Being!

[belorg]

You have not made that evident.

I have made that evident to everybody who is open-minded enough not to a-priori consider every argument made by an atheist to be fallacious.
.

 

[belorg]

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…

That depends on how an infinite intelligent being is defined. If it is defined as unchanging, then a quantum vacuum seems to be able to do infinitely more.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

That depends on how an infinite intelligent being is defined. If it is defined as unchanging, then a quantum vacuum seems to be able to do infinitely more.

You have to be joking ! Honestly, by definition an infinitely intelligent being cannot be compared to a " quantum vacuum, " whatever that is. If such a thing even exists, and no one can prove it does or ever will ever to prove it does, you have to accept it on Faith. But if it did exist it would be some sort of matter, even if only waves or some undefined energy, so it would be limited to that extent and would require a First Uncaused Cause, an Infinitely Intelligent Being, and this we call God.

 

[Linux]

I have made that evident to everybody who is open-minded enough not to a-priori consider every argument made by an atheist to be fallacious.
.

You have a wild imagination. Any rational open minded atheist who honestly intends to take our arguments on board and wants to understand them can see that your so called rebuttals are grounded in erroneous assumptions both epistemological and ontological in nature. However any atheist who does will have a hard time seeing “metaphysical-naturalism” as a valid world-view.

You have your pride as an atheist to lose. I doubt that our arguments will succeed to convince you given that fact. But they don’t have to in-order to be correct. Let those with eyes to see, see.

 

[belorg]

You have a wild imagination. Any rational open minded atheist who honestly intends to take our arguments on board and wants to understand them can see that your so called rebuttals are grounded in erroneous assumptions both epistemological and ontological in nature. However any atheist who does will have a hard time seeing “metaphysical-naturalism” as a valid world-view.

You have your pride as an atheist to lose. I doubt that our arguments will succeed to convince you given that fact. But they don’t have to in-order to be correct. Let those with eyes to see, see.

I have yet to see your ‘arguments’, Linux. I see lots of assertions on your part but not a shred of real argument. Until you have one, there’s simply nothing to discuss.

 

[belorg]

You have to be joking ! Honestly, by definition an infinitely intelligent being cannot be compared to a " quantum vacuum, " whatever that is. If such a thing even exists, and no one can prove it does or ever will ever to prove it does, you have to accept it on Faith. But if it did exist it would be some sort of matter, even if only waves or some undefined energy, so it would be limited to that extent and would require a First Uncaused Cause, an Infinitely Intelligent Being, and this we call God.

Indeed, “an infinitely intelligent being” whatever that is cannot be compared to a quantum vacuum, of which scinece at least has an idea of what it is.
And as to ‘not able to prove’ such a thing even exists, I would nothold my breath.
The fact that you claim it “would be some sort of matter” means that you haven’t got a clue as to what you are talking about.
Fact is, quantum vacuum, if it exists, can actually ‘do’ something, which is much more than can be said about this Infinitely Intelligent Being, which, even if it exists, seems to be completely inert.

 

[Sair]

That depends on how an infinite intelligent being is defined. If it is defined as unchanging, then a quantum vacuum seems to be able to do infinitely more.

Good point - although I get the impression that for the most part, concepts of the theistic god as being an infinite, simple entity don’t take these qualities to their logical conclusion, certainly not if this means supposing said god to be limited in any way. Then again, most arguments that acknowledge the apparent imperfection of the universe - perhaps as an ‘unavoidable’ consequence of its complexity - assert (in a very hesitant, veiled manner) that the theistic god is limited.

The problem as I see it, at least, seems to lie in the belief that complexity can only come from complexity - but complexity that is (erroneously, in my view) deemed ‘simple’ just because it is identified as the ‘first cause’ or the ‘source’ of all subsequent phenomena. The way theistic believers try to get around this is by separating ‘existence itself’ from ‘that which exists’, which I don’t think can properly be done. Even if it is claimed that ‘God’ created everything from ‘nothing’, that means ‘nothing’, in the sense of a state of nonexistence never actually obtained in the first place - unless one equates God with nothing.

Apologies for the rather convoluted rant - it’s actually well past my bedtime…

 

[Shike]

Good point - although I get the impression that for the most part, concepts of the theistic god as being an infinite, simple entity don’t take these qualities to their logical conclusion, certainly not if this means supposing said god to be limited in any way. Then again, most arguments that acknowledge the apparent imperfection of the universe - perhaps as an ‘unavoidable’ consequence of its complexity - assert (in a very hesitant, veiled manner) that the theistic god is limited.

The problem as I see it, at least, seems to lie in the belief that complexity can only come from complexity - but complexity that is (erroneously, in my view) deemed ‘simple’ just because it is identified as the ‘first cause’ or the ‘source’ of all subsequent phenomena. The way theistic believers try to get around this is by separating ‘existence itself’ from ‘that which exists’, which I don’t think can properly be done. Even if it is claimed that ‘God’ created everything from ‘nothing’, that means ‘nothing’, in the sense of a state of nonexistence never actually obtained in the first place - unless one equates God with nothing.

Apologies for the rather convoluted rant - it’s actually well past my bedtime…

Good post, as was the previous one that was directed towards me.

With regards to the essence existence distinction, it only needs to be pointed out as a real distinction and not one of the mind merely… not that it is possible to separate the two, if that is what you are wondering. Seems to me what something is and that something is have answers that are really different and seems enough to ground the distinction.

Also God is usually referred to as metaphysically simple because there are not multiple principles in God, on pain of contradiction as the arguments go.

In regards to limitations of God, one can talk in a qualified way. For instance, that God is “limited” by the laws of logic really isn’t a limitation. The laws of logic follow the lines of possibility… so something outside and unlimited by the laws of logic isn’t really anything at all. Same kind of idea when it is said that God cannot change.

But does it really make sense to call the Being who is the ground of all possibility limited in any real sense? Doesn’t seem to, no.

Great last paragraph, I agree.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Good point - although I get the impression that for the most part, concepts of the theistic god as being an infinite, simple entity don’t take these qualities to their logical conclusion, certainly not if this means supposing said god to be limited in any way. Then again, most arguments that acknowledge the apparent imperfection of the universe - perhaps as an ‘unavoidable’ consequence of its complexity - assert (in a very hesitant, veiled manner) that the theistic god is limited.

The problem as I see it, at least, seems to lie in the belief that complexity can only come from complexity - but complexity that is (erroneously, in my view) deemed ‘simple’ just because it is identified as the ‘first cause’ or the ‘source’ of all subsequent phenomena. The way theistic believers try to get around this is by separating ‘existence itself’ from ‘that which exists’, which I don’t think can properly be done. Even if it is claimed that ‘God’ created everything from ‘nothing’, that means ‘nothing’, in the sense of a state of nonexistence never actually obtained in the first place - unless one equates God with nothing.

Apologies for the rather convoluted rant - it’s actually well past my bedtime…

Finally figured out what’s wrong with you Sair. youtube.com/watch?v=XFSeNed7mbU

 

[Sair]

Finally figured out what’s wrong with you Sair. youtube.com/watch?v=XFSeNed7mbU

Care to give me a summary? 1950s sci-fi isn’t really my thing…

 

[Sair]

Finally figured out what’s wrong with you Sair. youtube.com/watch?v=XFSeNed7mbU

Leaving aside the obviously judgemental ‘wrong’ call, would you care to give me a summary? 1950s sci-fi isn’t really my thing…

 

[Sair]

Good post, as was the previous one that was directed towards me.

Thank you.

With regards to the essence existence distinction, it only needs to be pointed out as a real distinction and not one of the mind merely… not that it is possible to separate the two, if that is what you are wondering. Seems to me what something is and that something is have answers that are really different and seems enough to ground the distinction.

I’m tending towards the notion that what we call ‘essence’ is a very human-sized perception of commonality between certain extant beings - we have a tendency to attempt to order and classify the world according to common characteristics which, whilst very convenient, can also be at times misleading and limiting. It’s also a very anti-evolutionary, anti-quantum-physics habit, since these two theories reveal a world and indeed a universe that is in a constant state of change. We are all, it could be said, passing manifestations of certain collections of matter and energy - none of us, as adults, contain exactly the same collection of cells that we contained in childhood, and when we die, the matter and energy that makes up our bodies will dissipate and in time, probably form the substance of other bodies.

I don’t know how tightly bound the idea of ‘essence’ is with the concept of Platonic ‘ideal forms’, but again I think the latter is still a product of our tendency to classify things according to shared characteristics. The idea that there is a category of things called ‘trees’ (by us) flows into the notion that there is somewhere, somehow, the ‘perfect’ form of a tree from which all other trees derive their essence. But to suppose that essence precedes existence, then, is surely getting it backwards. And it invites all kinds of awkward questions, not the least of which from our perspective is, do we manifest the essence of humans or the essence of apes, since biologically speaking, humans are apes?

Also God is usually referred to as metaphysically simple because there are not multiple principles in God, on pain of contradiction as the arguments go.

Yet there are multiple - and some would say, mutually exclusive - characteristics ascribed to the God of Classical Theism - the ability to know all things, do all things, to be in all places (even at once), to be perfectly good, to be both merciful and just; and certain characteristics, such as intelligence and creativity, that we do not otherwise witness except in evolved, complex beings such as ourselves.

In regards to limitations of God, one can talk in a qualified way. For instance, that God is “limited” by the laws of logic really isn’t a limitation. The laws of logic follow the lines of possibility… so something outside and unlimited by the laws of logic isn’t really anything at all. Same kind of idea when it is said that God cannot change.

But if God could go from being an entity with the potential to create to an entity that did and does create, that is a change, surely. And it may well be a logical contradiction to suggest that God could create a rock he could not lift - or it may not be - but in the sense in which the limitations of God are most often quoted, that is, in relation to the problem of evil, there is no logical contradiction inherent in suggesting that God could have made a universe that was kinder to sentient beings than the one that manifestly does exist…unless his abilities are more limited than they are usually claimed to be!

But does it really make sense to call the Being who is the ground of all possibility limited in any real sense? Doesn’t seem to, no.

Perhaps not, but this is the result of hindsight. Perhaps the ground of possibility really is something profoundly simple - limited in itself, in that it may have only one or two possibilities for how it might behave. But then the results of those behaviours may in turn give rise to other possibilities. We don’t know - but a good illustration of how such things may be possible is Conway’s Life world, in which there are a few very simple rules, limited in their immediate possibilities, which can nevertheless give rise to an astonishing array of forms within the context of the program. Needless to say, if the ground of all being and all possibility is genuinely simple, in the sense of being limited in its immediate possible behaviours, it is not the God of Classical Theism.

Great last paragraph, I agree.

Again, thank you!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Care to give me a summary? 1950s sci-fi isn’t really my thing…

Ha, you have to do your own research. It’s just a joke.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thank you.

I’m tending towards the notion that what we call ‘essence’ is a very human-sized perception of commonality between certain extant beings - we have a tendency to attempt to order and classify the world according to common characteristics which, whilst very convenient, can also be at times misleading and limiting. It’s also a very anti-evolutionary, anti-quantum-physics habit, since these two theories reveal a world and indeed a universe that is in a constant state of change. We are all, it could be said, passing manifestations of certain collections of matter and energy - none of us, as adults, contain exactly the same collection of cells that we contained in childhood, and when we die, the matter and energy that makes up our bodies will dissipate and in time, probably form the substance of other bodies.

I don’t know how tightly bound the idea of ‘essence’ is with the concept of Platonic ‘ideal forms’, but again I think the latter is still a product of our tendency to classify things according to shared characteristics. The idea that there is a category of things called ‘trees’ (by us) flows into the notion that there is somewhere, somehow, the ‘perfect’ form of a tree from which all other trees derive their essence. But to suppose that essence precedes existence, then, is surely getting it backwards. And it invites all kinds of awkward questions, not the least of which from our perspective is, do we manifest the essence of humans or the essence of apes, since biologically speaking, humans are apes?

Yet there are multiple - and some would say, mutually exclusive - characteristics ascribed to the God of Classical Theism - the ability to know all things, do all things, to be in all places (even at once), to be perfectly good, to be both merciful and just; and certain characteristics, such as intelligence and creativity, that we do not otherwise witness except in evolved, complex beings such as ourselves.

But if God could go from being an entity with the potential to create to an entity that did and does create, that is a change, surely. And it may well be a logical contradiction to suggest that God could create a rock he could not lift - or it may not be - but in the sense in which the limitations of God are most often quoted, that is, in relation to the problem of evil, there is no logical contradiction inherent in suggesting that God could have made a universe that was kinder to sentient beings than the one that manifestly does exist…unless his abilities are more limited than they are usually claimed to be!

Perhaps not, but this is the result of hindsight. Perhaps the ground of possibility really is something profoundly simple - limited in itself, in that it may have only one or two possibilities for how it might behave. But then the results of those behaviours may in turn give rise to other possibilities. We don’t know - but a good illustration of how such things may be possible is Conway’s Life world, in which there are a few very simple rules, limited in their immediate possibilities, which can nevertheless give rise to an astonishing array of forms within the context of the program. Needless to say, if the ground of all being and all possibility is genuinely simple, in the sense of being limited in its immediate possible behaviours, it is not the God of Classical Theism.

Again, thank you!

If I may interpose a moment. Here are two great links the explain the Thomistic notion of Being.saintaquinas.com/primer.html
iep.utm.edu/aq-meta/

For Thomas Being was beyond classification. It was what the Scholastics called a transendental reality applicable to everything that exists; from the Being defined as He Who Is or Pure Act, to all created beings who are beings by participation, which means beings who are caused by the Being Who is Pure Act.

Each of these beings have an Essence. Only the Essence of He Who Is is identical whith His existence, his act of " to be. "

Angelic beings are beings that have an essence which limits their " act of to be, " thus making them limited beings by participation or beings whose act of existence is caused in them by He Who is simply Act.

Material beings have an essence composed of matter and form which also receive an act of to be from He Who simply Is, or they are material beings by participation - caused to be.

So a being is " that which exists. "

 

[levinas12]

So a being is " that which exists. "

There may be another way to come at this. “To be,” " being" and “a being” are words in the English language - and there are similar words in other languages (Latin, Greek, etc). But as words they have a meaning. So what does “to be” mean?

To be “present”, or to be “there”.

But for us to know whether something is “there” we have to know what it means for it “not to be there”. And what might the condition of possibility be for us to know this? Our mortality. The meaning of “being” is caught up in our awareness of our impending death when we won’t be “present” or “there” anymore.

Isn’t this whole discussion thus pretty “scary”?

p.s. I love scare quotes - I can’t help it .

 

[Linusthe2nd]

There may be another way to come at this. “To be,” " being" and “a being” are words in the English language - and there are similar words in other languages (Latin, Greek, etc). But as words they have a meaning. So what does “to be” mean?

To be “present”, or to be “there”.

But for us to know whether something is “there” we have to know what it means for it “not to be there”. And what might the condition of possibility be for us to know this? Our mortality. The meaning of “being” is caught up in our awareness of our impending death when we won’t be “present” or “there” anymore.

Isn’t this whole discussion thus pretty “scary”?

p.s. I love scare quotes - I can’t help it .

Not sure I understand the last long paragraph. What Thomas is driving at is that a being is a " that which exists, " God, an angel, a man, a dog, a tree, etc. A " that which exists " exercises an " act of to be, " or you could also say an " act of existence. " It is because a thing is or has an act of " to be " that the " thing " or " being " is a " this " or a " that " and can be " here " or " there. " So a being’s act of to be, its act of existence makes it a " being, " a " something " that exists.

Here is a link to Thomas’ treatis on Essence and Existence. Read it and you will see what I am trying to say. fordham.edu/halsall/basis/aquinas-esse.asp

And welcome to the discussion. It is good to have new blood.

 

[Sair]

If I may interpose a moment. Here are two great links the explain the Thomistic notion of Being.saintaquinas.com/primer.html
iep.utm.edu/aq-meta/

For Thomas Being was beyond classification. It was what the Scholastics called a transendental reality applicable to everything that exists; from the Being defined as He Who Is or Pure Act, to all created beings who are beings by participation, which means beings who are caused by the Being Who is Pure Act.

If I may say so, there seems no logical contradiction to say that extant entities - living or otherwise - simply exist, without any requirement to ‘participate’ in any act of being. They - we - may exist as particular, defined entities, but in order to do so, existence itself must be a given. I doubt I’m explaining this adequately, but what I mean to say, really, is that it strikes me as unnecessary to cite ‘existence’ as some kind of separate quality exhibited by extant things/beings. You can’t exist as anything unless you exist in the first place - and by the very fact of existence, one must exist as something.

To put it another way, what we have in common with every other extant entity is existence - but that is just as it is. Why any need to extrapolate from this that existence itself is provided by some external being - moreover, a being who is inexplicably described as “pure existence”?

 

[Sair]

There may be another way to come at this. “To be,” " being" and “a being” are words in the English language - and there are similar words in other languages (Latin, Greek, etc). But as words they have a meaning. So what does “to be” mean?

To be “present”, or to be “there”.

But for us to know whether something is “there” we have to know what it means for it “not to be there”. And what might the condition of possibility be for us to know this? Our mortality. The meaning of “being” is caught up in our awareness of our impending death when we won’t be “present” or “there” anymore.

Isn’t this whole discussion thus pretty “scary”?

p.s. I love scare quotes - I can’t help it .

I agree that it means something to us for ourselves to not exist, even if we can’t grasp (perhaps with good reason) what it could be like to not exist - part of what makes it scary, I guess.

But you make a good point in that for us to know whether or not a particular entity exists, we need some understanding of what it would mean for that entity not to exist. I’ve tried to articulate a similar point in the threads dealing with ‘intelligent design’ - essentially, how would we know the difference between a world that was designed and one that was not designed? What would it mean for an intelligent designer not to exist and how would we know?

By the same token, my own impression is that by defining God as ‘pure existence’, believers are trying to work around this very point - to claim, effectively, that the existence of God is proven by the mere fact of existence on the part of apparently extant entities. But the question then becomes - what if the “ground of existence”, if there is anything that could be called such, is not the personal God of Classical Theism? How would the world be different were it not so, and how would we know? I admit this is a question of some weight for nonbelievers also, but the difference is that we acknowledge the apparent fact of existence, without extrapolating from this the existence of an ultimate, transcendent being that essentially provides ‘being’ for all other entities. Frankly, any such entity seems surplus to requirements…

 

[Linux]

I agree that it means something to us for ourselves to not exist, even if we can’t grasp (perhaps with good reason) what it could be like to not exist - part of what makes it scary, I guess.

But you make a good point in that for us to know whether or not a particular entity exists, we need some understanding of what it would mean for that entity not to exist. I’ve tried to articulate a similar point in the threads dealing with ‘intelligent design’ - essentially, how would we know the difference between a world that was designed and one that was not designed? What would it mean for an intelligent designer not to exist and how would we know?

By the same token, my own impression is that by defining God as ‘pure existence’, believers are trying to work around this very point - to claim, effectively, that the existence of God is proven by the mere fact of existence on the part of apparently extant entities. But the question then becomes - what if the “ground of existence”, if there is anything that could be called such, is not the personal God of Classical Theism? How would the world be different were it not so, and how would we know? I admit this is a question of some weight for nonbelievers also, but the difference is that we acknowledge the apparent fact of existence, without extrapolating from this the existence of an ultimate, transcendent being that essentially provides ‘being’ for all other entities. Frankly, any such entity seems surplus to requirements…

The question of designed or not designed is a different question entirely. The transcendent being in question is argued to be a necessary reality precisely because the existence of the universe by itself is logically incoherent without it. It is not possible for such a nature to exist if there is no first cause that entirely transcends its nature. It has been explained why physical reality cannot exist by itself, and it has been explained why a necessary first cause is the only logically possible explanation.

 

[Linux]

It is good to have new blood.

Actually it’s not good to drink blood regardless of its age! If you do, you will be a vampire. They live in misery and never die. That’s not a good start to eternity.

Just joking.