Being!

[Sair]

And in view of this, I’ll propose a question or two, pertinent to more than myself.

How does one reconcile the notion of ‘being-itself’ -that is, pure actuality, essence, whatever this definition is supposed to signify - with the God of Classical Theism - that is, the personal, interested, interactive God that the majority of religious believers actually believe in? Furthermore, from a particularly Christian perspective, how do you get from ‘being-itself’ to a human person such as Jesus Christ, who is asserted to be ‘fully human and fully divine’? That would seem to go beyond the purview of ‘being-itself’ and enter the realms of specific being - even if one completely ignores the existentialist view that existence precedes essence, existence as a human being would seem to tie God down to a number of defining - and therefore limiting - characteristics…

 

[Sair]

Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity: “experience is a better guide to this than deductive logic”.

As to a definition of logic, I couldn’t agree more, except where experience can be shown to be swayed by nefarious influences - in which case, logic may come to the rescue…or may not, as the case may be. Truth, as many have said now, can be far stranger than fiction…

 

[Sair]

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.

I have certainly no wish to denigrate your argument - but if the likes of Plantinga can use modal logic, as such, to defend the existence of the theistic God, I’d wager it’s the kind of mechanism that can be used to support any position, no matter how absurd when held up against experience and…well, for want of a better term, mundane reasoning…

 

[Jesusaves777]

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

Apologies!!

 

[Jesusaves777]

As to a definition of logic, I couldn’t agree more, except where experience can be shown to be swayed by nefarious influences - in which case, logic may come to the rescue…or may not, as the case may be. Truth, as many have said now, can be far stranger than fiction…

I agree!! Making evolution fiction! However, you seem to throw the word “Logic” around a lot. And also observe…I would like to ask you again Sair, since you have continued to avoid my question and I think we all know why…Have you observed this yourself, and where is your evidence? Here is a quote from an actual rocket scientist;“They (evolutionists) challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? They say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the grounds that they cannot conceive Him?”- Werner Von Braun

 

[Sair]

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.

This would seem to be precisely the world as it existed before the Thomistic God undertook to create anything. Apologies if I’m coming late to the party here…!

 

[Sair]

I agree!! Making evolution fiction! However, you seem to throw the word “Logic” around a lot. And also observe…I would like to ask you again Sair, since you have continued to avoid my question and I think we all know why…Have you observed this yourself, and where is your evidence? Here is a quote from an actual rocket scientist;“They (evolutionists) challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? They say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the grounds that they cannot conceive Him?”- Werner Von Braun

Don’t know that I’ve personally bandied ‘logic’ about all that much, but no matter. Truth still requires a modicum of evidence, a leg to stand on, before it can be accepted…

When it comes to actually observing evolution in action, I think you’ll find that the theory itself allows for the fact that the timescales in which development from one species to another tends to occur - certainly in the larger, longer-lived animals such as mammals, birds and reptiles - are generally longer than several human generations, let alone lifetimes; so we would not, for the most part, expect to observe such changes immediately - except in microcosm, which is precisely why experiments such as that of Richard Lenski with E. coli are so valuable.

As far as Wernher von Braun’s quotation here is concerned, much as he was a rocket scientist rather than an evolutionary biologist, one is tempted to suggest that such instances of not seeing the forest for the trees could also apply to those who deny evolution because they’ve never seen a ‘crocoduck’. Suffice to say, if there were a comparable weight of experimental evidence and mathematical calculation pointing to a supernatural designer as there is pointing to the existence of electrons, then the hypothesis of intelligent design would be in no doubt at all, and would assume the status of a scientific theory, to take its place alongside the theory of evolution by natural selection, and the theory of gravity…

 

[wittgenstein]

Werner Von Braun was a Nazi that was crucial to the development of the V1 and V2 rockets that rained down on London killing civilians. It has been said that he aimed for the moon but hit London. I do not see him as an authority on spiritual matters.
The only thing that saved him was that we feared the Russians (and wanted any technology,even Nazi that helped defend us from the Soviets) more then we desired justice for Nazi criminals.

 

[wittgenstein]

I am currently trying to understand Godel’s and Norman Malcom’s versions of the ontological argument. In the category of well credentialed logicians you cannot do any better then Godel!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And in view of this, I’ll propose a question or two, pertinent to more than myself.

How does one reconcile the notion of ‘being-itself’ -that is, pure actuality, essence, whatever this definition is supposed to signify - with the God of Classical Theism - that is, the personal, interested, interactive God that the majority of religious believers actually believe in? Furthermore, from a particularly Christian perspective, how do you get from ‘being-itself’ to a human person such as Jesus Christ, who is asserted to be ‘fully human and fully divine’? That would seem to go beyond the purview of ‘being-itself’ and enter the realms of specific being - even if one completely ignores the existentialist view that existence precedes essence, existence as a human being would seem to tie God down to a number of defining - and therefore limiting - characteristics…

And a very good start that is. Being-itself or Actus Purus, is pure existence with no potentiality to be more or less. The first thing to note is that this Pure Existence created the universe ( all the beings who have existence by another - the Pure Existence), is their Primary Efficient Cause, their Final Cause, and the Sustainer of their existence.

St. Thomas shows in S.T. Part 1, Ques 2 that this Pure Act is God, in Ques 3 he shows that this Pure Act is utterly Simple. In Ques 4 he shows that this Pure Act is absolute Perfection. In the remaining Questions he shows that It is Perfect Goodness, Limitless, Unchangeable, Eternal and One.

In Part 1, Ques 12- 13 he shows that we can properly name God as He Who Is and that we can know something about his nature from the things he has created, since these things must be a reflection of his Nature.

In the following Questions we reason that in God there is limitless Knowledge, Will, Love, Life etc.

We cannot reason directly to the Personhood of God nor to The Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and similar mysteries. Thomas merely wanted to show that human reason, properly applied, could learn that God existed and was One, Eternal, etc.

Throughout Part 1 Thomas shows how God’s Existence is radically other then the beings of his creation and utterly outside of that created universe by his mode of existence but at the same time he " works " within that universe most intimately to direct it to its proper end ( Himself ), and in sustaining its existence. But that is getting kind of off the track.

As far as the O.P. is concerned, God is Perfect Being, that is Perfect Existence. And his creation is a universe of beings which Have existence ( their act of existence or being is caused by God who can give existence). The beings of creation are beings by participation, their existence is caused by Him Who always Was and ever will Be.

So the tern Being is used by an analogy of proper proportionality to signify whatever exists in reality, from He Who Is to we who Have existence. So a being is that to whom existence belongs by nature or by causality. There are also beings of intention or of the mind which have only mental existence but that is not important here.

.

 

[Shike]

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.

Of course not, but think what you will.

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’.

Yep, you pretty much said exactly what I expected you to say. You know, taking a position from St. Thomas and saying that you’ve done ontological analysis is… silly. Now, if instead you arrived at the position that God is ON and devoid of change, then it would be different.

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.

Okay, then allow other beings besides God into your possible world and see what happens.

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.

Oh, I understand. A person can understand and still disagree with you. But in general you should drop the PW terminology. It will definitely make you a better philosopher, and that is something that we all desire (I hope).

 

[Shike]

I have certainly no wish to denigrate your argument - but if the likes of Plantinga can use modal logic, as such, to defend the existence of the theistic God, I’d wager it’s the kind of mechanism that can be used to support any position, no matter how absurd when held up against experience and…well, for want of a better term, mundane reasoning…

I mostly agree and it is why a lot of Modern philosophy bugs the heck out of me. The starting points are usually all wrong so it’s hard to keep reading when you know that and they keep writing for thousands of pages.

Did you know Aquinas 5 Ways are all rooted in general experience? He definitely isn’t a fan of the ontological argument (contrary to what Kant thought of Aquinas) because of his epistemology, which is also rooted in general experience.

 

[belorg]

Okay, then allow other beings besides God into your possible world and see what happens.

If I allow other beings besides God, I am not taling about the God of Thomas nor of the Catholic God. That’s what happens.

 

[belorg]

This would seem to be precisely the world as it existed before the Thomistic God undertook to create anything. Apologies if I’m coming late to the party here…!

Sair

The reason I used possible world semantics here is because saying that the world that existed before God undertook to create would denotes temporality and that is what I wish to avoid here.

 

[Shike]

If I allow other beings besides God, I am not taling about the God of Thomas nor of the Catholic God. That’s what happens.

I don’t see why that has to be the case. I mean, if you are talking about a possible world then why can’t you include God and creatures? I mean, as long as there is no contradiction.

In sum, with regards to your later formulation using PW terminology I find the following difficulty: That in order for it to work you need a logical impossibility for change within a possible world, and that is precisely what cannot be supplied, no matter how the possible world is defined. Also, your position does amount to change being logically necessary, which I find no reason for such a position when I analyze what change is and the principles involved.

This is what I’ll have to take away. I don’t have much more to say for I am satisfied on my part. Thank you for your arguments, I do appreciate your time.

I will lurk about perhaps a little more, if anyone has any questions for me.

 

[belorg]

I don’t see why that has to be the case. I mean, if you are talking about a possible world then why can’t you include God and creatures? I mean, as long as there is no contradiction.

There is a contradiction.

 

[Linux]

There is a contradiction.

You have not made that evident.

 

[Sair]

Sair

The reason I used possible world semantics here is because saying that the world that existed before God undertook to create would denotes temporality and that is what I wish to avoid here.

I think on some level I grasped that; I see the problem with implying temporality by the use of ‘before’. It taps in to the question of what God was doing when he wasn’t creating the universe - if there was a specific time at which he created the universe, that implies that time pre-existed the universe, and is a phenomenon to which God is subject. But philosophical theists generally don’t allow that to be the case. Of course, for a physicalist explanation of the universe, there is also the question of what the quantum vacuum was doing ‘before’ the Big Bang - although, it has to be said, the options for a quantum vacuum are rather more limited than those of an infinite intelligent being…

 

[Sair]

I mostly agree and it is why a lot of Modern philosophy bugs the heck out of me. The starting points are usually all wrong so it’s hard to keep reading when you know that and they keep writing for thousands of pages.

Did you know Aquinas 5 Ways are all rooted in general experience? He definitely isn’t a fan of the ontological argument (contrary to what Kant thought of Aquinas) because of his epistemology, which is also rooted in general experience.

I think there is general experience and general experience, though - it’s one thing to cite common sense or common knowledge as the basis for argument, but there can be cases in which common sense is superficial, in the sense that it doesn’t consider possible alternatives to the most obvious assumption. An example would be that we still, in general, consider eye-witness accounts to be reliable, despite increasing evidence that they can be deeply mistaken.

I understand the frustration with undemonstrated, unjustified and seemingly faulty premises - and that is the perennial problem with logic. Logic must begin with a basic assumption, an axiom; one can argue logically from any premise one likes, but if the premise is dubious, then the whole argument falls. It can be more productive, sometimes, to question a premise than to attempt to deconstruct an otherwise perfectly logical argument

 

[levinas12]

.

youtube.com/watch?v=dj1BuNmhjAY

A remarkable video of Derrida on love. Derrida’s distinction between “who” and “what” is fundamental to contemporary philosophy. Obviously, there is a lot of Levinas in Derrida’s discussion.

Amazingly enough, the distinction between the “who” and the “what” is relevant to a number of threads on this forum. See, for example, “does the human embryo have a soul.”

By the way, I’m curious why you chose “Wittgenstein”.