanation of solely proximate causes is a willful ignorance of the need for an explanation of ultimate causes. If you were to ask me where my old truck came from and I said the Ford dealership, I would only be giving you the proximate cause not the ultimate cause which is the Ford factory.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Just so. Or perhaps I should say, ‘just-so’…

I’m missing the reference…?

What a spectacular cop-out! Who needs thought when you have divine command? Because it makes perfect sense for a perfectly good and rational god to create rational beings in his own image and then deny them the use of reason in a few crucial areas…

A cop out would be making an excuse for bad behavior. I am demonstrating that you cannot assume there is any bad behavior to begin with. Like I said, even positing the POE is logically fallacious. Just because you cannot imagine a scenario in which a perfectly good and all knowing being would deny the use of reason to his creations, does not imply that we are not experiencing such a scenario.

 

[belorg]

I’m confused. I was trying to point out the assumption in your argument. That G-d is beholden to some other nature in the same way we are beholden to physics. Now you seem to be saying there is some contradiction that supports your belief but I don’t see what that contradiction is.

Too bad for you.

That said though, propositions explode when we hold a contradiction to be true. Or rather they would were it possible for a contradiction to be true. Luckily for us no such thing is possible. In the causal chain however, Being precedes logic. Without rules of inference there can be no contradiction so I see no reason to expect G-d to be constrained by the rules of inference that we use.

Being does not precede logic. If being precedes logic, then logic does not apply to being, which takes us back to what I said.

I was explaining the justification for the argument that G-d does not change. I was responding to your claim of special pleading.

No, you weren’t responding to anything I said.

Long story.

I do not really care what you call your Supreme Being, but “G-d” does not seem too Catholic to me.

 

[belorg]

I think this is mistaken. God is the embodiment of rationality in that he is absolute perfection. God is the absolute standard of rational truth. God is truth insofar as God is the act of reality in which contingent things participate. The act of Reality is truth, and is what determines it. Truth cannot be with out reality. I think you should have said that being categorically precedes truth.

By the way this is my only critcism of your arguements.

So, you fundamentally disagree with him, but just because he calls himself a catholic you feel obligated to say that’s your only criticism? So, I take it youi are a panenthiest too, Linux?

 

[Linux]

So, you fundamentally disagree with him, but just because he calls himself a catholic you feel obligated to say that’s your only criticism? So, I take it youi are a panenthiest too, Linux?

Pantheism actually has a broad spectrum of definitions. Its a slippery fish. True, one of the most common instances of pantheistic thought is the idea that God is both physical and non-physical, is the universe and transcendent of it.

But one can also say that God is the being or issness of the universe but is not the nature of it. This is supported by the fact that change is a fundamental aspect of physical things and therefore at present is the sum total of actualised potential. The act of reality is therefore not intrinsic to the nature of physics because you cannot get the act of reality out of mere potential. Also given that out of nothing comes nothing, there has to be a nature that is the act of reality itself and therefore is not in and of itself a conjoining of act and potential. It has to be a timeless and perfect act of reality.

Thus you can say that everything is in God without saying that everything is the nature of God.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I think this is mistaken. God is the embodiment of rationality in that he is absolute perfection. God is the absolute standard of rational truth. God is truth insofar as God is the act of reality in which contingent things participate. The act of Reality is truth, and is what determines it. Truth cannot be with out reality. I think you should have said that being categorically precedes truth.

By the way this is my only critcism of your arguements.

G-d is perfectly rational. The only question is…are we? If our rules of inference were perfect than I would have expected to see some sign of it. Yet the failure of logicism and the success of Incompleteness leave me to suspect that we most likely have an imperfect system of inference. So while G-d certainly is perfectly rational, we have no way of guaranteeing that we know what perfectly rational is. My .02

 

[Linux]

G-d is perfectly rational. The only question is…are we? If our rules of inference were perfect than I would have expected to see some sign of it. Yet the failure of logicism and the success of Incompleteness leave me to suspect that we most likely have an imperfect system of inference. So while G-d certainly is perfectly rational, we have no way of guaranteeing that we know what perfectly rational is. My .02

Perhaps we cannot know everything that is rationally true. But we can know what it means for something to be rationally true. However human emotions and desires often impedes are rational capacities. At the end of the day both atheist and theist have something to lose if they are wrong.

God bless and Happy new year.

 

[Shike]

The Thomist does not have a very very specific definition of ‘change’. What the THomist means by change is exactly the same everyone else means by it.

Don’t take my word for it, I can give you some sources to read up on the Aristotelian analysis of change. Change for the Thomist has an essential aspect of receptivity attached to it. You have miraculously found the only case where the term cannot apply. We can argue that the term doesn’t necessarily need the receptive aspect, but you will soon find that your examples from experience are nonexistent.

What I mean is that if we take your line of reasoning, that unless we can prove that applying a force is impossible without change, every cosmological argument is useless, because we can claim everything that is not proven logically impossible.

I refuse to argue in a vacuum. I take it as established that Aquinas’ 1st Way is a demonstration in the Scholastic sense. I also take it as granted that the world around us exists. Now, a few people have a problem with change and God–from my standpoint, showing there is no logical contradiction is no small accomplishment and not special pleading in the least, of course.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Too bad for you.

I have to assume that if there were such a contradiction, then you would be able to offer it.

Being does not precede logic. If being precedes logic, then logic does not apply to being, which takes us back to what I said.

An undesirable consequence doesn’t imply the impossibility of the cause.

That said, a propositional explosion is the result of holding a contradiction to be true. I see no contradiction in positing that being is causally precedent to logic.

No, you weren’t responding to anything I said.

You said that we were committing a special pleading. I gave you the justification to demonstrate that we were not special pleading.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Perhaps we cannot know everything that is rationally true. But we can know what it means for something to be rationally true. However human emotions and desires often impedes are rational capacities. At the end of the day both atheist and theist have something to lose if they are wrong.

God bless and Happy new year.

Happy New Year. Be safe.

 

[Shike]

So this basically amounts to moving the goalposts when they are applied to God - change for any being is so, but change for God is not so. So there. It’s like children in the playground making up the rules of a game as they go along.

I cannot help that you are new to aristotelian-thomistic philosophy. But if you are willing to be humble and ask questions instead of making gross assumptions, I will do my best to help.
In brief, there is a very specific definition of change arrived at through rigorous analysis in the philosophy of nature, and this precise term cannot be applied to the Being in the conclusion of Aquinas’ 1st Way, among others, for very specific reasons.

 

[Shike]

My reasons are based on applying logic. If there are beings to which logic does not apply, then everything is possible and logical arguments for or against God make no sense at all.

And everything would also be not possible… which is why it is better to just say that nothing would make sense.

 

[Shike]

You assume that metaphysical propositions are valid and worthwhile.

Scientific elucidation doesn’t rule God out, perhaps, but it does suggest that God is irrelevant and inconsequential. Why add a redundant layer of explanation?

Did you know that Aquinas addressed specifically the exact position you proffer with regards to scientific explanations?

Everyone has a metaphysic - it is impossible to not have one. It then becomes an issue of those who realize it (more and less) and those who don’t.

Say anything about the world around you, and you will find that it depends upon a series of propositions that must be true, that even go so far as to touch upon the nature of possibility and existence.

 

[belorg]

Don’t take my word for it, I can give you some sources to read up on the Aristotelian analysis of change. Change for the Thomist has an essential aspect of receptivity attached to it. You have miraculously found the only case where the term cannot apply. We can argue that the term doesn’t necessarily need the receptive aspect, but you will soon find that your examples from experience are nonexistent.

I am fully aware of the Aristotelean notion of change and why it cannot apply to the Aristotelean First Mover, but the conclusion is not that this Prime Moveer needs a special kind of acting without changing, but that the very notion of such a Ptime Mover is incoherent, which is why the majority of comtemporary philosophers, atheists but also lots of theists, reject Aristotle in that respcet.

I refuse to argue in a vacuum. I take it as established that Aquinas’ 1st Way is a demonstration in the Scholastic sense.

It is not a demonstration by the standards of contemporary philosophy.

I also take it as granted that the world around us exists. Now, a few people have a problem with change and God–from my standpoint, showing there is no logical contradiction is no small accomplishment and not special pleading in the least, of course.

Then, by all means, show that there is no contradiction, because asserting it, as you have been doing so far, is not so big an accomplishment.

Happy New Year