God is not a...

[Lucretius]

The “five ways” all have quite elementary problems.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

Prove this! Please! Everyone I’ve encounter who says this disappoints me! (Especially you, Dr. Dawkins…). What is the problems with the First Way?

But even if one would be correct, it would never prove the existence of the Christian God… at best it would demonstrate a faceless, deistic “first cause”, or “unmoved mover” - or let’s change that to “unmowed mower”? At least that would be without contradiction.

We never said it did prove it, but it’s a step in the right direction: a foundation.

Why do atheists here not even get deism right? Deism rejects Classical Theism too: the Five Ways prove deism false!

The “simplicity” leads to a very important contradiction when it is combined with “omniscience”. The word “truth” is a concept not an entity. And “infinity” is even worse. The word “infinite attribute” is a logical nonsense.

Truth is the Union of mind and reality.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bradski]

Because humans are fools. Remember what Socrates said: “only God is wise.”

So what do these Christian fools believe that God has done which is immoral and which requires this defense?

 

[exnihilo]

OK. Let’s analyze what you said. In the Euthyphro dilemma you choose the “second” thorn. Whatever God says, orders or does is - by YOUR definition - moral. That makes “morality” a whim of God.

Some apologists try to wiggle out by saying that “God is goodness itself”, so there is no real dilemma at all. Of course this is a simple circular reasoning, just another logical fallacy. You cannot define God’s goodness into existence.

No, that isn’t circular reasoning. The dilemma posits that either there is a morality above God, in which case there is something greater then God. Or something is good only because God commands it. In that case morality is just whatever God says.

The Christian answer splits the horns. It says there is not some morality above good, and that something isn’t good simply because God demanded it. The Christian answer is indeed that God is goodness. But that isn’t circular. It is a grounding claim.

And what is the grounding you have for the morality that you employ to condemn God? You appeal to some sort of morality. Is it a Platonic Form or the arbitrary command of a god?

That is not a good approach. According to the Catholic teaching we have been formed in “God’s image”. There is only one feature which we can share with God, and that is the “knowledge” of good and evil. And that makes us “moral agents”.

You use the same approach as e_c. God is the biggest bully, whatever he says must be obeyed. And that is not an acceptable basis for morality.

I’m not sure what you mean. Can you explain why that isn’t a good approach?

 

[Lucretius]

So what do these Christian fools believe that God has done which is immoral and which requires this defense?

God hasn’t done anything “immoral.”

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[e_c]

‘Things are in motion, therefore…something started all this’.

I wonder how you would approach the argument if Aquinas was a Hindu or a Bhuddist. Or even a deist.

I wonder how people would react to a priest-professor at the University of Paris in the 13th century pulling stuff out from pagan and Islamic philosophy. (Not well. 1277 was unkind to the dead Thomas…)

Truth is truth, no matter where it comes from.

Solmyr, can you make a basic attempt to make my argument for me connecting God’s existence, simplicity, and goodness?

 

[Solmyr]

No, that isn’t circular reasoning. The dilemma posits that either there is a morality above God, in which case there is something greater then God. Or something is good only because God commands it. In that case morality is just whatever God says.

The Christian answer splits the horns. It says there is not some morality above good, and that something isn’t good simply because God demanded it. The Christian answer is indeed that God is goodness. But that isn’t circular. It is a grounding claim.

And it is problematic. It equates two “things”, which are incommensurate. God is supposed to be an ontological entity, while “goodness” is just a concept, which describes a certain behavior. The mere definition: “God is goodness itself” is illogical and irrational - especially if we observe the “alleged actions” and the obvious “nonactions” of God. (And, no, concepts have no ontological existence.)

 

[Bradski]

Truth is truth, no matter where it comes from.

Your problem is that people like Aquinas start with a belief in God and then look for proofs of His existence. If you start with the proofs, they don’t lead to the Abrahmic God.

If you accept the proofs at face value, then they just lead to a conclusion that something caused everything we know. You need a prior belief in God in order to then say that that something must have been God.

It is utterly worthless to propose arguments which you say lead to one inescapable conclusion if you have already decided what the conclusion is prior to making the arguments.

 

[e_c]

Yes, nobody ever happened to have the truth before having an argument for it…

You don’t need to believe that there is a God in order to realize that the basic rules of being demand that there is something radically first and necessary (and then you will believe!)… Since we say those things of God, and there can’t be two such radically first things, we say they are the same. The idea of the First Cause as “God,” with all the implications that word brings with it now, does not need to be investigated. Especially irrelevant here is trying to demonstrate that Abraham actually was speaking with the First Cause/God. That’s got no place in the discussion of the Divine Attributes and their direct implications.

…

So, am I right in concluding that you will not offer the most rudimentary attempt at making the argument, Solmyr? (By the way, you seem to have, once again, placed yourself squarely in the logical positivist camp by utterly denying the existence of universals, which is a very extreme position.)

One last chance to show you understand this “internally consistent” worldview, to use your own words… Existence, simplicity, goodness… Can you try to tie them together? Feel free to cheat. I don’t require that you use your own language, the way you do of everyone else…

 

[Lucretius]

Your problem is that people like Aquinas start with a belief in God and then look for proofs of His existence. If you start with the proofs, they don’t lead to the Abrahmic God.

If you accept the proofs at face value, then they just lead to a conclusion that something caused everything we know. You need a prior belief in God in order to then say that that something must have been God.

It is utterly worthless to propose arguments which you say lead to one inescapable conclusion if you have already decided what the conclusion is prior to making the arguments.

Well, St. Thomas actually gives arguments why Pure Actuality has all the basic qualities that we associate with God. As for the Revelation of God, that is a reasonable jump from witness of the Church.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Solmyr]

So, am I right in concluding that you will not offer the most rudimentary attempt at making the argument, Solmyr?

Why on Earth should I try to make your argument for you?

(By the way, you seem to have, once again, placed yourself squarely in the logical positivist camp by utterly denying the existence of universals, which is a very extreme position.)

You sure misquote the basic concept of logical positivism. Why is that?

One last chance to show you understand this “internally consistent” worldview, to use your own words… Existence, simplicity, goodness… Can you try to tie them together? Feel free to cheat. I don’t require that you use your own language, the way you do of everyone else…

There is no evidence for God’s existence. The so-called “five ways” have all been refuted many times. And even if they were correct, they would not point to the existence of the Christian God.
Simplicity leads to a contradiction. I could explain it, if you are interested.
There is no evidence for goodness. There is a lot of evidence for “indifference”. And I am being very kind. To call the obvious lack of love and caring as being indifferent is a huge concession.

The basic problem is that you wish to employ a totally different vocabulary when discussing God. The words you use have a totally different meanings when applied to humans, and to God. There is no common ground for a conversation… more is the pity.

 

[exnihilo]

And it is problematic. It equates two “things”, which are incommensurate. God is supposed to be an ontological entity, while “goodness” is just a concept, which describes a certain behavior. The mere definition: “God is goodness itself” is illogical and irrational - especially if we observe the “alleged actions” and the obvious “nonactions” of God. (And, no, concepts have no ontological existence.)

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by ontological entity, but in the Catholic view God is not an entity or a being. He is existence or being itself. Of course goodness is a concept. Every word is a concept. I don’t see how God is goodness is any more illogical then God is being itself. Can you explain what you mean another way?

Also, I’d still like to know how it is you ground the morality you claim condemns God?

 

[e_c]

Why on Earth should I try to make your argument for you?

You sure misquote the basic concept of logical positivism. Why is that?

There is no evidence for God’s existence. The so-called “five ways” have all been refuted many times. And even if they were correct, they would not point to the existence of the Christian God.
Simplicity leads to a contradiction. I could explain it, if you are interested.
There is no evidence for goodness. There is a lot of evidence for “indifference”. And I am being very kind. To call the obvious lack of love and caring as being indifferent is a huge concession.

The basic problem is that you wish to employ a totally different vocabulary when discussing God. The words you use have a totally different meanings when applied to humans, and to God. There is no common ground for a conversation… more is the pity.

I wanted to let you try to demonstrate that you understand it, or at least can recognize it in another’s writing.

Have you actually read Ayer? I’ve spent some real time on him.

Great, there’s no evidence, problem solved, glad you pointed that out… Can we do philosophy now?

In your “there is no goodness” paragraph, you have provided yet another example of the original problem. Do you see how?

(Also, your tendency to make everything about language is characteristic of logical positivism.)

 

[Solmyr]

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by ontological entity, but in the Catholic view God is not an entity or a being. He is existence or being itself.

Words like that are not helpful. If you would say that God is a “Supreme being”, that would carry informational value. “Being itself” is void of meaning.

Of course goodness is a concept. Every word is a concept.

Sure. But their referent is either an ontological entity, or another concept. That is the difference.

I don’t see how God is goodness is any more illogical then God is being itself. Can you explain what you mean another way?

“Goodness” is a concept. Concepts have no mind-independent existence. “Being itself” is a meaningless hodgepodge of vowels and consonants.

Also, I’d still like to know how it is you ground the morality you claim condemns God?

I use the one and only concept which seems to be universal across most (maybe all) human societies. The two variants of the “golden rule”. The positive one, which says: “Do unto others that your would like them to do unto you”… and the negative one, which says: “Don’t do unto others that you would not want them to do unto you”.

Translation: do not intrude, but be kind and helpful toward others. Very simple concept indeed.

 

[Solmyr]

(Also, your tendency to make everything about language is characteristic of logical positivism.)

Without a mutually agreed upon set of words, phrases and expressions there can be no meaningful exchange of ideas. That has nothing to do with “logical positivism”.

 

[e_c]

Without a mutually agreed upon set of words, phrases and expressions there can be no meaningful exchange of ideas. That has nothing to do with “logical positivism”.

You are absolutely obsessed over language, it appears to me. Every discussion that tends toward the immaterial, you may as well rip a page out of LTL. Whatever.

You have a metaphysical commitment that precludes the immaterial in itself. So you say that these words like “Being itself” are meaningless. OK. Please provide us with the criteria for meaningful words.

As for your “ethics,” basically everyone on the planet agrees… As you yourself seem to point out in making your argument. Well then why is there not world peace and rainbows of fluffy kitties falling from the sky? Just because people don’t follow these rules, or because they also disagree about their application? And suppose I like having things done to me that another does not? What about conflicts and dilemmas? They are all mystically solved by these simple aphorisms? No. Not a chance. The Devil is in the details. (Motivation for following these “rules” is also a huge problem for godless ethics, as I suggested in my thread on the issue.) That you still fail to see how naïve it is to leave the discussion with the golden rule after several threads is really disappointing.

I’ll address the central issue after Easter. Sad to see you didn’t care to try to engage with it.

 

[Solmyr]

You are absolutely obsessed over language, it appears to me.

Obsession is a very negative term. Concerned would be more accurate. But I have no problem with yours either, condescending it may be. Just let me know how to conduct a conversation without having a mutual agreement about the meaning of words.

You have a metaphysical commitment that precludes the immaterial in itself. So you say that these words like “Being itself” are meaningless. OK. Please provide us with the criteria for meaningful words.

There is no “objective” meaning of words outside communication. Meaning gets created in a communication channel between the two (or more) people who conduct the information exchange. If you are familiar with information theory, this should be obvious to you.

As for your “ethics,” basically everyone on the planet agrees… As you yourself seem to point out in making your argument. Well then why is there not world peace and rainbows of fluffy kitties falling from the sky?

Also obvious. Because one needs at least two people to get an agreement, while there is only one needed to start hostilities. Just look at the recent atrocities in Brussels.

My fundamental problem is very simple. Some apologists use words in a diametrically opposing fashion when they speak of humans, and when they speak of God. And that makes communication nearly impossible.

 

[e_c]

My fundamental problem is very simple. Some apologists use words in a diametrically opposing fashion when they speak of humans, and when they speak of God. And that makes communication nearly impossible.

Then bother to learn the meaning. It is not just apologists, it is the Canon of Western philosophy we are talking about here.

 

[Solmyr]

Then bother to learn the meaning. It is not just apologists, it is the Canon of Western philosophy we are talking about here.

But there is no need to abuse words when you try to use them in a different context. If “love” is inapplicable for a psychopath who commits, allows, permits torture, then you commit the “fallacy of the stolen concept” if you try to apply “love” to God.

It is ludicrous to “steal” words with well-defined meanings, and apply them outside their scope. It can only serve one thing: “spread confusion”. As you discovered, I am a stickler for precision. Too bad that you don’t join me in this effort.

It might be interesting to analyze the words which allegedly describe God, and find out if they have a meaning at all. For example the omnimax attributes, or that “simplicity” or the frozen, static, unchanging existence of God… the problem is that there is no coherent, meaningful definition of God.

 

[Lucretius]

But there is no need to abuse words when you try to use them in a different context. If “love” is inapplicable for a psychopath who commits, allows, permits torture, then you commit the “fallacy of the stolen concept” if you try to apply “love” to God.

It is ludicrous to “steal” words with well-defined meanings, and apply them outside their scope. It can only serve one thing: “spread confusion”.

I’m not sure why you two are having this argument, but I agree with Solmyr: words are human artifacts, which can be used to facilitate communications about the meaning of things, or can confuse it.

So for example, if an person gives a definition of atheism that I don’t like, I don’t debate the semantics, but rather simply work how they are defining themselves. On the other side, the person sould learn that language is a shared dimension, and so going out of the way to redefine words, far from the standard definition, will make others confused about what they mean. Communication is a two man job, at least

If you want to get passed all these semantics, don’t look at the words of the person, look at what they mean! Not the word, but the concept they mean behind the word!

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Solmyr]

I’m not sure why you two are having this argument, but I agree with Solmyr: words are human artifacts, which can be used to facilitate communications about the meaning of things, or can confuse it.

So for example, if an person gives a definition of atheism that I don’t like, I don’t debate the semantics, but rather simply work how they are defining themselves. On the other side, the person sould learn that language is a shared dimension, and so going out of the way to redefine words, far from the standard definition, will make others confused about what they mean. Communication is a two man job, at least

If you want to get passed all these semantics, don’t look at the words of the person, look at what they mean! Not the word, but the concept they mean behind the word!

I am thankful for your participation, and agree with you.