L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Interesting. I still have a copy or two of " Mother Earth News " in the broad side era, before the followers all got rich and spoiled - but still Democrats.
Linus2nd
- Status
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
And who do you think made you? Surely you don’t think an accidental association of fundamental elements ( quarks, etc. ) is responsible for your thoughts, judgements, your appreciation of beauty, that little " voice " telling you to do what is good and not to do what is bad? What is that little voice anyway, how far back for you does it go? When did you first feel guilty for havin done somethig wrong? Why did you feel that way?
Can you tell me why I knew instinctively, at age 8, that certain sexual thoughts and certain sexual acts were wrong, when no one had ever mentioned to me anything associated with sex? Why did I know that to concent to any sexual thought, desire, or feeling was wrong?
Linus2nd
C
CandideWest
Guest
My parents.
No, we’re evolved social creatures. That’s why we have these features.
It’s your conscience. Most people have one. Some of the things in our conscience are instinctive (ie empathy) and some are learned either consciously or unconsciously from our parents and other in our social environment.
Most children learn rules of behaviour well before the point that memories which last into adulthood accrue. Same for me, as far back as I can remember I knew right from wrong, many of those rules were of course taught to me by my parents.
No, I can’t. I can’t even tell you if your belief that you had such opinions is correct. Interestingly neither can you, because people’s memories are very unreliable after a long period of time.
That’s why police try to get statements from witnesses immediately after the event. A matter of hours later some details may have been lost or altered in the memory, days or weeks later the brain may be honestly remembering something significantly different to what actually happened. When you’re talking in years, your brain can make up entire experiences which never happened.
I used to have such a memory from my childhood, I remembered a trip to Paris as a child in quite a bit of detail. It was years later when talking to my parents about it, I discovered that the trip had never occurred. The different memories which I had of that trip were actually separate events in other places and some were quite widely spaced in time, some of them never happened at all but may have been dreamed. My brain had in the intervening time stitched them together for me into a convenient story of having been to Paris with my parents.
Anyway, how on earth did you manage to have the thought that “certain sexual acts are wrong” without knowing what sexual acts exist? Surely believing that type 1. is ok and type 2. is immoral requires you to know that type 1. and 2. exist.
I don’t know, it seems counterintuitive to me. It’d be like knowing that you like humus but don’t like falafel without ever having heard of either humus or falafel.
All that makes me dubious of your claims here, I think it’s likely that either
a). You didn’t have these opinions at the time, but your memories since have backfilled so that you remember having them.
Or
b). You had in fact heard things about sex at this age and learned enough to make some pseudo-moralistic statements based on that information. After all, there are many sources from which you could have encountered such opinions and subsequently forgotten having encountered them.
S
Sochi
Guest
Dear Linusthe2nd.
CandideWest’s analysis is spot on. There is a wonderful scholarly book used even in Catholic courses on comparative religion. It outlines some of the principles and uses of General Semantics as applied to–in this case–religious thinking. It is used in those courses despite what to many Catholics is an immediately repulsive first part of a title. It comes highly recommended by many faith leaders because of the efficacy of its examples and ideas pertinent to critical thinking that most seem to be strangers to. And yes, there are other books on critical thinking, but this one is, despite its age, highly commendable specifically because it is so well annotated and referenced to scriptural study. It is called (hold on to your hat!) Insights for the Age of Aquarius: a handbook for religious sanity. It is by Gina Cerminara, who, though she has written other books not in line with the understandings of most christianists, has in this case gone beyond her best in a field mostly unrelated to her other works. I cannot recommend it strongly enough for anyone of any faith or lacking such.
“Faith and belief are a surrender of the intellect” ~Barbara Ehrenreich — a rationalist, atheist and scientist by training — has written a new memoir called Living With a Wild God: A Nonbeliever’s Search for the Truth about Everything. A nonbeliever tries to make sense of the visions she had as a teen. This is included as an idea to look at, because of the blatant inherent fallacy suggested by the thread title, that two identical concepts has one superior to the other by dint of a non sequitur pseudo syllogism.
capradio.org/news/npr/story?storyid=300520210
K
KingCoil
Guest
You see, dear readers here, there has got to be concurrences between two or more parties in an exchange.
First, they must concur on the topic of the exchange, in the present thread I am the one proposing the topic of the thread, which is “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”
Second, they must concur on the crucial vocabulary involved in the topic, like the concept of God; now, I being the author of the topic has the right and burden to propose the concept of God, if the participating parties insist on different concepts of God, then we work together honestly in accordance with genuine intelligence grounded on logic and facts what should be the concept of God – it is at this point that satanic obstructionists will insist that there is no need to concur on concepts because it is all semantics.
Third, they must I mean participants in the topic must also concur on steps to be used by everyone in the discussion of the topic; and what are these steps? Like this rule of inference, that anything with a beginning has need of a cause to bring it into existence, another one, that from facts which are in this respect evidence, man can come to the existence of an object or event which are connected inevitably to the evidence – that is why evidence leads man to the existence of an object or event being controverted, and the task is to detect and discover and unearth the connection between what facts (evidence) are connected inevitably to the controverted existence of the object or event to be proven to exist.
Fourth, as all participants of sincerity and genuine intelligence founded on logic and facts proceed in the course of the discussion on an issue, whenever they come to some instance where they do not agree, then they must work sincerely and with an honest and open and productive mind to come to concurrence and thus resolve the conflict; otherwise any party or parties not willing to work to resolve the conflict which is stymieing the discussion, they must just say good-bye to the discussion.
Fifth, as all parties of honesty and intelligence proceed in the discussion, they must all the time look out for satanic obstructionists and juniors reluctanists, because these are the scoundrels who are in the discussion not to contribute to its resolution but to prevent its resolution, motivated by ill will to mess up the whole exercise.
Dear readers, please keep track of posters here who are into sending messages in this thread, see if they observe these steps in the process of discussion of the topic of this thread, which is “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”
KingCoil
PS Of course as often as conflicts come about in the discussion, all parties must exert efforts to work together, and no one can just insist that he cannot do any inferential thinking at all, cannot think any further, for example, like from the point of the beginning of the universe, to breach into the situation in which situation of ontological reality the universe had not begun to exist, namely, that he cannot use his brain any further from that point onward to advance to the status in which status the universe had not yet come into existence: in which constriction from the part of his breain, he should just leave the discussion – and not continue to obstruct the discussion by his continual appeal to his argument from impotency.
First, they must concur on the topic of the exchange, in the present thread I am the one proposing the topic of the thread, which is “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”
Second, they must concur on the crucial vocabulary involved in the topic, like the concept of God; now, I being the author of the topic has the right and burden to propose the concept of God, if the participating parties insist on different concepts of God, then we work together honestly in accordance with genuine intelligence grounded on logic and facts what should be the concept of God – it is at this point that satanic obstructionists will insist that there is no need to concur on concepts because it is all semantics.
Third, they must I mean participants in the topic must also concur on steps to be used by everyone in the discussion of the topic; and what are these steps? Like this rule of inference, that anything with a beginning has need of a cause to bring it into existence, another one, that from facts which are in this respect evidence, man can come to the existence of an object or event which are connected inevitably to the evidence – that is why evidence leads man to the existence of an object or event being controverted, and the task is to detect and discover and unearth the connection between what facts (evidence) are connected inevitably to the controverted existence of the object or event to be proven to exist.
Fourth, as all participants of sincerity and genuine intelligence founded on logic and facts proceed in the course of the discussion on an issue, whenever they come to some instance where they do not agree, then they must work sincerely and with an honest and open and productive mind to come to concurrence and thus resolve the conflict; otherwise any party or parties not willing to work to resolve the conflict which is stymieing the discussion, they must just say good-bye to the discussion.
Fifth, as all parties of honesty and intelligence proceed in the discussion, they must all the time look out for satanic obstructionists and juniors reluctanists, because these are the scoundrels who are in the discussion not to contribute to its resolution but to prevent its resolution, motivated by ill will to mess up the whole exercise.
Dear readers, please keep track of posters here who are into sending messages in this thread, see if they observe these steps in the process of discussion of the topic of this thread, which is “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God.”
KingCoil
PS Of course as often as conflicts come about in the discussion, all parties must exert efforts to work together, and no one can just insist that he cannot do any inferential thinking at all, cannot think any further, for example, like from the point of the beginning of the universe, to breach into the situation in which situation of ontological reality the universe had not begun to exist, namely, that he cannot use his brain any further from that point onward to advance to the status in which status the universe had not yet come into existence: in which constriction from the part of his breain, he should just leave the discussion – and not continue to obstruct the discussion by his continual appeal to his argument from impotency.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
And who made them, etc., etc., etc.
I’m sure we are in some sense, but that really doesn’t answer the question…
But our conscience operates on a much wider scale than could have been inculcated by our parents. Example, when my sister and I were supposed to be taking a nap ( age 6-7 ), I was angry. I found a half dead wasp and put in down the back of her blouse - I felt real guilty about that for a long time. My parents could not have given me any instruction that would cause that feeling of guilt.
And is the conscience of a spiritual or material nature?
I’m sure that is true in a general way but not so much specifically.
Mine were very true, I remember them very specifically. There were five I specifically remember. There is no way I could have been " instructed " or warned about them. I will tell you about two, since they were the same. In one I was asked ( age about 8 to play postoffice at a birthday party. In the second a girl asked me to come to her house and play doctor. I knew both were wrong and refused both times after a warning from my conscience. ( of course much, much later I learned to ignore these warnings but could never get rid of them, they still came, wanted or not ).
I didn’t know the word " sexual " at the time, it was the situations which activated my conscience. All I knew is that I shouldn’t do what had been suggested that I should avoid somthing. It was much later in life that I learned that these were " sexual " temptations…
No, there was no back filling, I can remember all the details.
All my parents would have said or any relative would have been quite general. There is the possibility of " transfer " from the very general to the very specific, but I don’t understand how that could take place in a child.
P.S. I was always an onery little devil.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
The problem is that from a scientific and/or from a philosophical point of view there is no reason to suppose that the universe has not always existed.
Linus2nd
K
KingCoil
Guest
Thanks, Linus2, for your post.
Why not put your statement in a positive format?
You see, Candide at one time already indicated as much that one alternative to the question of the cause of the universe is that it has always existed, period.
But later on like the snail’s antennae or a turtle’s appendages he withdrew, he took on a new tack, slithering out and away like a snake, imagining that I did not notice.
That is one satanic obstructionist of a die-hard fanatical bigot atheist whose intention is to not engage constructively, but to put up all kinds of quibbles to impede the fruitful advance of an argumentation, between two otherwise both decent sincere seekers of facts observing all the orderliness protocols in debate.
I will not pursue you on your penchant for negative talking instead of direct positive talking, which I suspect is an ingrained peculiar attitude from your part as a deep deep deep learned forum snob.
Okay, back to the universe having always existed, I have no problem with that and the existence of God.
And the explanation is because the universe has a part that changes, and a part that does not; the part that does not is the cause of the part that does change,
That part that is subject to changes which makes up the physical universe that has a beginning, that is the change, from nothing to something, the first ever change of something that did not exist at all except as a possibility in the mind of the primal author of all existence with a beginning.
And that part that exists always eternally as I said several times in this Catholic Answers forum is the cause of everything with a beginning.
How does that jibe with my topic, “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God?”
Simple, as I have always said, the concept of God first and foremost in the Christian faith is that he is the creator of the universe, but we may and I do ask, which part of universe? that part that is subject to changes and is actually in a change process, and its first ever change was to pass from the status of nothing to the status of something, which marks the beginning of its existence, namely, again, by the causation of the part that does not change and is eternal, that part called in the Christian faith as the creator of heaven and earth.
So, with that concept of God as creator of heaven and earth, we march forth into the universe, the physical part, to search for the cause of anything with a beginning; and in the search expedition we come to the conclusion that everything in the physical universe has a beginning, and scientists tell us that the whole physical universe has a beginning: wherefore we infer to the existence of God the cause of everything in the physical universe, because everything in the physical universe including the whole physical universe has a beginning, and on this account it has a cause outside itself to arrive at existence.
But how come we do not see the cause of this physical universe?
Simple: because it is of a substance the nature of which makes it larger than the physical universe and more subtle than any minutest particles, and fields, and forces, and laws of physics and laws of nature in the universe.
That is why the God creator is both cause and operator of the physical universe, just like in a way on the smallest scale imaginable compared to God, the human inventor operator of a computer.
KingCoil
You know, Linus2, why do you put your statement in a negative format?
You are one deep deep deep learned snob in forums, I presume, presume because I have not had much contacts with you, but I have read enough to have an impression of you and Poly and perhaps also Sochi to be deep deep deep learned snobs in forums.
Why not put your statement in a positive format?
Anyway, your statement is connected to the thread’s topic.
You see, Candide at one time already indicated as much that one alternative to the question of the cause of the universe is that it has always existed, period.
But later on like the snail’s antennae or a turtle’s appendages he withdrew, he took on a new tack, slithering out and away like a snake, imagining that I did not notice.
That is one satanic obstructionist of a die-hard fanatical bigot atheist whose intention is to not engage constructively, but to put up all kinds of quibbles to impede the fruitful advance of an argumentation, between two otherwise both decent sincere seekers of facts observing all the orderliness protocols in debate.
I will not pursue you on your penchant for negative talking instead of direct positive talking, which I suspect is an ingrained peculiar attitude from your part as a deep deep deep learned forum snob.
Okay, back to the universe having always existed, I have no problem with that and the existence of God.
And the explanation is because the universe has a part that changes, and a part that does not; the part that does not is the cause of the part that does change,
That part that is subject to changes which makes up the physical universe that has a beginning, that is the change, from nothing to something, the first ever change of something that did not exist at all except as a possibility in the mind of the primal author of all existence with a beginning.
And that part that exists always eternally as I said several times in this Catholic Answers forum is the cause of everything with a beginning.
How does that jibe with my topic, “How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God?”
Simple, as I have always said, the concept of God first and foremost in the Christian faith is that he is the creator of the universe, but we may and I do ask, which part of universe? that part that is subject to changes and is actually in a change process, and its first ever change was to pass from the status of nothing to the status of something, which marks the beginning of its existence, namely, again, by the causation of the part that does not change and is eternal, that part called in the Christian faith as the creator of heaven and earth.
So, with that concept of God as creator of heaven and earth, we march forth into the universe, the physical part, to search for the cause of anything with a beginning; and in the search expedition we come to the conclusion that everything in the physical universe has a beginning, and scientists tell us that the whole physical universe has a beginning: wherefore we infer to the existence of God the cause of everything in the physical universe, because everything in the physical universe including the whole physical universe has a beginning, and on this account it has a cause outside itself to arrive at existence.
But how come we do not see the cause of this physical universe?
Simple: because it is of a substance the nature of which makes it larger than the physical universe and more subtle than any minutest particles, and fields, and forces, and laws of physics and laws of nature in the universe.
That is why the God creator is both cause and operator of the physical universe, just like in a way on the smallest scale imaginable compared to God, the human inventor operator of a computer.
KingCoil
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
My friend I know what Faith is because I have lived it for 74 years, and I know what Aristotelian/Aquinas Philosophy is because I have studied it for 50 years. I see no conflict between reason and faith. Faith accompanies reason and takes over at the point reason reaches its limit, at the point when the evidence of reason makes faith reasonable.
I don’t need to wander into private revelations, since that has never been valid as applying to anyone except the individual having the " visions. " And then only under the guidance of a very good spiritual director. And I have no need to wander into esoteric theories of mind.
Linus2nd
C
CandideWest
Guest
My grandparents. And their parents, and their parents. etc., etc., etc… Nice and straightforward.
Well it does actually. You essentially asked why we have social behaviours. The reason is that we evolved as social creatures.
Why not? Your parents would probably have told you not to hurt or upset your sister. You knew that putting a wasp down her blouse was likely to hurt her or make her upset. Thus you knew you were breaking a rule you’d been given.
Quite aside from that there’s also the instinctive empathic response which you would no doubt have felt that you wouldn’t have liked something similar to happen to you.
Your conscience arises from the normal operation of the brain. A combination of the instinctive (hard wired) elements like empathy, and the learned rules of social interaction.
No, generally parents try to teach general rules for behaviour like
“don’t hurt people”
rather than highly specific rules like
“don’t poke people with needles”,
“don’t poke people with pins”,
“do’t poke people with sticks”,
“don’t poke people with…”
The general rules are much more useful and easy to teach. Children are able to work out specific cases from those general rules.
Oh, is that all you’re talking about. Well in that case yes there’s two obviously likely sources, an instinctive sort of embarrassment response, or learning from others in your social group. After all, you would almost certainly have encountered such ideas before you were actually asked by someone.
Sure, that makes sense.
Yes, that’s exactly what we would expect you to remember if your brain had back filled in these events. Therein lies the problem.
Why not? That’s how children learn all their rules. We learn to develop generalised rules from sets of responses we get in specific situations, and we learn to apply those general rules to specific situations we encounter subsequently.
Incidentally, where are you going with this? Just for the sake of discussion, let’s imagine we reached the point where we had confirmed that you had some specific opinion about some moral issue (which given the unreliability of our memories and the lack of any alternative sources is virtually impossible) and let’s assume that we couldn’t identify ANY possible source (which in this case we have already determined that we can identify potential sources) through which you could have acquired such an opinion.
Then what?
It looks to me as if we’ve then reached a mystery. If we could establish that you did in fact have that view then we simply say “ok, we don’t know why you had that view”. Doesn’t seem to be anywhere we can go from there.
C
CandideWest
Guest
Kingcoil,
Since you keep on so appalling misrepresenting discussions which we had I feel obliged to reply to you, even though I’m sure you’ll keep your fingers in your ears anyway. Otherwise anyone else who has just joined the thread might be deceived into believing that you are presenting an accurate explanation of previous discussions.
“there is no reason to suppose that the universe has not always existed.”
And
“there is reason to suppose that the universe has always existed.”
Right? So your substitution of one for the other is absurd.
Me and other posters went to lengths to show you that what you were doing was making an argument from ignorance. This was the point at which you abandoned trying to make rational arguments and resorted to insults.
I’ll leave others to answer your other errors as they are purely your own rather than misrepresentations of discussions with me.
Since you keep on so appalling misrepresenting discussions which we had I feel obliged to reply to you, even though I’m sure you’ll keep your fingers in your ears anyway. Otherwise anyone else who has just joined the thread might be deceived into believing that you are presenting an accurate explanation of previous discussions.
It’s worth noting that your interlocutors actually never did this. We asked what your concept of god was and agreed to work with the way you defined the term.
This is actually where we ran into trouble because the “inference” above is not valid, but you kept insisting it was and failed to provide an adequate argument to show that this was the case. In the absence of that your position collapsed into your current state of insulting and refusing to read posts from those who try to explain your errors to you.
Indeed, and not for example say “you’re all just satanic obstructionists and I’m not going to read your posts any more” because that would be silly, wouldn’t it.
Which of course you keep insisting was my position even though I never said anything of the sort and have specifically said is NOT my position.
I’m sure Linus will answer you himself here, but surely you at least understand that the following are two completely different statements
“there is no reason to suppose that the universe has not always existed.”
And
“there is reason to suppose that the universe has always existed.”
Right? So your substitution of one for the other is absurd.
It remains a possibility, I’ve been quite clear and explained, at length, many times, that the universe appears to have began 13.8 billion years ago, but we don’t know this to be true for certainty. It’s only our best information based on the available evidence.
No, what happened is that as you had such difficulty understanding that science couldn’t give 100% certainty I demonstrated why your argument still failed EVEN IF science could give 100% certainty on that point AND I hadn’t able to come up with any other possibilities.
Me and other posters went to lengths to show you that what you were doing was making an argument from ignorance. This was the point at which you abandoned trying to make rational arguments and resorted to insults.
Yes, insults like those.
I’ll leave others to answer your other errors as they are purely your own rather than misrepresentations of discussions with me.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Sorry you think so. We obviously come to the discussion with a different background than your own, so we have a different thought process from yours.
Your original syllogism is as follows:
" 1. The fact, from scientists, the universe has a beginning some 13.8 billion years ago.
- The logic, anything with a beginning has a cause outside itself.
- The transit, Premise 1 is included within the circumference of the circle that is Premise 2, namely, it is one of the anything that has a beginning.
- The conclusion, therefore: the universe has need of a cause outside itself to have come into existence.
I disagree with point 1, science has not demonstrated this point with absolute certainty. And I have pointed out to you that philosophy cannot demonstrate it either. That is why I pointed out to you the value of Thomas Aquinas’ Five Ways. These establish the necessity of a Being who possesses some attributes that can only apply to the Christian God. That is the " bridge " between a Cause of all that is and the God of Reveltion. And Thomas has explained that this Cause would be necessarily, eternally creating all that exists. And then, when God gives man His Revelation, we make the necessary connection between Him and the God of philosophy.
And I disagree with 2 because 1 has not been establisted by either science or philosophy, and can be known only by Faith. As Thomas has pointed out in many places, if science and/or philosophy established definitely that the universe had an absolute beginning in time, it would be simple to establish that the God of Christianity existed. In that event, only the insane would deny His existence. In that event, most present day atheists would immediately become believers - only the insane would continue to maintain that He did not exist.
Now I think it is time you consider what I and others have been saying. You can start with On the Eternity of the World by T.A. here: dhspriory.org/thomas/english/DeEternitateMundi.htm
And then you can read the Five Ways here: dhspriory.org/thomas/english/summa/FP/FP002.html#FPQ2A3THEP1
Of course man has always had a vague notion of God, which was given to man by God at the beginning ( Genesis ), which remained as a dim recollection handed on from generation to generation, which morphed into a sort of " totem, " a dim but real " concept " of something existing bigger than himself, but having no specific outlines. And this would account for the " gods " of the pagans, which was fleshed out in the Philosophies of the Greeks, especially Plato and Aristotle. And it was the last which T.A. immediately recognized as the God of Genesis and Christianity.
The answers to the rest of your many questions should flow reasonably from this. I don’t have time to go into all that. But again I would urge you to read Edward Feser, especially his Aquinas and his newest book coming out in May, and take a good hard look at his blogspot…
I really have no disagreement with the remainder of your post, except where you give way t frustration. Yes, the Christian God is the Creator and Director of all that is and He exists outside of the universe which he created in time from nothing. And this is the God of Plato,Aristotle and Thomas, the God of Philosophy, the God whom the earlier pagans knew as a dim totem.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Your answers are certainly plausible, though I still don’t buy them. I guess because I experienced it so vividly. I think my " warnings " came from a Spiritual source, a Being outside myself, directly or through a Messenger. Christians know that we each have a Guardian, constantly with us and Thomas A. teaches that God can and does " inspire " or act on the intellect as well…
Where am I going? You are part way there, at least, to you, it seems a " mystery. " But even futher, what is the nature of this activity evidenced in the thing we call conscience. Is it a physical part of the brain? Are our thoughts simply physical activity? Are both accounted for simply by the activity of neurons snapping signals back and fourth?
Linus2nd
F
ffg
Guest
Thanks for the reply.
To clarify your confusion about the one line - I’m not concerned about evidence, because I’m not searching for our home any longer.
That doesn’t mean the subject isn’t interesting or can’t be discussed.
You do realize you just asked this question - “what are you concerned with in regard to the proof or disproof of God’s existence?”
and then followed it up with this -
"I cannot continue to discuss with you on the topic of this thread, viz., How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God, namely, by the evidence of the universe, i.e., the universe is the evidence for the existence of God.
So what do you want, a discussion on this “what are you concerned with in regard to the proof or disproof of God’s existence” or this “the universe is the evidence for the existence of God”
You have not addressed my comments twice now (though ironically, have played into them above as a great example of concept building).
I don’t think you understand how my comments relate to the subject. I am proposing the person look inward vs outward by focussing on their concepts. If one can see that their concepts will contain error through the quick and easy analysis that not everyone has the same concept of God. They can start to break down their fear of learning outside of their box.
If all you wanted was people to agree or disagree on the universe as evidence for God, they have polls here.
Take care,
C
CandideWest
Guest
Of course they don’t, any of the gods of major religions could be inserted into the final sentence of each of the 5 ways with equal validity.
So even if we ignored ALL the other problems with the 5 ways we still couldn’t rationally conclude which of the many available god concepts we’ve proven to exist.
Why? This seems absurd, especially for someone like myself who believes the universe probably did have a beginning but sees no reason to believe that a god did it. You seem to need the following to get to here.
- The universe had a beginning
- Therefore it had a cause outside itself (note that this is an unsupported assertion)
- That cause must have been some sort of self aware being (another unsupported assertion)
- Not only that but this self aware being must have been the same guy who later sent Jesus to earth (yet another unsupported assertion).
This is a very naive view of the many god concepts which were held down through the ages. The very old religions which predated Judaism did not have “dim-totems” they had a very clear image of their gods, indeed in many respects their gods were more clearly defined than the Christian concept of God.
Of course those god concepts were contradictory to the Christian concept, as indeed were many subsequent god concepts. So it’s completely unreasonable to suggest that one concept was just an earlier version of the other. You’d be as well to suggest geocentrism was just an older version of heliocentrism, which was just an older version of quantum cosmology. It just doesn’t work.
C
CandideWest
Guest
Ok, in this situation I tend to simply apply Occam’s Razor. Since the plausible answers in this case also posit the least number of entities.
I guess I’d just ask why you believe this given that we already have a plausible explanation which doesn’t posit the existence of these extra agents?
Hold up there, I said that EVEN IF we could establish that you genuinely had this opinion (which we can’t) AND we couldn’t come up with another plausible explanation (which we have) THEN we would have a mystery.
Given the above there doesn’t seem to be anything mysterious here.
The above is a vast oversimplification of the astonishing complexity of the brain and it’s activity, but aside from the use of the word “simply” then yes.
Consciousness, and our thoughts are emergent properties of the fantastically complex interactions occurring in our brains. If you like I can recommend some really fascinating books on how consciousness works and how it emerges from the functioning of the brain. It’s incredibly interesting stuff and really quite accessible.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I was trying to find out if there was a possible point of agreement but I can find none. We all have hard choices to make, you and I have made radically different cooices. And while I admire your adamant self-assurance, that does not substitute for either reality or truth. And you could say the same for mine. Who is right? Each man and woman will have to decide for themselves, it requires serious and perhaps prolonged self-examination.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Of course it works. Of course I would expect you to reject it all. You are adamant that nothing I said works. I am just as adamant that your rebuttle doesn’t work. I guess the reader will have to decide for themselves. But I would advise the reader not to decide on the basis of what anyone here has said but to dive into the sources ( and for myself I would advise a deep dive into Edward Feser, his works, and his blogspot and then the works of St. Thomas Aquinas himself, especially the Summa Theologiae and his Commentaries on Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphysics found here: dhspriory.org/thomas/ ).
Linus2nd
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
The interesting thing about this discussion and all similar discussions is that the reader is asked to decide on the validity of two redically irreconcilable conclusions.
You, dear reader, will have to decide the answers to this question yourself.
Linus2nd
- There is a Christian God which causes the existence of the universe ( either absolutely in time from nothing, in an absolute sense, or continuously and eternally from nothing ). If continuously and eternally, this would not be an orthodox Christian view but would be acceptable for the philosophical purposes. Futher stipulations about the precise nature of this God is not immediately pertinent to the argument, except to say that this God is not Himself a part of the universe.
- There is no cause of the universe. It either has existed eternally without cause, which would mean that it is eternally causing itself to exist. Or the universe had an absolute beginning in time, but through no cause outside itself. That is, there was absolutely nothing that existed, then spontaneously the universe " popped " into existence; that is, no-thing caused some-thing; or, non -being caused being; or, non-being caused the universe to exist ( the latter three are univical, synonymous, or identical statements ).
You, dear reader, will have to decide the answers to this question yourself.
Linus2nd
- Status