How to transit from the concept of God to the existence of God

[guiltyofdoubt]

Every time I have doubt, I boil it down to one thing:

The infinitesimally small CHANCE that this world would have developed to its current state as a result of the Big Bang through nothing but materially measured natural circumstance.

By that I mean the diversity of life that exists on this planet which is all supposed to have come from some single carbon-based cell…and human beings alone have developed to the point of having intelligence far above and beyond any other creature on this planet.

The human mind will always chase the Truth, and demand “proof”. But to me, the non-God theory of how we have arrived to our current point in time is even more ludicrously unbelievable than the God theory…especially when you consider the Laws of Nature by which non-believers base their beliefs had to be created in the first place, and there is no reason not to accept that there is a good possibility that those very Laws were written by God Himself and imposed on the Universe. God can make the laws of quantum mechanics as easily as anything else if He is God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Thus far, all the things we’ve discovered causes for, none of them have turned out to be supernatural. So thus far at least your claim here is inaccurate

If you do not accept the existence of the Unmoved Mover, you will find not a cause. You will forever be in doubt…

Er, what? Science has had a pretty rough ride over the years, especially from powerful political and religious organisations. But has slowly triumphed by virtue of the fact that it WORKS. Over and over again the scientific method has run into challenge from religious beliefs or popular opinion but it keeps on turning out to be the most reliable way we have of discovering the truth.

But it has not determined the final causes and never will. As I have reiterated often, not all scientists acknowledge this. But the most vocal have the ear of the power brokers, so they get all the preferrential treatment.

As a result our society has advanced more in the last few hundred years than it did in the thousand before that. In every respect, not just in the astonishing leaps in technology, but socially and morally as well.

Neither I or any responsible philosopher or theologian, and certainly not the Catholic Church has ever denied the benefit science has bestowed on mankind. I absolutely deny that it has contributed to the social improvement or the moral improvement of mankind. That is a gross and unjustifiable extrapolation. I have never heard a scientist suggest it.

Indeed, just like the alien abductees claim direct experience. But you don’t believe them.

I addressed that in my last post.

And those abductees are still out there walking and talking and telling their stories right now. And you still don’t believe them.

The cases are not similar at all. And no I don’t believe them.

And the abductees haven’t either.

So eye wittness are not to be believed unless you yourself wittnessed the events. Then there is very little in history you can believe. You must be in a state of perpetual doubt about almost everything.

It seems whatever way you cut this your arguments apply as well to alien abductees.

Nice try but no cigars.

And their scholars disagreed with them and said they didn’t understand the prophecies.

Naturally. But remember, St. Paul was one of those scholars too.

Yes, because they were claiming prophecies to have been fulfilled which were either not fulfilled or not prophecies (according to Jewish scholars).

Of course. They had a lot to loose, they would be replaced, they would loose their place in society. That is why they began persecuting the followers of Christ. St. James was one of the first victims, they threw him down form the top of the temple and when he didn’t die immediately they bashed his head in. Very objective " scholars. "

So, the only difference you have identified then is one of popularity. Many people believe in the Christian God, but not many believe in alien abductions, so one belief is justified while the other is not. I’m sure you’re aware how silly that is.

You are wrong again. They were not very numerous. But the Jewish leaders demanded total obedience. The rest of youre argument is just plain " silly. " Purely sophest.

Right, so you agree then that someone can hear and reject claims made by “prophets” and then be convinced to change their mind by a personal experience?

Absolutely, another point of agreement. I love science but I don’t have the head for it. Zoology was as far as I could get, but I loved it. I loved math too, but calculus didn’t love me back.

Fair enough, but without knowledge of the prophecies which are made you can’t really back up claims about prophecies being fulfilled.

As far as I know non-Christian religions made no prophesies. Certainly none that ever came true. And if I am wrong, I’m sure you will be able to cite one example. . .

Ok, I’m confused. You said that Jesus foretold the destruction of Jerusalem 70 years before it happened. So how did the warning arrive only a few days before?

Our Lord said the Temple would be destroyed, he did not forcast the time. Other prophecies came from the Old Testament. Yes, the Christians would have known the Romans were coming several days before arrival, but why did the Christains leave and the Jews remain. Because the warning to them was that the entire city would be destroyed. That event would not have been obvious form the fact that it was known that the Roman Legions were on the March. Besides, the extent of the envasion would not have been immediately evident. So your counter argument doesn’t effect mine at all.

Incidentally, you are aware that in those times people would have known of the approach of a large army days or weeks before it arrived anyway right? Armies in those days were large slow moving beasts with large baggage trains and usually small towns of camp followers behind them. News could travel further in a day than an army could move in a week.

So a warning a few days before an attack would have arrived AFTER the news of the approaching army. Which makes it rather less impressive.

I have just explained that.

Linus2nd

 

[CandideWest]

I have already done so.

No, you have asserted some things about atheism. I have shown you why those assertions are incorrect.

This seems to be the key difference between our respective approaches to this conversation. You make assertions while I give step by step reasoned arguments and show my conclusions. You then deny those conclusions either with another assertion or by simply claiming that I’m wrong whereas when I show the errors in your arguments I take the time to explain the errors in detail.

To be honest I’m beginning to wonder if there’s any point in continuing a discussion if you intend on simply continuing as you have.

You seem to have applied one definition, and I a different. Some atheists may not realize they are materialists, yet, in fact they must be.

Sigh. Yes, and they all believe in God too right? Of course not Linus, this is just childish silliness, trying to convince yourself that people believe things despite the fact that they don’t. I mean, you know that some Buddhists are atheists right?

There’s nothing I can do to force you to use your brain, but do you really expect people to take you seriously when you assert that people hold positions contrary to what they explicitly state? I mean I can just as we’ll sit here telling you that you’re a satanist really, but just don’t want to admit it.

It’s just silly.

I never said the truth or falsehood of statements depended on the existence of God. But some certainly do.

Er, you did. Actually, you went even further and asserted that without some god even the words true and false didn’t even have their meaning.

Of course you would say that. Any time you disagree with an inference made from philosophical reasoning, you drag out the same old carnard.

No, only when someone actually makes an argument from ignorance, and this clearly is one. I mean I’ve shown you why it’s an argument from ignorance, I’ve even broken it down for you into easy bite sized chunks to help you understand why your argument here is fallacious. And given examples of other fallacious arguments in the exact same form.

I don’t think I can help you any further with this. But I’ll try if you can tell me what you’re so struggling to understand.

The point is that if your arguments were so solid, a brilliant man like Flew would not have changed his mind. Of course he is not the only well known abdication. Just google the question.

Sigh, because smart people don’t make mistakes right? No, of course they do. It happens all the time, that is also not evidence for the existence of a god.

I’d call that grabbing at straws. The reasons for abandoning one’s Faith are many. I never pretended to know them all. I certainly don’t know that most people reject Revelation, how did you reach that conclusion?

Well you certainly should know that. A quick look at global religion statistics will tell you that most people aren’t catholic. Obviously all those people reject catholic revelations as a source of truth. And I’ve now explained to you why - because you don’t have a method for telling the true revelations from false ones.

Your contention that we could be able to detect the existence of spiritual beings is definitely wrong.

I’ve explained twice, in detail, that I have assumed that we cannot detect spiritual things. But it MUST be possible to detect any interaction with the universe which spiritual things have. Do you still really not understand the difference between being able to detect a spirit and detecting an effect caused by a spirit?

For example, if a spoon floats across the room, I don’t need to be able to see a ghost moving it to be able to see the spoon moving do I? The same thing applies for any interaction between physical and “spiritual” things. We might not be able to detect the “spiritual” cause, but it MUST be possible to detect the physical effect.

On the last point, the men I cited have a real history behind them.Besides the message they have given us is internally coherent and the moral system they handed on is unsurpassed in the history of man. That alone is evidence of no mean sort. It is evidence that they spoke the truth.

Er, firstly the “last point” was about the error you made in supporting the absurd statement

" …you demand signs, I tell you, you have the Prophets. If you will not believe them, neither will you believe signs…"

You seem to now have realised that this is incorrect. Although strangely it actually took a biblical example rather than just reason to convince you.

Secondly that someone is able to create a coherent moral system (which Christianity hasn’t actually got) is NOT in any way evidence for some claim about the existence of things.

Ignoring the fact that most of the morals given by Christians were established well before Christianity existed. Let’s assume we found the first guy who realised “hey, murder is immoral” does that make his belief in some god correct? No. Of course not. You can be right about a billion things and be wrong about a billion others at the same time.

Well, you just didn’t read far enough. " A more complete and historical definition of Gnosticism would be: …

You’ve misunderstood what you read, that was a set of religious beliefs which were given the label of Gnosticism. It doesn’t relate to the agnostic or gnostic positions.

 

[CandideWest]

But how do you think that possible, if you reject, out of hand, philosophical reasoning, which is reasoning, by use of inference, from the things which exist.

Sigh, I don’t know how many times I have to tell you that I don’t reject use of reasoning and inference in order for you to understand it. Again, I’m not sure why you keep arguing against a position that (as far as I know) at least nobody is taking.

You’re just attacking a straw man. This is a waste of your time.

You and your crowd have rejected the God of creation for the god of science.

No, science is not a god, it is a methodology. One which has been demonstrated to work, over and over again. As indeed the technology which we are using to have this discussion demonstrates yet again.

Or eased your consciences by the middle road of postponing decision.

Easing my conscience? What are you talking about. I don’t believe claims unless I have a rational justification to do so. I lack a justification for believing in any gods. That is all.

I can refer you to books, You can start with Aristotle and Thomas. Would you like the links? Of course they reason from inference.

Sigh, they didn’t detect a soul. They argued that one exists. I take it then that you don’t actually have any references showing a soul being detected?

I merely pointed it out to show how silly ( to use one of your favorite pejoratives ) it is to suppose you can detect the presence of a spirit using some sophisticated instrument

And I have pointed out repeatedly your error here. I can only give you the explanation. I cannot make you think.

As I said, the soul is there, but they refuse to make the connection. Thus proving my point.

Because your assertion that it is there is NOT evidence for it being there. Indeed there is NO evidence of it being there. Simply asserting repeatedly that it is, does not change anything.

Occam’s razor has nothing to do with it or with anything else. It is just an irrational excuse for refusing to accept a difficult conclusion one does not want to face.

No, Occam’s razor is a very useful tool which tells us to not multiply entities without a reason to do so. So we don’t leap to complex explanations when simple ones are available.

For example, when I lose my keys. It COULD be that this is part of a secret government conspiracy to delay my arrival at work in order to subtly influence the balance of world power. Or I COULD have just forgotten I put them in my jacket. Both explain the observation but the latter is simpler and thus more plausible in the absence of other evidence.

Absolute nonesense, pure science fiction. Your soul is interacting with your brain right now, it is giving you life, it governs hundreds of your activities automatically and you refuse to recognize the interaction. That is why I say you assertion is hopeless.

Ok, so if you are correct then with a sufficiently detailed understanding of the brain we will be able to detect these interactions.

This is good news for you, if you’re right then it’s almost certain that at some point we will be able to show that you are.

 

[CandideWest]

If you do not accept the existence of the Unmoved Mover, you will find not a cause. You will forever be in doubt…

Not true, we’ve found the cause of loads of things (like lightning and illnesses). But thus far no unmoved mover.

Making assertions which contradict reality is pointless Linus.

But it has not determined the final causes and never will.

And how do you demonstrate that?

Neither I or any responsible philosopher or theologian, and certainly not the Catholic Church has ever denied the benefit science has bestowed on mankind. I absolutely deny that it has contributed to the social improvement or the moral improvement of mankind. That is a gross and unjustifiable extrapolation. I have never heard a scientist suggest it.

Advances in scientific understanding and related fields such as social science and psychology go hand in hand. As it happens, the enormous leaps in advancement since the enlightenment have happened alongside vast improvements in morality and equality. Is science the direct cause? Certainly not the only cause, but improvements in understanding of the world, better communications, more rigorous and less magical thinking and greatly decreased poverty have all helped greatly, and all those things are directly related to the development of science.

I addressed that in my last post.

The cases are not similar at all. And no I don’t believe them.

So eye wittness are not to be believed unless you yourself wittnessed the events. Then there is very little in history you can believe. You must be in a state of perpetual doubt about almost everything.

No, let’s see if you can work this one out for yourself. Why do you disbelieve the claim of an alien abductee, but believe the historical description of example the D-day landings?

Your reasons and mine are likely similar. So write out yours and we can compare.

Naturally. But remember, St. Paul was one of those scholars too.

Sure, but he didn’t agree with the claims being made on the prophecies being fulfilled. It was a personal experience which changed his mind.

Of course. They had a lot to loose, they would be replaced, they would loose their place in society.

No, they need not at all. If they had agreed they could have simply joined the new religion as leading scholars… Like Paul did. They didn’t because they didn’t agree with the claims being made.

That is why they began persecuting the followers of Christ. St. James was one of the first victims, they threw him down form the top of the temple and when he didn’t die immediately they bashed his head in. Very objective " scholars. "

Yep, another example of religious persecution. So what?

You are wrong again. They were not very numerous. But the Jewish leaders demanded total obedience. The rest of youre argument is just plain " silly. " Purely sophest.

Er, no. I was responding to your argument where you used the number and distribution of people who believe Christian claims as some sort of support. That was indeed a silly argument.

Absolutely, another point of agreement.

Great. So we now agree that Jesus was wrong about people who reject claims of prophets also rejecting personal experience. This is great progress.

As far as I know non-Christian religions made no prophesies. Certainly none that ever came true. And if I am wrong, I’m sure you will be able to cite one example. . .

Sure, this again is where knowledge of other religions would help you. In reality there are many prophecies some already fulfilled and some still outstanding belonging to different religions. Here’s a website covering some of those in Islam, fill your boots.

islamawareness.net/Prophecies/greene.html

Of course I’m sure you’d agree with me that their prophecy stories aren’t very convincing. Just like Muslims would agree with me that catholic prophecy stories aren’t very convincing.

Our Lord said the Temple would be destroyed, he did not forcast the time.

Ok, so not much of a prophecy then. After all you could make that prophecy for any building anywhere and you’d ALWAYS be right. They’ll all be destroyed at some point.

Yes, the Christians would have known the Romans were coming several days before arrival, but why did the Christains leave and the Jews remain.

Well generally in those times there would be a significant exodus from a city before a siege. They weren’t fun to live through. Usually those who were either least attached to the city, or most pessimistic about the attack would have the highest tendency to evacuate.

Given their respective religious beliefs I’d expect Christians to be both more pessimistic and less attached to the city. So it kinda makes sense that they’d be more inclined to leave.

Maybe someone also had a dream… Wouldn’t be surprising under the circumstances. I imagine many people in the city were having dreams about the city being attacked when such a massive event was impending. But there’s no need for anything supernatural to explain any of this.

 

[CandideWest]

You have it backwards. The two twins have potentialities relative to each other and yet are still indistinguishable (ie. identical in the non-logical sense).

Er, no. Even perfectly identical twins can still be distinguished from each other by their location. So they are not truly indistinguishable in the way that two instances of pure act would be.

Two instances of pure act, to be non-identical in the logical sense (as twins are non-identical in the logical sense) would have to have potentialities relative to each other. But that would produce an immediate contradiction, so there cannot be two distinct instances of pure act.

Why does that produce a contradiction.

Look, here’s an A. This A is an A. And here’s another A which is also an A. So they are both A but distinct from each other.

In this case we can distinguish them by their physical location, but if we accept that multiple non-physical things exist then we must be able to accept that two of them could at least in principle be identical, just like the As above. If so then we have two instances which both exist but which are indistinguishable from each other.

How is that a consequence of what I have said? As I alluded when we started discussing the topic of how a Thomist would show that pure act is “self-aware” (#367), God’s self-cognition can be derived from earlier conclusions that God is an intellect and is metaphysically simple.

Ok, so then you’d need to show that God is an intellect. This is essentially the same problem. Essentially some way is needed to show that the pure act is a “someone” rather than a “something”.

Yes, and that is a corollary of the argument that multiple instances of pure act are impossible. So one would argue that the supreme intellect, ie. the conclusion of the Fifth Way, is pure act, so that it is identical to the unmoved mover, and so on.

Right, which you said you thought might be possible but probably difficult and again, I’ve yet to see and argument demonstrating.

Well, then the suggestion faces a further difficulty in that the multiverse is composed of composites which are mutable, but composition and mutability are excluded by pure act. (And it does not help to say that the components of the multiverse are only mutable in time, for that is the relevant sense of mutable. If the divine substance had mutable parts in time, then divine immutability would be contradicted. And the idea of the divine substance having parts would, of course, contradict divine simplicity.)

But you are making assumptions about time being some real thing which are not necessarily valid. We still don’t really know what time is. For example we know now that time in the early universe was actually “lumpy”.

And as for having composition? Well why can’t a multiverse be both many things and one? Some religions claim that their god both has distinguishable parts and is without composition (ie Christianity and some forms of Hinduism).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

No, you have asserted some things about atheism. I have shown you why those assertions are incorrect.

This seems to be the key difference between our respective approaches to this conversation. You make assertions while I give step by step reasoned arguments and show my conclusions. You then deny those conclusions either with another assertion or by simply claiming that I’m wrong whereas when I show the errors in your arguments I take the time to explain the errors in detail.

To be honest I’m beginning to wonder if there’s any point in continuing a discussion if you intend on simply continuing as you have.

Sigh. Yes, and they all believe in God too right? Of course not Linus, this is just childish silliness, trying to convince yourself that people believe things despite the fact that they don’t. I mean, you know that some Buddhists are atheists right?

There’s nothing I can do to force you to use your brain, but do you really expect people to take you seriously when you assert that people hold positions contrary to what they explicitly state? I mean I can just as we’ll sit here telling you that you’re a satanist really, but just don’t want to admit it.

It’s just silly.

Er, you did. Actually, you went even further and asserted that without some god even the words true and false didn’t even have their meaning.

No, only when someone actually makes an argument from ignorance, and this clearly is one. I mean I’ve shown you why it’s an argument from ignorance, I’ve even broken it down for you into easy bite sized chunks to help you understand why your argument here is fallacious. And given examples of other fallacious arguments in the exact same form.

I don’t think I can help you any further with this. But I’ll try if you can tell me what you’re so struggling to understand.

Sigh, because smart people don’t make mistakes right? No, of course they do. It happens all the time, that is also not evidence for the existence of a god.

Well you certainly should know that. A quick look at global religion statistics will tell you that most people aren’t catholic. Obviously all those people reject catholic revelations as a source of truth. And I’ve now explained to you why - because you don’t have a method for telling the true revelations from false ones.

I’ve explained twice, in detail, that I have assumed that we cannot detect spiritual things. But it MUST be possible to detect any interaction with the universe which spiritual things have. Do you still really not understand the difference between being able to detect a spirit and detecting an effect caused by a spirit?

For example, if a spoon floats across the room, I don’t need to be able to see a ghost moving it to be able to see the spoon moving do I? The same thing applies for any interaction between physical and “spiritual” things. We might not be able to detect the “spiritual” cause, but it MUST be possible to detect the physical effect.

Er, firstly the “last point” was about the error you made in supporting the absurd statement

" …you demand signs, I tell you, you have the Prophets. If you will not believe them, neither will you believe signs…"

You seem to now have realised that this is incorrect. Although strangely it actually took a biblical example rather than just reason to convince you.

Secondly that someone is able to create a coherent moral system (which Christianity hasn’t actually got) is NOT in any way evidence for some claim about the existence of things.

Ignoring the fact that most of the morals given by Christians were established well before Christianity existed. Let’s assume we found the first guy who realised “hey, murder is immoral” does that make his belief in some god correct? No. Of course not. You can be right about a billion things and be wrong about a billion others at the same time.

You’ve misunderstood what you read, that was a set of religious beliefs which were given the label of Gnosticism. It doesn’t relate to the agnostic or gnostic positions.

True to form: deny, deny, deny. You are definitely right about one thing, we have no common ground. To all the comments you have made, I can reply exactly the same. But good luck anyway.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Not true, we’ve found the cause of loads of things (like lightning and illnesses). But thus far no unmoved mover.

Making assertions which contradict reality is pointless Linus.

And how do you demonstrate that?

Advances in scientific understanding and related fields such as social science and psychology go hand in hand. As it happens, the enormous leaps in advancement since the enlightenment have happened alongside vast improvements in morality and equality. Is science the direct cause? Certainly not the only cause, but improvements in understanding of the world, better communications, more rigorous and less magical thinking and greatly decreased poverty have all helped greatly, and all those things are directly related to the development of science.

No, let’s see if you can work this one out for yourself. Why do you disbelieve the claim of an alien abductee, but believe the historical description of example the D-day landings?

Your reasons and mine are likely similar. So write out yours and we can compare.

Sure, but he didn’t agree with the claims being made on the prophecies being fulfilled. It was a personal experience which changed his mind.

No, they need not at all. If they had agreed they could have simply joined the new religion as leading scholars… Like Paul did. They didn’t because they didn’t agree with the claims being made.

Yep, another example of religious persecution. So what?

Er, no. I was responding to your argument where you used the number and distribution of people who believe Christian claims as some sort of support. That was indeed a silly argument.

Great. So we now agree that Jesus was wrong about people who reject claims of prophets also rejecting personal experience. This is great progress.

Sure, this again is where knowledge of other religions would help you. In reality there are many prophecies some already fulfilled and some still outstanding belonging to different religions. Here’s a website covering some of those in Islam, fill your boots.

islamawareness.net/Prophecies/greene.html

Of course I’m sure you’d agree with me that their prophecy stories aren’t very convincing. Just like Muslims would agree with me that catholic prophecy stories aren’t very convincing.

Ok, so not much of a prophecy then. After all you could make that prophecy for any building anywhere and you’d ALWAYS be right. They’ll all be destroyed at some point.

Well generally in those times there would be a significant exodus from a city before a siege. They weren’t fun to live through. Usually those who were either least attached to the city, or most pessimistic about the attack would have the highest tendency to evacuate.

Given their respective religious beliefs I’d expect Christians to be both more pessimistic and less attached to the city. So it kinda makes sense that they’d be more inclined to leave.

Maybe someone also had a dream… Wouldn’t be surprising under the circumstances. I imagine many people in the city were having dreams about the city being attacked when such a massive event was impending. But there’s no need for anything supernatural to explain any of this.

You are an excellent sophist. Just twist everything around and let fly.j

Linus2nd

 

[CandideWest]

True to form: deny, deny, deny. You are definitely right about one thing, we have no common ground. To all the comments you have made, I can reply exactly the same. But good luck anyway.

Linus2nd

Er, what? Did you even read my reply? I haven’t denied stuff, I’ve gone to some length to demonstrate the accuracy of my position and explain the errors in yours. Errors which we are slowly correcting (like the misunderstanding of agnosticism and your mistaken belief that personal experiences are no more convincing than unsupported stories).

It seems (to me at least) that we are slowly building common ground.

You are an excellent sophist. Just twist everything around and let fly.j

Linus2nd

Sophist? No not at all, I’ve just gone through and systematically answered your questions and identified errors where I found them. There’s nothing complex in most of what I’ve written, indeed I’ve gone to some effort to break things down into easy steps to ensure clarity.

 

[davidv]

{snip}Why does that produce a contradiction.

Look, here’s an A. This A is an A. And here’s another A which is also an A. So they are both A but distinct from each other.
{snip}

This looks like an equivocation of A. A as type is not the same A as an individual. In the case of perfectly identical twins (A as a type) cannot both be A as individual.

Therefore this objection is not valid.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Er, what? Did you even read my reply? I haven’t denied stuff, I’ve gone to some length to demonstrate the accuracy of my position and explain the errors in yours. Errors which we are slowly correcting (like the misunderstanding of agnosticism and your mistaken belief that personal experiences are no more convincing than unsupported stories).

It seems (to me at least) that we are slowly building common ground.

Sophist? No not at all, I’ve just gone through and systematically answered your questions and identified errors where I found them. There’s nothing complex in most of what I’ve written, indeed I’ve gone to some effort to break things down into easy steps to ensure clarity.

I really do wish that we were approaching a common ground. I think you are twisting my comments into something they do not say, and visa versa. I know you believe what you say but it just isn’t so. I have read all you comments to me, including the last two. I just didn’t see any point in answering because they were so out of joint - in my view. Somewhere along the line I think you have undergone a sever case of indoctrination and it has left you in a perpetual state of neither knowing for certain nor believing for certain, except that now you are perpetually angry and prejudiced against religion, which is irrational. And I think you are parroting back what you have picked up from your friends, etc.

But I wish you well.

Pax

Linus2nd

 

[CandideWest]

I really do wish that we were approaching a common ground. I think you are twisting my comments into something they do not say, and visa versa.

Er, I don’t think we’re twisting each other’s comments. You seem to keep misunderstanding a few of mine, and I’m not sure if I’m misunderstanding you at all. I’m doing my best to answer your points as simply and directly as possible. I’m doing my best to resolve the misunderstandings as best I can and we seem to be making some progress in this regard.

At least in the two cases I mentioned we’ve reached an accord where it did not exist when we began. I consider that significant progress.

I know you believe what you say but it just isn’t so. I have read all you comments to me, including the last two. I just didn’t see any point in answering because they were so out of joint - in my view.

Ok, if you can identify where I have misunderstood your comments I’ll do my best to clarify or, if you identify somewhere that I’ve made an error - correct myself.

The present situation where you tend to just assert I’m wrong doesn’t enable me to correct an error either in your understanding or my statement. This is why when I disagree with your points I go explain in detail where you went wrong.

Somewhere along the line I think you have undergone a sever case of indoctrination

I guess you could argue I was indoctrinated at one point yes (depending on your definition of the word), but I broke out of that a number of years ago to become an atheist. My developing understanding since has been based on my own reasoning, reading and research. Nobody doing indoctrination, indeed nobody to do indoctrination since then.

and it has left you in a perpetual state of neither knowing for certain nor believing for certain,

Absolute certainty is not attainable, but that has no bearing on belief or practical knowledge. I hold plenty of beliefs and claim knowledge of a subset of those beliefs.

except that now you are perpetually angry and prejudiced against religion, which is irrational.

Nope, I’m in excellent humour thanks and not ill disposed towards religion except where it causes harm. Again, we’ve already been over this, so I’m not sure why you’re making me repeat myself.

And I think you are parroting back what you have picked up from your friends, etc.

Nope, incorrect again. What I know I’ve either worked out for myself or learned from my own reading and research.

I know more about religion than most people I know. I’ve taught quite a few of my friends both atheist and theist quite a bit about religion over the years. So no chance of me parroting them I’m afraid.

But I wish you well.

And I wish you well too.

 

[polytropos]

Er, no. Even perfectly identical twins can still be distinguished from each other by their location. So they are not truly indistinguishable in the way that two instances of pure act would be.

My usage of “indistinguishable” was “physically indistinguishable” as opposed to “logically identical.” Identical twins are not logically identical; “two” things which are logically identical are in fact the same thing, whereas the loose sense of identical from our common speech (ie. physically indistinguishable; if they swapped while we weren’t looking, we’d be none the wiser) does not require two things to be the same, as they still have potentialities relative to each other.

In any case, the adequacy of your response here will turn on this next bit…

Look, here’s an A. This A is an A. And here’s another A which is also an A. So they are both A but distinct from each other.

In this case we can distinguish them by their physical location, but if we accept that multiple non-physical things exist then we must be able to accept that two of them could at least in principle be identical, just like the As above. If so then we have two instances which both exist but which are indistinguishable from each other.

You are right that what allows us to “distinguish” between the twins is their physical location.

It does not follow that in the case of “two” immaterial things A and B, A and B can be identical but distinct. If you are going to try to support that claim, perhaps you should disambiguate the usage of “identical,” because it obviously cannot be the identity relation from standard quantificational logic.

What you are advancing is not standard in mathematics, ie. in respect of abstract immaterial objects. We say that 1/2 and 2/4 represent same mathematical object. They are identical in the logical sense. It is not correct to say that 1/2 and 2/4 are different objects, though identical.

So why should we accept the assertion of the possibility of identity and distinctness in the case of concrete immaterial objects? We shouldn’t.

If two things are logically non-identical, as they would have to be in order to be distinct, then they differ in some way. One lacks what the other has. But if they were both supposed to be purely actual and therefore to lack nothing, then this is a contradiction. So the supposition that they were logically non-identical is to be dropped.

Ok, so then you’d need to show that God is an intellect. This is essentially the same problem. Essentially some way is needed to show that the pure act is a “someone” rather than a “something”.

And that is what Aquinas’s Fifth Way and the proof from the principle of proportionate causality claim to show.

Right, which you said you thought might be possible but probably difficult and again, I’ve yet to see and argument demonstrating.

I briefly sketched the argument for the supreme intellect being pure act somewhere in this thread. And we have been debating whether it is coherent for there two be two distinct pure acts.

But I haven’t given any full arguments, really. While the internet is good for discussion and for second-order exchanges, I really don’t think that anyone will find a full articulation of Aquinas’s Five Ways (let alone his consequent natural theology) on a forum. Also while I have a second-order feel for what Aquinas shows, how the pieces fit together, and how he would derive various divine attributes, I don’t have the talent to show all of that.

But you are making assumptions about time being some real thing which are not necessarily valid. We still don’t really know what time is. For example we know now that time in the early universe was actually “lumpy”.

It is not required that time be some absolute thing for mutability to have sense, for there would still be a distinction between mutability and immutability as used in, for example, the First Way, which categorically distinguishes the unmoved mover and the changeable world; it would just be time-relative, however “time” is cashed out in a subsequent theory. (Though I suspect that many of those questions will have to be resolved on the metaphysical side of things.)

And as for having composition? Well why can’t a multiverse be both many things and one?

Well, a multiverse can be both many things and one, as long as it is not many things and one in the same sense (then it would violate the principle of non-contradiction). But if a multiverse is not many things and one in the same sense, then the terms cannot both be used in argument without equivocation.

Some religions claim that their god both has distinguishable parts and is without composition (ie Christianity and some forms of Hinduism).

The Trinity is a good example here. Christianity does not claim that God has unity and multiplicity in the same sense, so there is not a contradiction. (They actually do not claim that God has multiplicity at all, since they claim that the relations among the Trinity are not parthood relations or anything of the sort. But that is another topic.)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Pardon my butting in, I’m not looking for a debate, but I would like to clarify something.

For the sake of argument, we will assume, that the Unmoved Mover is a pure act of existence having no potency to be more or less. This is understanding of Thomas Aquinas.

What does this mean. To start off it means that this being exists outside the universe.

Secondly, this being is absolutely unique, there is no other. Why? Because that which has no potency to be other already is all that it possibly could be, it lacks nothing. There could not be two such beings because that would mean that one had something the other did not and thus, the other would not be everything it could possibly be. Thus, following Thomas’ Second Way, one would be the cause of the other, and following the Third Way, one would derive its Necessity from the other and so would not be absolutely Necessary itself. It would be less than perfect. Thus there is only One, absolutely Necessary being, whose very Nature is Necessary and therefore, underived, uncaused, and therefore absolutely unique.

Thus there is only One, Pure Act of Subsisting Being, Whose very Nature is the Act Of Existence. It is the source of all things, other than Itself, whether of this universe or of any other. And thus, it possesses all the perfections we might find in this universe or in any other, in a limitless and perfect way, including Intelligence, Will, Personhood, Love, Goodness, Self-Awarness, etc. All of which are some of the De Fide attributes of the Person Catholics call God. So Thomas rightly calls this Bing, God.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

Secondly, this being is absolutely unique, there is no other. Why? Because that which has no potency to be other already is all that it possibly could be, it lacks nothing. There could not be two such beings because that would mean that one had something the other did not and thus, the other would not be everything it could possibly be.

This is essentially the argument I’ve been giving.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

This is essentially the argument I’ve been giving.

I know, just lending moral support.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

From Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Book 4, ch 2, 1004a-1005a18

1. An indication of this is the following. Dialecticians and sophists assume the same guise as the philosopher, for sophistry is apparent wisdom, and dialecticians dispute about all things, and being is common to all things. But evidently they dispute about these matters because they are common to philosophy. For sophistry and dialectics are concerned with the same class of things as philosophy.
2. But philosophy differs from the latter in the manner of its power, and from the former in the choice, i.e., selection, of a way of life. For dialectics is in search of knowledge of what the philosopher actually knows, and sophistry has the semblance of wisdom but is not really such.

Linus2nd