Mirdaths Logic.

[freesoulhope]

Perhaps. The unmoved mover, the singularity, or whatever started the clock ticking, is not known even to possess reason or be a Being as such.

Could be; but what reason is there to think that? I have never see a pink elephant explode in to my living room. Some kind of “being” must have always existed, otherwise how can anything exist? However i would agree that such a being doesn’t necessarily have to have a form, the sens of shape, size, or object in oerder to exist. As far as Inteligent will is concered; this is the only other form of causation worth considering. It seems to me that your agnosticism has gone down the road of complete scepticism; rejecting logic as a proof, and accepting only those realites which appeal to you.

There are two populor concepts that we know of, in respect of ultimate explanations, which might provide a cause for our universe.

1. One has been revealed through devine revelation; the Christian God.
2. Then there’s Naturalism: One must believe that nature is the ultimate cause.

Now; it is true that we don’t have any emprical evidence of God, in terms of being able to percieve him. At face value i can understand why it might seem unreasonable to think why such a God would be necessary or worth considering.

It is reasonable however, to think that if a thing begins to exist, it must have a cause. The universe began to exit. It must have had a cause. If the universe began to exist however, the universe cannot be the cause; therefore we have to look outside the nature of our universe, but not to such an extent that we should consider that there is no cause or that the reality we live in is based on irational factors. There is no reason, given what we see, to think that the ultimate reality of things is iirational. Reality appears be reasonable. The only reason one would consider irrational factors is to justify a naturalistic universe. However, if we are to think that all reality is reasonable, which is reasonable considering the evidence, we must consider the problem of causation, and the problem of time; for if the universe began to exist, then time began to exist and so did the process of natural causes. Therefore something other then the universe must have always existed. Thats are first clue.

Are second clue is to do with finding a sufficent cause. If there is no natural cause, then the only over cause that we know of, is a personal will to cause something or put something in motion; an act of inteligence.

God is the only reasonable cause to our universe; not just because God is a logical being, but because God, in respect of his attributes, is the only being which explains the universe. A being such as God is necessary, if no other reasonable cause can be provided.
This is a reason to think that God is the cause, since the concept is known to us, and is the only concept which fits the objective evidence.

You can of coarse deny God, for the simple fact that we can never know for sure. Life could all be an hullucination, or like you say, a “brain in a jar” but this doesn’t mean that God isn’t a reasonable thing to believe in .

 

[Mirdath]

Can we agree on this premise: something always exists?

Unfortunately not, unless you are referring to existence as a property of ‘something’ rather than a temporal requirement of the State of Things that there always be something there. The former I have no quibble with; the latter I do not know, and do not know how to obtain such knowledge.

And, for something to exist, does it not necessarily possess ‘Being as such’?
For that matter, what do you mean by ‘Being as such’?

By ‘Being’ I meant a thinking, feeling, reasoning… well, ‘creature’ isn’t the proper word to use when discussing an unmoved mover, but it’ll have to do. Beings are a subset of existing things: those who can come up with ‘cogito, ergo sum’.

Author_Jerry:

I was merely explaining how one can come to a logical conclusion to support God’s existence–not that faith isn’t required to come to such an assessment. In the same article, consequently, where I explain the Everlasting Paradox, I also wrote about how faith and reason are interdependent.

If only all arguments for God’s existence came with such an honest footnote! They may indicate, but they never prove.

I don’t see any kind of interdependence between faith and reason. To use reason to prop up faith is an abuse of both; to use faith to support reason is nonsensical. One can have the finest, tightest reasoned argument in existence, but if its premises rely on faith, what good is it?

Faith and reason are two different means of knowing. They need not interact, and bad things tend to happen when people try to make them do so.

Hastrman:

You’ve got to have faith in reason, for one thing–if I think I’m insane, I can’t trust myself.

Hello, fellow anxiety cadet!

I would argue that that’s a different meaning of ‘faith’ than belief in the divine. We trust our senses and reason – usually – because we get consistent and predictable results. The same cannot exactly be said for God. It’s more ‘welp, it sure looks like they work’ instead of a hope in the unseen.

freesoulhope:

What gives your claim any objective authority over mine; except maybe you have the power to enforce your “moral philosophy” upon me?

Absolutely nothing. What gives your claim any authority over mine? About the same. I live by my ethics because I think it’s reasonable to consider the universal application of my actions before performing them; you live by yours because you think it’s reasonable to let men wielding crosiers tell you what’s good and what isn’t, and trust that they’ve studied up.

No system of ethics is objectively authoritative, or there’d only be one.

If Ultimate perfection and goodness is the root of all objective reality, then it necesarily follows from that premiss…

You’re going to have to prove that premise first.

A materialist reality provides nothing but an illusion of right and wrong and a false sense of guilt. None of it has any objective meaning or truth to it.

I have a perfectly working sense of right and wrong; and having grown up Catholic, I know quite well what guilt feels like I still feel it when I do evil – the only difference is that I’m not afraid of having offended God, I’m sorry for having done wrong by others.

It seems to me that your agnosticism has gone down the road of complete scepticism; rejecting logic as a proof, and accepting only those realites which appeal to you.

I have not rejected logic; the problem is the very issue at hand is by definition beyond reason, having supposedly created it. So unless you demonstrate that Logic is self-created, eternal, necessary, and capable of forming matter, you’re kinda stuck.

There are two populor concepts that we know of, in respect of ultimate explanations, which might provide a cause for our universe.

1. One has been revealed through devine revelation; the Christian God.

I think you missed a few thousand religions there, as well as the possibility of a deity which has chosen not to reveal itself at all. But I’ll grant the possibility.

1. Then there’s Naturalism: One must believe that nature is the ultimate cause.

Currently an ongoing investigation, if I’m not mistaken.

Allow me to add a third: we don’t know what did it yet.

 

[Neithan]

Unfortunately not, unless you are referring to existence as a property of ‘something’ rather than a temporal requirement of the State of Things that there always be something there. The former I have no quibble with; the latter I do not know, and do not know how to obtain such knowledge.

Obviously I do mean the latter.

You place some very strong limitations on epistemology. Do you deny the validity of deductive reasoning to discover truths about reality?
If you do not trust such a self-evident axiom as “something can not come from nothing” then it certainly is possible to doubt whether we have any real knowledge or can obtain any real knowledge of anything. So where do you place the limits of your skepticism, and why?

 

[Author_Jerry]

Obviously I do mean the latter.

You place some very strong limitations on epistemology. Do you deny the validity of deductive reasoning to discover truths about reality?
If you do not trust such a self-evident axiom as “something can not come from nothing” then it certainly is possible to doubt whether we have any real knowledge or can obtain any real knowledge of anything. So where do you place the limits of your skepticism, and why?

Placing a limit on skepticism? Wouldn’t that leave a void that only faith can fill?

 

[Mirdath]

You place some very strong limitations on epistemology. Do you deny the validity of deductive reasoning to discover truths about reality?

No (although see the disclaimer below); but I do think that the question of how things come to be is better left to physics. Let philosophy concern itself with the why, which is more properly its domain.

If you do not trust such a self-evident axiom as “something can not come from nothing” then it certainly is possible to doubt whether we have any real knowledge or can obtain any real knowledge of anything. So where do you place the limits of your skepticism, and why?

Hasn’t this been covered? I know I exist; I’m pretty sure other things do, and act as if they are because otherwise I am a meaningless thought.

 

[anthony022071]

I simply don’t see how there shouldn’t be: we have light and shadow, positive and negative – what makes order and life special?

Because light and shadow,positive and negative have to do with particles of energy. They belong to the physical world (unless we’re talking about God as light),whereas order and life are untraceable in the physical world,except as they affect and direct physical things.

 

[Mirdath]

Because light and shadow,positive and negative have to do with particles of energy. They belong to the physical world (unless we’re talking about God as light),whereas order and life are untraceable in the physical world,except as they affect and direct physical things.

I think we’re just going to have to remain in disagreement on that.

 

[Neithan]

No (although see the disclaimer below); but I do think that the question of how things come to be is better left to physics. Let philosophy concern itself with the why, which is more properly its domain.

…]

Hasn’t this been covered? I know I exist; I’m pretty sure other things do, and act as if they are because otherwise I am a meaningless thought.

Admittedly I haven’t followed this thread from the beginning.

So I gather that you can only *know *that you exist, and no knowledge (in the same strict sense) of objective reality is obtainable?

 

[Mirdath]

Admittedly I haven’t followed this thread from the beginning.

So I gather that you can only *know *that you exist, and no knowledge (in the same strict sense) of objective reality is obtainable?

The illusion of knowledge is; it may be knowledge of reality, but I am unable to say for sure.

Allow me to be clear: I am not a solipsist; I think that what I experience and affect is actually extant; but there is always that niggling doubt. Usually, I don’t give a damn whether it is or not, but we’re not speaking of my usual actions here but of what I think.

 

[Hastrman]

I think that what I experience and affect is actually extant; but there is always that niggling doubt.

Technically this is called “Mitigated Realism”–under ordinary circumstances you have to treat your perceptions as true, or you can’t think anymore. You only need to question them when there’s a contradiction. As for instance, “I thought I let the dog in, but I hear him barking, so I must have forgotten to do it.”

I would argue, though, that knowing you exist means there are two real things: you, and existence. Though whether existence is subsistent or not–whether there is such a thing as Being Itself, or if it can only be predicated of other things–is not quite as easy a question.

 

[Mirdath]

I would argue, though, that knowing you exist means there are two real things: you, and existence. Though whether existence is subsistent or not–whether there is such a thing as Being Itself, or if it can only be predicated of other things–is not quite as easy a question.

Existence would seem to be better described as a state, not a thing. I do not possess a thing called existence, I am in a state of existing.

 

[Hastrman]

Existence would seem to be better described as a state, not a thing. I do not possess a thing called existence, I am in a state of existing.

“State” is a noun, though–and this particular state we call existence. Inasmuch as it can be predicated of you, you possess it.

In a sense. Just as you can possess health or eyesight.

 

[Mirdath]

“State” is a noun, though–and this particular state we call existence. Inasmuch as it can be predicated of you, you possess it.

In a sense. Just as you can possess health or eyesight.

One can be in good or poor health, but to say that one ‘has’ health is a bit of an odd phrasing (at least in English). It is, again, a state, and not a thing. Remember I do not think abstracta are meaningfully existent. I may be able to touch things that exist, but where can I find little nuggets of the essence of existence?

Kinda like Time Bandits: mom, dad, don’t touch it! It’s Evil!

 

[Hastrman]

One can be in good or poor health, but to say that one ‘has’ health is a bit of an odd phrasing (at least in English). It is, again, a state, and not a thing. Remember I do not think abstracta are meaningfully existent. I may be able to touch things that exist, but where can I find little nuggets of the essence of existence?

Kinda like Time Bandits: mom, dad, don’t touch it! It’s Evil!

It’s an odd phrasing because it’s technical terminology of Thomist metaphysics. Although I’ve heard people say, “At least you have your health”…but they were comedians, so it was probably Yiddish English, come to think of it, and Gezunt is a noun.

As to the denial of abstracts…there are reasons that any kind of materialism (which is what you’re talking here) isn’t tenable; on close logical analysis it always breaks down into, “We’re Nominalist, except we randomly decided that statements about material/efficient causes are valid,” or into Monism (remember the Theravada cart analogy I mentioned?).

And Nominalism that’s only Nominalist about some things, is random and arbitrary. It is, in other words, fairly weak philosophy.

Better, I think, to be a modified Aristotelian. Concede the reality of the abstracts (forms, we call them), but deny that they exist independently. Deny, in technical terms, that there are any *subsistent *forms; all the qualities they’re the forms of, exist solely as traits of other things. Then you can have a rational approach to reality (which materialism is not), without, necessarily, conceding the actual existence of anything independent of the physical universe.

But as I said, the question is not whether existence is real, but whether it’s real apart from anything that exists. That is, “real existence” is obviously a valid point of discussion when talking about whether something exists–that is, does it have real existence? But the question is whether “real existence” exists independently of anything. Does existence, to use technical terms again (because there’s no alternative), have Being-in-Act, existing on its own, or does it have only Being-in-Potency, existing solely as a trait of something else?

I would argue that, “to exist” being the nature of, well, existence, it by definition has to exist on its own. But it might not be necessary to concede that.

 

[Mirdath]

As to the denial of abstracts…there are reasons that any kind of materialism (which is what you’re talking here) isn’t tenable; on close logical analysis it always breaks down into, “We’re Nominalist, except we randomly decided that statements about material/efficient causes are valid,” or into Monism (remember the Theravada cart analogy I mentioned?).

And Nominalism that’s only Nominalist about some things, is random and arbitrary. It is, in other words, fairly weak philosophy.

Better, I think, to be a modified Aristotelian. Concede the reality of the abstracts (forms, we call them), but deny that they exist independently. Deny, in technical terms, that there are any *subsistent *forms; all the qualities they’re the forms of, exist solely as traits of other things. Then you can have a rational approach to reality (which materialism is not), without, necessarily, conceding the actual existence of anything independent of the physical universe.

In other words, a conceptualist, no? Fine by me.

But as I said, the question is not whether existence is real, but whether it’s real apart from anything that exists. That is, “real existence” is obviously a valid point of discussion when talking about whether something exists–that is, does it have real existence? But the question is whether “real existence” exists independently of anything. Does existence, to use technical terms again (because there’s no alternative), have Being-in-Act, existing on its own, or does it have only Being-in-Potency, existing solely as a trait of something else?

I would argue that, “to exist” being the nature of, well, existence, it by definition has to exist on its own. But it might not be necessary to concede that.

Doesn’t seem like it. Where can one find pure existence, that does not depend on anything else? One might say that God is existence and end up a pantheist, but all that’s doing is slapping the label ‘God’ on everything that exists.

 

[Hastrman]

Doesn’t seem like it. Where can one find pure existence, that does not depend on anything else? One might say that God is existence and end up a pantheist, but all that’s doing is slapping the label ‘God’ on everything that exists.

Unless one were to not deny subsistent forms, then one could say that God was the subsistent form of existence–which we Thomists do.

That, incidentally, allows us to answer the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

Because the only thing whose existence is logically necessary–whose nature is “to be”–wills it so.

There’s also a little thing called the “argument from contingency” as explained by the Scholastics and, more recently, Mortimer Adler, that explains why this is a useful idea to have.

 

[anthony022071]

I think we’re just going to have to remain in disagreement on that.

Has anyone ever observed order and life as physical things?

Atoms are observed to react to each other,but that is not the same as to put things in order;and atoms are energetic,but non-living.

 

[Mirdath]

Has anyone ever observed order and life as physical things?

Atoms are observed to react to each other,but that is not the same as to put things in order;and atoms are energetic,but non-living.

As much as anyone has observed chaos and unlife as ‘physical things’.