How does one respond to the fairy, leprechaun unicorn, etc. comparisons?

[Sarpedon]

What is “real” in your opinion?

That which has being. I simply see no reason to restrict being to empiricism.

You see, these questions are similar to “why does a carbon atom have 4 chemical bonds, while hydrogen has only one?”. Such questions cannot be answered, and should not be asked. There are brute facts which are not susceptible to questioning.

Such dogmatism!

How can you justify this? Why can’t I question them?

Furthermore, that’s not the point- I never said that STEM could not be existence. Rather, I drew some implications about existence from STEM. There’s nothing unnatural about that. Sure, we can say that STEM is existence, like you say- but what about the implications? I’m not even questioning your principal. I’m drawing out conclusions from your principal. Are you willing to address those conclusions, or are they off limits to thought as well?

You say that God is eternal and immutable, etc… If I would ask what is the reason for that, you would reject my question on the grounds, that God’s attributes are what they are, they belong to the “brute fact” category, and therefore they cannot be questioned ot answered.

No, that’s not how I would answer them at all. I would answer them along these lines:

STEM is particular, and it takes on forms naturally. Thus, an element of change is inherent in STEM. Now, if STEM is equal to existence, then there is an element of change inherent in existence. However, this has two major implications. One is that existence itself can change, which wreaks havoc with our ability to have knowledge. Knowledge necessitates real things, but if there is no actual standard of reality to form a basis for our knowledge, then our knowledge is only of things in a temporary sense. When existence itself can change, the world is stripped of any natural rational and objective order. Therefore, we have no basis for making predictions on rational laws. Furthermore, I see no way to account for the presence of forms within STEM. If STEM is existence, then STEM is perfectly real. I see no reason for a perfectly real thing to take on various changing and limited forms.

So, there are problems with equating STEM with existence. On the other hand, if STEM is real because it draws upon existence, as something distinct from it, these problems are solved. Because existence is unchanging, there is an objective layer to provide a rational framework for our knowledge. In addition, STEM can change because it can draw upon existence in different ways, and more fully come in or out of existence. Because STEM exists in a framework, it is free to move about that framework. If STEM is the framework, then I see direction it could move.

This is a rough outline of how I would answer your question. There are several different approaches one could take, and that’s what philosophers do all the time. However, it is simply not true that theists think God’s existence and attributes are brute fact. Rather, they are drawn out of an analysis of reality and the existent order, whatever and wherever it is. Whether or not there are any “brute facts” is open to question, but Catholic philosophy does not need to rely on such dogmatism.

 

[R_Daneel]

That which has being.

And this gives a “meaning” to “real existence”? And what is “being”? It is not “existence”, per se, since you used the qualifier of “real existence”.

I simply see no reason to restrict being to empiricism.

As soon as you show me something that cannot be experienced and which is not a figment of our imagination (that would be no simple undertaking) I will be convinced.

How can you justify this? Why can’t I question them?

Of course you “can”. The air or the paper or the electronic medium we use now do not differentiate and will “transmit any question”. If you are so inclined you may / can ask “when did you stop beating your wife?” or “what is to the north of the North Pole?”. You can ask anything you want to, just don’t expect others to take it seriously.

Furthermore, that’s not the point- I never said that STEM could not be existence. Rather, I drew some implications about existence from STEM. There’s nothing unnatural about that. Sure, we can say that STEM is existence, like you say- but what about the implications? I’m not even questioning your principal. I’m drawing out conclusions from your principal. Are you willing to address those conclusions, or are they off limits to thought as well?

I certainly will, if I can.

No, that’s not how I would answer them at all. I would answer them along these lines:

What you said has nothing to do with a question which might pertain to God. You keep talking about STEM. So let me ask again: why does God have those attributes that he allegedly has?

 

[ContegoFides]

If I arrive at the scene later, then the the fact is simple: “there is a shattered watermelon”. The cause of the fact (how did the watermelon get into this state) belongs to the “explanation part”. If I am at the scene at the time when you fire the gun, then the fact is “I observe you to fire a gun, and the watermelon is blown apart”. The fact is what we we can observe. As I said, skeptics do not deny the facts, only the explanation part can be reasonably questioned.

Right, but my main point here is that the facts are not what are most interesting, the “why” and “what will we do about it” are more interesting than the facts. My secondary point is even facts themselves are not to be fully trusted. You address the implications of these points below, and I’ll respond below.

I don’t disagree. If I knew for a fact, that God exists, it would not compel me to do something (like worshipping that God). (Now, I must diverge here for a second. Many times people said that God does not want to establish his existence, because that would “rob” us from freely choosing him or reject him. Based upon what you said, this argument is total nonsense.)

It’s true that knowing for certain that God exists would not rob us of free will. Many believers know for sure that God exists (in their own minds according to you, but bear with me) and yet still sin. Each sin is a turning away from God to a greater or lesser extent - so clearly knowing of God does not compel obedience or love.

Which makes sense because God’s stated purpose (address that below) is to have an intimate relationship with us, such that our final destiny is to “look” upon his “face” outside of time (Heaven). However, to have a real relationship, free will is required. To make free will meaningful, the choice must be real. Thus, we may refuse this relationship of our own volition and turn away upon death (Hell). It is because God is outside of time that makes the consequence of the choice “eternal” (timeless is better).

But I digress.

There is no “stated” purpose that I can recognize. of course many people attest to God’s “purpose”, but I am skeptical, if they really have a direct line to God, and if God personally advised them about this “purpose” .

If you refuse to acknowledge God’s existence, then naturally you will not see a stated purpose - for you will reject the entire chain of logic that leads there. That chain of logic begins with acknowledgement of His existence to Jesus claim to be God. Without veering too much off course, the most reasonable (not logically compelled) conclusion of arguments and inferences is that Jesus’ claim is probably true - which (if accepted) in turn gives His Church real authority. Through the teachings of the Church and Scripture (the twin pillars of scripture and Tradition), we come to know that God’s stated purpose is that every person be “saved” (voluntarily come back into a personal relationship with their creator).

As noted, if you don’t get to first base (acknowleding God), then naturally you’ll reject the rest.

There is an ongoing discussion about this very question, and I include a link to my post over there: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6883685&postcount=118 It deals with the first cause or cosmological argument. Let’s not repeat it in this thread.

That thread is closed (at least all I got was a close window when I went there and read your argument). However, I think your reasoning is logically flawed on the nature of what first cause must be. Logically the First Cause must itself have no cause as logically there can be no time before time. Otherwise, you are going to have to ask about another cause and you haven’t answered the question. An infinite chain of causation is meaningless, and thus may be rejected. The First Cause must simply exist in an absolute sense, outside of time, and be pure act (in order to create the second cause).

Science cannot answer First Cause, either by observation or theory. It has tried, positing things like the flat universe, multiverse, or several other theories (as a person who has studied cosmology I’m familiar with them). However, logically none of them really answer the question posed by Stephen Hawking (ironically an atheist), “what is it that breathed fire into the equations and made a universe for them to describe?”

Reason demands an answer - for clearly we exist, and our existence must have a cause. I cannot compel that the answer must be God, nor can you provide any evidence at all that the answer must not be God. Therefore, we are both left to our wits. Philosophically, it is more reasonable to believe that there is a God - for the First Cause must exist in and of itself, and it must have the will to create (without this will there would be no subsequent cause). Because the First Cause exists in and of itself, it has no need to create. Because First Cause has no need, but has a will to create, First Cause must be “loving” - to give of itself for the sake of another without reward. So, First Cause logically must exist in and of itself, have a will, and be loving. Starting to look like God… I can go on from there, but suspect you’ll go after some statement I’ve made.

 

[ContegoFides]

Essentially true, but don’t read too much into it. Skeptics also accept lots of unobserved asserions without a demand to have an explicit demonstration, just like you do. We both have an internal dividing line which is subjective and which allows one to decide: “I will accept this claim without verification” but “I will only accept that claim if it can be verifed”. The difference is where we draw this line. I bet if someone would come to you and say that he invented a new medication to cure cancer, and would ask you to support the marketing and he would need all your money and all your propery to do it, you would become a skeptic. If you would not want some verification before you would fork over your money, back account, your house and your car, then I hereby officially make the above claim.

Indeed, I would expect evidence of a claim to a cure to cancer. Likewise, it is reasonable to expect some kind of reasons (not “proof”) for faith. These may be found not only in philosophical reasoning, but also by personal experience.

Nevertheless, it remains true that the skeptic is essentially without trust. That dividing line you mention, for the skeptic, is based on how closely a claim matches up with personal experience of previously demonstrated scientific facts - which may only be overcome by mutually observed facts (the scientific method).

Given the wealth of subject matter which cannot match up with this line, there’s not much the skeptic can actually trust. Worse yet, there is no measuring stick for determining how or why to behave.

 

[ContegoFides]

I cannot think about establishing a relationship with someone, whose very existence is questionable.

Addressed previous post.

Oh brother! This short paragraph would need pages and pages to reply. What other measuring rod is there than our, human one? Here is a link for you to read: infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html Do not be offended.

I’m not offended. This story raises the mystery of suffering, particularly of moral evil, in a particularly effective way. The story also raises the argument that suffering - particularly that brought about by moral evil - appears contrary to a loving God. This is an issue that demands a compelling answer.

First, I’ll answer your question. The other measuring rod is God’s. Naturally, we can’t know God’s measuring rod; that is why we are called upon to trust. Faith is not belief without question, it is trust without reservation.

Second, on the mystery of suffering. The story, while compelling, ignores a critical question and assumes a-priori that the end of the matter happens when the woman dies - that there’s nothing further to the tale. IF the story ended there - and IF that was the extent of God’s response - then, yes: God would indeed appear evil.

However, God’s answer to moral evil, all of which derives from us, was not to deliver us from it but rather to come down and 1) suffer with us and 2) redeem our sins (turning away from Him) by paying the price of sin (death) for us. Additionally, 3) we can participate in his redeeming work through our own suffering, united spiritually to His cross. These concepts are at the absolute core of Christianity - the Cross and ressurection of Jesus.

So, let’s go back to this story. This woman suffered horrifically. Jesus, in his divinity, suffered with her. Her own suffering, united to Jesus’ suffering, could not only contribute to her own redemption, but to the redemption of others - including the redemption of the officers who sinned by refusing to help her and perhaps even of the rapist himself.

When she died, her soul would “see” God face to face. Although she suffered horribly, that suffering could bring her into a much deeper understanding of who God is. That deeper understanding allows for a deeper relationship. The deeper the relationship, the greater the person knows God. The greater a person knows God, the more intense the joy.

Again, that is what Heaven is - knowing God without boundaries. The more deeply you are with God, the greater your fulfillment and Joy. No one can be fully with God other than God - but different people can have different experiences of God. That is what is meant by people having different “rewards” in Heaven.

So, let me complete the story.

Although brutally tortured and murdered, Jesus was with her in her suffering - even if Jesus allowed the suffering without mitigation. In her suffering she came to know Jesus’s suffering, a suffering which He freely offered for our redemption and to show us how much He loves us. When she died, her soul came face to face with God and - now knowing him more deeply - came into a joy and peace and fulfillment far more profound than any she could have known had she not been brutally tortured and murdered. Through Jesus’ death and ressurection, she may enjoy timeless (eternal) life with God. This reward is not only “infinite” - but it is far, far beyond any of the suffering she endured despite the most malicious efforts the murderer could conceive of.

As for the officers and the rapist who remains, there is both the potential for mercy and redemption, or rejection and damnation. Despite their wicked deeds, they could repent of their sins and ask God for His mercy (which is infinite). If genuine, they too could enter Heaven (“knowing” God “face to face”). However, not having suffered as the woman, they cannot know God as initmiately - so their “reward” is lesser in that they do not have the same degree of peace, fulfillment, and joy.

Though should they not repent, and of their own volition reject God upon death, then they suffer the consequence of separation from God. This pain is not really measurable, but we may sense it in a dull and remote way in the sense of a young child’s separation from his or her mother. The more remote the separation, and the more complete the rejection, then the greater the resulting pain. Thus, the murderer and rapist might possibly expect a greater degree of suffering in Hell than the officers who sinned by refusing to help.

So, God’s infinite justice and infinite mercy intersect at the Cross. When the whole story is told, the outcome is quite different, as is the conclusion.

 

[ContegoFides]

You concentrated too much on the particlars of this example, and not on what it represents. The spouse tells you that she has been forced by some threat and she never failed to love you. And then about 100 times the same thing happens with 100 different partners. Every time she asserts that she has been forced. It is even possible that she tells the truth every time. You only have your trust in her word. How many times does this have to happen before your trust is shattered (like that watermelon)? ]

I understand your example. However, for the alegory to hold true there must be a corresponding feeling of betrayal. In other words, I might say that I have no sense that God has betrayed me - so I have no sense my trust is shattered like the watermelon and I don’t see how the example of the unfaithful spouse applies at all.

So, how do you feel betrayed by God?

Yes, it might not be true. But whom should I trust more than my own judgment?

Facetiously, I’d say God of course. But then I’d be accused of a tautology. Ironically, the answer regarding whom you should trust more than yourself realy is God. However, that trust must begin by acknowleding His existence - a position that may be reasonably (not compelled to be) arrived at based on philosophical inference and observation of effect. Once that acknowledgement has been made, you can start down the path of establishing a relationship with God. The further you go down that path, the more personal your experience becomes and the more you “feel” God’s presence.

To see this effect in action, look at how most people react in the presence of so-called living saints (Mother Theresa, Padre Pio, and others). There is a universal sense that these people are deeply at peace and in fact exude God’s presence. That did not happen automatically or by accident, but rather by their total dedication to developing a relationship with God.

Yes. Sixty four years seems to be a long enough time. But this also contradicts that God did not want to reveal himself to me up until this day, but may do so sometime in the future. What would change God’s immutable mind?

God doesn’t change; we change. Sixty four years may not have been long enough for you, based on your own past (which I do not know and I do not presume to know). People have converted to worship God in the Catholic Church when older; I have personally seen it happen (70s or 80s). As for me, it took not quite 40 years (though I was never really an atheist, I didn’t really believe and act like I believed until much later in life).

Value judgments and abstract concepts have no ontological existence. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Sure they do; just ask Hitler. More seriously, though, abstract concepts are Real. Just because they may be ephemeral, does not mean that they are not real. You and I may independently agree on a definition of atheism, and communicate that concept to othes who may carry it on. Thus, something real has been created, even if it does not have physical existence and even if it is ephemeral.

Anger? At what? There is no anger here, just the lack of a sign, which I can recongize as a sign.

I apologize if I presumed. I deduced an implied anger based on how you were arguing, certain emphases, etc. However, it is notoriously difficult to get accurate emotional cues correct through writing without making them explicit.

 

[Sarpedon]

And this gives a “meaning” to “real existence”? And what is “being”? It is not “existence”, per se, since you used the qualifier of “real existence”.

I’m not completely sure how historical philosophers used it, but I would say that existence is something which our intellect apprehends as pertaining to the order of things. Naturally, this category of “things” includes STEM, but it is not necessarily limited to it. Being is basically equivalent to existence. At a certain level, we begin to deal with transcendentals which cannot be fully described. We can’t exhaustively describe existence because it forms the furthest back that we can go. Nevertheless, we can examine whether our characterization of existence holds up to what we are able to deduce.

As soon as you show me something that cannot be experienced and which is not a figment of our imagination (that would be no simple undertaking) I will be convinced.

That’s a loaded question. What is a “figment of the imagination?” I am not going to describe anything unless you tell me what that is. Otherwise, you have a free check to write off anything I say!

What you said has nothing to do with a question which might pertain to God. You keep talking about STEM. So let me ask again: why does God have those attributes that he allegedly has?

First off, Catholics identify God with existence itself. Hence, “I AM WHO AM.”

So it’s not so much a question of whether some bearded guy has those attributes. Rather, it’s simply a question of what attributes existence must have. Both atheists and theists recognize a fundamental principal of existence. They differ on what that principal is.

Atheists identify STEM with existence. The problem with this is that STEM is particular (meaning having distinct and limited forms), and that STEM changes. This has a number of implications. The presence of change and structure within STEM means that existence itself changes and has forms. I see no reason why something that is perfectly real, like existence, would change and differentiate. This has to do with the aspect of becoming. When things change, they become- and I do not see how existence itself could become
anything. What is becoming when not measured against the standard of real things? If STEM is perfectly real as existence itself, how could it become differentiated in any form?

So, some philosophers posit existence as something behind the world of particular things. STEM changes and differentiates into forms. Since this is possible, it seems that STEM exists within a framework. Change without a reference point makes little sense. So, if there is the framework behind STEM, then this framework must be existence itself. As something distinct from STEM, existence is free to be uniform, perfect, and unchanging, as reason indicates it ought to be.

In short, it goes like this. Some posit STEM as existence. This has major problems because of change and form. Others consider this and deduce that STEM must participate in a framework that does not change or have form. Therefore, there is such a framework. Catholics name this framework God.

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m not completely sure how historical philosophers used it, but I would say that existence is something which our intellect apprehends as pertaining to the order of things. Naturally, this category of “things” includes STEM, but it is not necessarily limited to it. Being is basically equivalent to existence.

You see, this is a tautology, which is fine, of course. At the most fundamental level, we cannot go any deeper, and cannot reduce it to something even “more” fundamental. Existence cannot be “defined”, since a definition would mean to reduce it to something else. As you said: “being is basically equivalent to existence” - and I agree with you. Now you used the adjective “real”, you mentioned “real existence” - which I consider superfluous, unless you can tell me what “real existence” is as opposed to “unreal existence”?

At a certain level, we begin to deal with transcendentals which cannot be fully described.

I don’t begin to deal with transcendentals.

That’s a loaded question. What is a “figment of the imagination?” I am not going to describe anything unless you tell me what that is. Otherwise, you have a free check to write off anything I say!

Very well. I did not intend to make it a loaded question, but I suppose it can be viewed as such. So let me rephrase to avoid misunderstanding. We both agree that there is STEM - physical existence. We both agree (hopefully) that there are abstractions, which are mental constructs, which may or may not refer to STEM. Some of our abstractions refer to

1. physical entities (scientific theories, for example), some refer to
2. other abstractions (philosophy comes to mind), some refer to
3. fully imaginary entities (like fairy tales), and for me the list stops here.

I understand that for you the list does not stop here, you include the concepts of supernatural and you contend that these concepts actually refer to something that is not physical, which is not simply conceptual (or abstract), rather it has actual “existence”; something that is conscious without a physical brain and mind, something which can act without a physical body. For me this belongs to #3 above.

First off, Catholics identify God with existence itself. Hence, “I AM WHO AM.”

Yes. I will return to this at the end of this post.

So it’s not so much a question of whether some bearded guy has those attributes. Rather, it’s simply a question of what attributes existence must have. Both atheists and theists recognize a fundamental principal of existence. They differ on what that principal is.

Very true.

Atheists identify STEM with existence. The problem with this is that STEM is particular (meaning having distinct and limited forms), and that STEM changes. This has a number of implications. The presence of change and structure within STEM means that existence itself changes and has forms. I see no reason why something that is perfectly real, like existence, would change and differentiate. This has to do with the aspect of becoming. When things change, they become- and I do not see how existence itself could become anything. What is becoming when not measured against the standard of real things? If STEM is perfectly real as existence itself, how could it become differentiated in any form?

You see, this is a non-question for the atheists. STEM is what it is, it has attributes. These attributes cannot be separated from STEM. This is the most fundamental level of existence (for us). It cannot be reduced to anything “more” fundamental.

So, some philosophers posit existence as something behind the world of particular things. STEM changes and differentiates into forms. Since this is possible, it seems that STEM exists within a framework. Change without a reference point makes little sense.

Again, for atheists the framework is STEM itself. Its inseparable attributes are what they are.

So, if there is the framework behind STEM, then this framework must be existence itself. As something distinct from STEM, existence is free to be uniform, perfect, and unchanging, as reason indicates it ought to be.

In short, it goes like this. Some posit STEM as existence. This has major problems because of change and form. Others consider this and deduce that STEM must participate in a framework that does not change or have form. Therefore, there is such a framework. Catholics name this framework God.

Have to continue below… the 6000 character limitation bites again.

 

[R_Daneel]

Continued from above:

Now it is time to go back to “I AM WHO AM”. Since you referred to the Catholic concept of God, I think it is appropriate to go into a few details.

God is supposed to have quite a few attributes - not just a faceless “framework”. One is “simplicity”, meaning that God has no parts, everything in God is simply his “undivided essence”. Another one is “necessity”, meaning that God is not contingent on anything. Yet another one is “omniscience” - meaning that God knows everything that can be known. And there are some others, also very important ones. But for the time being, let’s concentrate on these three ones: simplicity, necessity (lack of contingency) and omniscience. These three yield a contradiction or an absurdity.

Here comes. There are three different possibilities:

1. God is omniscient, because we do exactly what God already knows. In other words, God’s knowledge causes what we do or not do. This leads to the idea that we are simply robots, and as such this causal relationship is discarded. We firmly believe (almost all of us) that we are free beings.
2. God is omniscient, because he knows what we do, without causing us to do it. This seems reasonable, at first glance. We are free beings, we do whatever we do, and God simply knows it. In other words, the causal relationship goes the other way: “our actions cause God’s knowledge”. But that leads to the conclusion that God’s knowledge (which is integral part of his essence) is contingent upon our actions - thus contradicting that God’s essence is necessary (not contingent).
3. There is a third possibility. We do freely whatever we do, God knows it a-priori, without either causing them and without our actions causing God’s knowledge. In other words, we have a coincidence of more than cosmic scale. Trillions and quadrillions of actions, which happen to coincide with God’s knowledge, without assuming a causal relatinship in either direction. And that is an absurdity.
   If you want to, you can disregard this post. It does not strictly belong here. But since you mentioned the Catholic concept of God, I felt that I should make these few observations.

 

[R_Daneel]

Dear ContegoFides.

I will reply to your posts. However, to compose a post sometimes takes several hours, and I will have to take a break. I find your remarks very valuable. See you in a short time.

 

[Sarpedon]

You see, this is a tautology, which is fine, of course. At the most fundamental level, we cannot go any deeper, and cannot reduce it to something even “more” fundamental. Existence cannot be “defined”, since a definition would mean to reduce it to something else. As you said: “being is basically equivalent to existence” - and I agree with you. Now you used the adjective “real”, you mentioned “real existence” - which I consider superfluous, unless you can tell me what “real existence” is as opposed to “unreal existence”?

I don’t remember using that phrase, and I did not mean anything deep if I did so. Real is basically the same as existence.

I understand that for you the list does not stop here, you include the concepts of supernatural and you contend that these concepts actually refer to something that is not physical, which is not simply conceptual (or abstract), rather it has actual “existence”; something that is conscious without a physical brain and mind, something which can act without a physical body.

First off, I do not understand why you think that consciousness and action are intrinsically necessary aspects of an existent thing. Rocks exist, yet exhibit none of those things.

I cannot help but notice your emphasis on “concepts” in your characterization of my position. While I do have concepts about metaphysics, you do too. I have a concept of a rock, and I argue that my concept is based on the existent order. The same goes for anything else I argue for. You are the same way. It is not as though I have concepts that I try to substantiate, and you do not.

You see, this is a non-question for the atheists. STEM is what it is, it has attributes. These attributes cannot be separated from STEM. This is the most fundamental level of existence (for us). It cannot be reduced to anything “more” fundamental.

I know, and that’s precisely the problem. You still have said nothing about change and form present in STEM, and how that can work as the framework of existence. I outlined problems that I see in your model. If you refuse to address these problems, and instead just say that your model is what it is, you will not convince me at all.

If STEM is existence, how can STEM change and have form?

 

[Sarpedon]

1) God is omniscient, because we do exactly what God already knows. In other words, God’s knowledge causes what we do or not do. This leads to the idea that we are simply robots, and as such this causal relationship is discarded. We firmly believe (almost all of us) that we are free beings.
​

As the principal of existence, and the framework in which all other existence takes part, God necessarily knows that existence. This is a key point. God’s knowledge is of things as they are.

God knows about pink unicorns, but only as such things actually are. Pink uniforms are not actually animals. They are concepts that real people have. Hence, God knows of the real human idea of pink unicorns. God also knows of pink unicorns as potential creatures, in the sense that they could exist as real physical creatures. However, they do not, so God has knowledge of the unicorns as potentially real animals, but not actually real animals. God has no knowledge of actually real animal pink unicorns because such things do not have existence, and hence do not exist under the framework of existence.

Now, consider willed human choice. Obviously, a willed human action must originate in a human will. Such choices do not exist before they are willed. Therefore, for God to know an actual human choice, that choice must be originated in the will of a human and made real.

There is no contradiction between free will and omniscience, because omniscience is knowledge of things are they are. Naturally, this includes a whole swath of potential things- such as possible unicorns, possible physical forms, and possible ideas. However, God has knowledge of these possible things precisely as possible things, not as real things.

God also has knowledge of actually real things. Therefore, he knows what actual human beings choose. However, this knowledge is not causative, because human beings are free and a freely willed choice must originate in the will of the person. God knows what actual people actually choose, but only because they actually choose it. Otherwise, it would be knowledge of potential choices, not actual choices. In terms of time, God knows these things outside of time, but that knowledge stems what what we do within time.

It’s actually fairly simple. For example, suppose I asked you what Lucy Pevensie chose to eat yesterday. That question has no actual answer, because Lucy is not an actual person. I can imagine potential answers to that question, in accordance with a potential Lucy- but all of that remains potential, and not real. An omniscient person would not know what Lucy actually ate yesterday, because that is not knowledge. He could know what she potentially could eat, but not what she actually ate.

In contrast, suppose I asked you what Obama chose to eat yesterday. That question has an actual answer because Obama is an actual person. It it entirely possible for me to know what Obama chose without causing him to choose that. I have knowledge of what an actual Obama actually chose to eat.

So, both of us are actual human beings, and we have free will. Therefore, we can freely choose things. God has knowledge of this as actual knowledge, because we are actual beings who can actually choose things. However, God’s knowledge is not causative, precisely because we are the ones who choose the things, that action henceforth becoming something real and knowable by God. God knows our actions timelessly as we know a painting- as something real, and hence knowable, but not caused by us. God knows where we end up, but only because we end up there. Otherwise, God’s knowledge would only be of where we could end up.​

 

[Sarpedon]

But that leads to the conclusion that God’s knowledge (which is integral part of his essence) is contingent upon our actions - thus contradicting that God’s essence is necessary (not contingent).

Omniscience is not predicated on particular knowledge. God’s nature is not to know exactly what we do. God’s nature is to know all knowable things. As I explained in the last post, as free human beings, we are capable of creating knowable things. God knows these things as He knows all. However, it is not necessary for us to create them in order to know all- without our creation, God still knows all that exists. There is just less for Him to know.

Consider a sequence, where each number is a free willed creation of a human:

1, 2, 3

God knows these choices as real things, because he is omniscient.

Now, suppose I create another choice, 4:

1, 2, 3, 4

God knows these expanded choices as real things, because he is omniscient. However, the addition of the 4 has not changed the fact that God is omniscient. God is perfectly omniscient in both examples, even though the object of that knowledge is different. Since God is outside of time, he knows all these things timeless, in totality- so there is no change in Him. In short, being omniscient means knowing all knowable things, and it does not matter how many and what kind of actually knowable things there are.

 

[R_Daneel]

Sorry about the delay.

First off, I do not understand why you think that consciousness and action are intrinsically necessary aspects of an existent thing. Rocks exist, yet exhibit none of those things.

Correct, but rocks do not “act” in any sense of the word. They simply exist.

I know, and that’s precisely the problem. You still have said nothing about change and form present in STEM, and how that can work as the framework of existence. I outlined problems that I see in your model. If you refuse to address these problems, and instead just say that your model is what it is, you will not convince me at all.

If STEM is existence, how can STEM change and have form?

In a sense we talk past each other. “Existence” is not a “thing” or a collection of “things” - it is a concept. You ask me “why” does STEM have the attributes that is does? I cannot answer. If you would ask why only 2 electrons can exist on the innermost electron orbital, I could not answer that either. And no one else could. Some things are just brute facts, which cannot be answered in a meaningful fashion. On the other hand, one could ask “why” does a pencil “look” broken if immersed in a glass or water. The answer will lead to the properties of refraction, the fact that the speed of light is different in air and water, so the explanation gives us insight. One cannot ask why the “bishop” on the chessboard can only move diagonally, it is simply a made-up rule - or a brute fact.

There is a fundamental trouble. We use the word “existence” in several different fashions. We talk about physical existence (P-existence), which is pretty straightforward. Something exists physically, if it can be detected by our senses, or an extension of our senses. We also say that concepts “exist”. But this existence cannot be detected by the senses. “Honesty”, “beauty”, “love” do not exist as physical objects. I don’t even like to say that these concepts “exist”. At best I would say that these concepts have “conceptual existence”, or “C-existence”. They do not exist apart from our consciouness. Concepts cannot “act”, they are inert. One cannot “examine” honesty.

But the language does not make this distinction, which leads to confusion.

 

[R_Daneel]

Omniscience is not predicated on particular knowledge. God’s nature is not to know exactly what we do. God’s nature is to know all knowable things. As I explained in the last post, as free human beings, we are capable of creating knowable things. God knows these things as He knows all. However, it is not necessary for us to create them in order to know all- without our creation, God still knows all that exists. There is just less for Him to know.

Consider a sequence, where each number is a free willed creation of a human:

1, 2, 3

God knows these choices as real things, because he is omniscient.

Now, suppose I create another choice, 4:

1, 2, 3, 4

God knows these expanded choices as real things, because he is omniscient. However, the addition of the 4 has not changed the fact that God is omniscient. God is perfectly omniscient in both examples, even though the object of that knowledge is different. Since God is outside of time, he knows all these things timeless, in totality- so there is no change in Him. In short, being omniscient means knowing all knowable things, and it does not matter how many and what kind of actually knowable things there are.

I am going to answer this and your previous post together.

First, we have complete agreement. I am not going to dispute anything you said. The only corollary is that God’s knowledge is contingent. It is contingent upon what exists (direct knowledge) and what could exist (middle-knowledge) and what could not exist. And that knowledge is contingent upon these facts. Therefore God’s essence which entails all his knowledge - is contingent. But that is contradicted by the assertion that God is not contingent on anything. That is all.

 

[R_Daneel]

Also, sorry to be so late in answering.

Reason demands an answer - for clearly we exist, and our existence must have a cause. I cannot compel that the answer must be God, nor can you provide any evidence at all that the answer must not be God. Therefore, we are both left to our wits.

If you talk about us as individuals, then our existence is answered by biology. We exists because our parents “created” us. If you talk about the universe, then you must have some specific argument that the universe requires an “outside” cause for its existence. Merely stipulating that there “must” be such causative relationship just does not cut it. By the way, maybe you wish to look at the link again. I tried it, and it works. The thread is still alive, and my post is still readable.

Philosophically, it is more reasonable to believe that there is a God - for the First Cause must exist in and of itself, and it must have the will to create (without this will there would be no subsequent cause). Because the First Cause exists in and of itself, it has no need to create. Because First Cause has no need, but has a will to create, First Cause must be “loving” - to give of itself for the sake of another without reward. So, First Cause logically must exist in and of itself, have a will, and be loving. Starting to look like God… I can go on from there, but suspect you’ll go after some statement I’ve made.

Sorry, none of these are logical corollaries to an assumed “outside” creator. But since the “creator” must be established first, it would be premature to go into details. Just a few observations. The creator might be inanimate, and not even be aware that its action lead to a creation. (Wind might create an avalanche, never “know about it”.) Or the creator might be conscious, and playfully or inadvertantly might have created the universe. Or the creator purposefully created the universe, out of sheer intellectual curiosity. Or the creator intentionally created the universe, and us within - out of malice, to observe out suffering (of which there is a lot)… There are many possibilities, and “love” would be the last one on my list.

 

[R_Daneel]

Indeed, I would expect evidence of a claim to a cure to cancer. Likewise, it is reasonable to expect some kind of reasons (not “proof”) for faith. These may be found not only in philosophical reasoning, but also by personal experience.

Nevertheless, it remains true that the skeptic is essentially without trust. That dividing line you mention, for the skeptic, is based on how closely a claim matches up with personal experience of previously demonstrated scientific facts - which may only be overcome by mutually observed facts (the scientific method).

Given the wealth of subject matter which cannot match up with this line, there’s not much the skeptic can actually trust. Worse yet, there is no measuring stick for determining how or why to behave.

Well, this would lead to another discussion. Suffice it to say that I am a skeptic, and there are many things I trust. Also there are normative guidelines (not commandments) which limit my behavior to “how” and “why” to behave as I do. But this should be discussed elsewhere.

 

[R_Daneel]

So, let me complete the story.

Although brutally tortured and murdered, Jesus was with her in her suffering - even if Jesus allowed the suffering without mitigation. In her suffering she came to know Jesus’s suffering, a suffering which He freely offered for our redemption and to show us how much He loves us. When she died, her soul came face to face with God and - now knowing him more deeply - came into a joy and peace and fulfillment far more profound than any she could have known had she not been brutally tortured and murdered. Through Jesus’ death and ressurection, she may enjoy timeless (eternal) life with God. This reward is not only “infinite” - but it is far, far beyond any of the suffering she endured despite the most malicious efforts the murderer could conceive of.

First, I am glad you did not feel offended. It was not my intent to offend.

Basically you agree with the ninth officer. Your analysis is based upon the assumption that she realized Jesus’ sacrifice and gained peace for that. That is merely an assumption. But the problem goes deeper than that. If her predicament was logically necessary for het to reap the reward, if, without that suffering she would not have been “admitted” to heaven, then her “reward” would have been merited. But there is no evidence for that. One cannot say that only the brutally tortured will get to heaven. The Catholic Church does not assert that. Therefore her suffering was not necessary, in other words, it was gratituous suffering. And that is contradictory to God’s loving nature. A necessary suffering can be justified, an unnecessary suffering cannot.

 

[tonyrey]

First, I am glad you did not feel offended. It was not my intent to offend.

Basically you agree with the ninth officer. Your analysis is based upon the assumption that she realized Jesus’ sacrifice and gained peace for that. That is merely an assumption. But the problem goes deeper than that. If her predicament was logically necessary for het to reap the reward, if, without that suffering she would not have been “admitted” to heaven, then her “reward” would have been merited. But there is no evidence for that. One cannot say that only the brutally tortured will get to heaven. The Catholic Church does not assert that. Therefore her suffering was not necessary, in other words, it was gratituous suffering. And that is contradictory to God’s loving nature. A necessary suffering can be justified, an unnecessary suffering cannot.

You are assuming that in heaven everyone is at the same level whereas perfect justice implies that our joy and fulfilment are in proportion to our sacrifices and achievements.
Nobility of spirit brings its own reward both in this life and the next…

 

[Sarpedon]

There is a fundamental trouble. We use the word “existence” in several different fashions. We talk about physical existence (P-existence), which is pretty straightforward. Something exists physically, if it can be detected by our senses, or an extension of our senses. We also say that concepts “exist”. But this existence cannot be detected by the senses. “Honesty”, “beauty”, “love” do not exist as physical objects. I don’t even like to say that these concepts “exist”. At best I would say that these concepts have “conceptual existence”, or “C-existence”. They do not exist apart from our consciouness. Concepts cannot “act”, they are inert. One cannot “examine” honesty.

You describe several different “types of existence.” You’re basically making these categories without defending them, but I don’t need to pursue that angle. While you make several categories, I imagine you would argue that these are real categories. Otherwise, what is the point of describing them? On what basis do you say that they are all real? We can only think under a single framework, and that is the relevant existence that we must pursue.

You still haven’t addressed my initial question at all, although these are indeed related side questions. Let’s assume that your p-existence is existence itself. In other words, STEM is p-existence, and existence is not some distinct thing that STEM draws upon. Let’s define the most fundamental principal as p-existence, which is STEM. This frees you from having to worry about your c-existence.

So, we have STEM as p-existence, which is the only “real” existence. Now, we observe both change and form within STEM. Since STEM is existence, why does it change? If STEM exists simply, why does it change into different forms? Why does existence “feel” the need to change away from what it already is?

I’ve totally accepted your characterization of existence. We are not talking past each other at this point. C-existence is not relevant to my question above. Assuming that the real, foundation principal is p-existence as STEM, why does STEM change?