Modal Ontological Argument

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey Ateista,

This is what I hope to hear from you: a “seemingly” natural event or change, which cannot be explained by the laws of nature - and they cannot be be explained not just now, but ever, in other words, which cannot be explained in principle. That and only that would qualify as X-existence.

And what I keep saying is that, assuming a process metaphysics, every event necessarily contains an element that is not explainable by the “laws of nature,” i.e. the sum of its antecedent causes. If causes A, B and C jointly cause or produce an outcome, what is produced is always more than A, B and C. There is always an X, something new, in the result.

Please make your metaphysics explicit and, since you believe change is real, explain how change is possible. (Rationally explaining change requires the possibility of simultaneous comparison of successive differences of the same thing.)

 

[ateista]

And what I keep saying is that, assuming a process metaphysics, every event necessarily contains an element that is not explainable by the “laws of nature,” i.e. the sum of its antecedent causes. If causes A, B and C jointly cause or produce an outcome, what is produced is always more than A, B and C. There is always an X, something new, in the result.

Looks like we are stuck. I keep asking for specific, concrete examples, and you keep giving me generalities. I am not interested in process metaphysics (whatever that might be), I am very much interested in concrete examples.

So let me help you. I am going to give you two processes and ask where the X-element is needed.

Start with two ordinary piece of coal (A and B), where the atoms are organized in the nice hexagonal structure we call graphite. Leave one alone (A), and expose the other one (B) to high pressure. The chemical bonds in the graphite will rearrange themselves (due to the high pressure) to another stable configuration - the shape of an octahedron - and we get a piece of diamond.

Now where is the X-element here? The laws of nature (physics and chemistry) will explain everything just fine.

If you read my proposition carefully, you must remember that I promised two examples, and so far I gave you only one.

The other example pertains to the first piece of coal (A) which is left alone. To be left alone is a specific type of process, but it is a process nevertheless (a null-process or a trivial process). The piece of coal does not change. If, as you say - every event, every process - necessarily contains a “new” element, show me where the X-stuff is here?

On the lighter side, here is a story I read a long time ago.

The theist was arguing that the order we observe in nature is a clear sign of God. When asked about a miracle he said: “Look, a miracle! Surely it is the work of God”. When asked about ordinary nature, he exclaimed: “Look, NO miracle! Surely it is the sign of God!”

I always get a chuckle when I think about this.

I will give you another example: Let’s pile up uranium atoms, one at a time. For a long time, nothing special happens, the pile just keeps growing - it is a simple qualitative change. After dropping one more atom on the pile we reach the critical mass, and the whole pile blows up - a quantitative change occured. The explanatoin is wholly physical. There is no need to posit any X-existing cause here.

If you wish to deny the sufficiency of natural explanations, you must show that these explanations are deficient, in one way or another.

Please concentrate on these problems, and stay away from generalities.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Regarding the carbon and uranium examples, U sed:

Now where is the X-element here? The laws of nature (physics and chemistry) will explain everything just fine.

The Laws of Nature will explain everything you are interested in explaining but not Every Thing that happened in each example.

Let’s look at what you are assuming here: 1) There are Laws of Nature and 2) Assuming we have complete knowledge of the facts and antecedent causes., and applying these Laws of nature to the facts, we can perfectly and completely predict the outcome (what happens next), down to the way a specific Higgs Boson zigs or zags.

That’s materialistic determinism.

Now I can understand that maybe I haven’t made an adequate metaphysical demonstration which refutes your underlying metaphysics, but I don’t see how it can be maintained in light of our present knowledge of quantum mechanics. The Laws of Nature themselves deny materialistic determinism. Reality at the quantum level exhibits indeterminacy. There’s some X factor involved.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Bravo you guys! This has been a fabulous exchange so far. I’m so glad CAF started this Philosophy forum. I spend more time reading threads here than I do posting my own thoughts. Some sturdy thinkers here.

:extrahappy:

 

[ateista]

The Laws of Nature will explain everything you are interested in explaining but not Every Thing that happened in each example.

Well, then tell me which part needs more explanation, and I will attempt to do it.

Let’s look at what you are assuming here: 1) There are Laws of Nature and 2) Assuming we have complete knowledge of the facts and antecedent causes., and applying these Laws of nature to the facts, we can perfectly and completely predict the outcome (what happens next), down to the way a specific Higgs Boson zigs or zags.

That’s materialistic determinism.

I thought we already dispensed with the idea that materialism equals determinism.

Now I can understand that maybe I haven’t made an adequate metaphysical demonstration which refutes your underlying metaphysics, but I don’t see how it can be maintained in light of our present knowledge of quantum mechanics. The Laws of Nature themselves deny materialistic determinism.

As above. Some laws of nature - and we don’t even have to go down to the quantum level - are inherently statistical (or not deterministic) in nature.

Of course I speak of the second law of thermodynamics, which says that in a closed system the entropy (disorderliness) will grow, but it does not inhibit local decrease of entropy. The Brownian motion of molecules will allow us to predict that the pressure in a closed container is “pretty much” even, but it still allows a little vacuum to form for splits of seconds.

In principle it is even possible that all the air molecules will gather in one half of a room, and the peson in the other half dies because of the lack of air - though the chances of that happening that is too small to calculate.

I cannot emphasise it enough: materialism does not equal determinism.

Reality at the quantum level exhibits indeterminacy. There’s some X factor involved.

Let’s clarify again: the X factor is not the unknown, it is the unknowable - the supernatural.

The quantum level’s inherent indeterminism does not negate materialism, it simply negates the view that reality is “simple”, or that the subatomic particles can somehow be visualized as miniature macro objects.

Periodically we have to re-evaluate our visual concept of reality, which is (emotionally) unpleasant - since we like to visualize things.

A great example of this re-evaluation process was the famous dichotomy of light’s particle-wave nature. Our concept before was that “physical stuff” is either a particle or it is wave. When light (or any other electromagnetic phenomenon) was examined, some experiments proved that light is composed of particles (photons) and other experiments proved that light is a wave. Both experiments were conclusive.

The only solution was to discard the entrenched view of particle-wave dichotomy and come to the conclusion that reality does not fit into our neat little boxes with cute little labels attached to them. Sometime new “boxes” need to be created and new “labels” are needed.

This is precisely the situation with quantum physics. Our existing ideas are insufficient. But that does not open the door to the supernatural, it only tells us that we need to look further and deeper.

 

[ateista]

Bravo you guys! This has been a fabulous exchange so far. I’m so glad CAF started this Philosophy forum. I spend more time reading threads here than I do posting my own thoughts. Some sturdy thinkers here.

:extrahappy:

Thank you for your kind words! It is a very intriguing topic, and lots of fun to explore.

 

[Good_Fella]

And the reason is very simple: she and her customer had an unwritten contract, she fulfilled her obligation and he broke his. Where is the need for some dubious “moral law”?

Which teaching is nonsense. If you are in the position to help someone, and the person asks for help, it may be a good idea to help or it may be not - depending on the circumstances.

If it is not manifested in actions and deeds,then “love” is just an empty word, so far I agree. (Side note again: God’s alleged love certainly does not manifest itself in the form we could recognize. So, it is just an empty phrase.)

I do not accept the Golden Rule, I accept the Reverse Golden Rule: “Do NOT do unto others, that you don’t want them do unto you”. In other words, don’t impose yourself on others.

If only you would clarify what you mean by the word “faith”, I could answer. But as I said before, the word “faith” covers a whole lot of territory - without further clarifications its use is meaningless.

The need for a Moral Law lies in the fact that the customer failed to fulfill his “obligation” or part of the bargain. If it were not for the imposition of the Law of Human Nature on the individual’s conscience, then everybody would be inclined to follow their instincts as opposed to the Law without any qualms about treating another person unfairly and unjustly for the sake of personal convenience (saving money). It is possible that the customer would give the prostitute the same excuse you suggested: “But we didn’t have a written contract.” Making excuses to justify our unjust behaviour presupposes the existence of the Moral Law, since people generally make these kind of excuses to defend what others consider wrong deeds. In this predicament the customer might be ignoring the voice of his conscience or else it already has been so corrupted to the point that it doesn’t bother him the least bit to cheat other people. The irony is that this same individual might be upset with his business partner for having defrauded him earlier. He may consider it wrong to be cheated, but it’s all right for him to cheat in his case. This would be purely hypocritical on his part. And without an objective Moral Law, hypocrisy couldn’t exist, for there would be no objective standard of right and wrong to judge his particular act by. Our instincts follow a biological law of survival, whereas our conscience follows the Moral Law which overrides natural law and checks our instincts. In order for us to save a baby from a burning house, we must overcome our fear of death (the instinct of survival) and abide by what our conscience is demanding: enter the burning house and try to save the baby, which would be the morally right thing to do. Since the Moral Law contradicts natural law and governs our natural instincts, it necessarily follows that its source is beyond the physical order of existence. And since it is not indifferent to the dignity of a human being, unlike the G-atom, this source must be a conscious and intelligent personal Being, namely God, who transcends physical space and time. It was by the Law that the transcendent and invisible God explicitly revealed himself to the Jews through Moses. God would eventually become visible to us in the person Jesus Christ, who established the Law of the New Covenant with all of humanity.

The Law of the Old Covenant would demand that we give our cloak to a poor beggar upon his plea. The Law of the New Covenant demands that we give the beggar more than what he has asked for, however inconvenient the circumstances are to us according to our natural instincts: our tunic as well. You consider our Lord’s teaching “nonsense” because you fail to distinguish between human instinct and the voice of conscience which communes with the Moral Law and communicates the Law of Human Nature - as opposed to our animal and biological nature. I would agree with you if there were no Moral Law totally disassociated with our instinct of survival and our impulses.

God so loved the world that He gave His Only-begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish, but might have eternal life. {John 3,16}

Your twisted version of the Golden Rule displays a cynical attitude. Perhaps your cynicism explains why you refuse to believe in God. For you question the existence of goodness itself. Are we, including God, essentially beings who impose ourselves on others? “L’ En fer c’est les autres.” (Hell is other people.): Jean Paul Sartre. At any rate, the Moral Law does tell us through the voice of conscience that it is wrong to impose ourselves on other people for selfish reasons. And the Law also tells us that it is not an imposition on us to walk an extra mile with someone or to sacrifice even our lives for another person, our country, or our religious faith. People who consider acts of bravery or moral courage as an imposition on oneself are purely selfish and egotistic.

I mean, do you actually believe that what you affirm is true?

Faith is the realization of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. {Hebrews 11,1}

St. Paul’s words find their embodiment and fulfillment in Jesus Christ, the Word of God.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[ateista]

Your twisted version of the Golden Rule displays a cynical attitude.

Cynical? Hardly. The reason is much simpler: The original version (“Do unto others…”) allows all sorts of atrocities.

Example: I see a beautiful woman and I want her to make passionate love to me. Therefore I am justified to make passionate love to her - even if she objects! After all, what I am doing to her is exactly what I want her to do unto me. The reverse rule does nor allow such behavior.

Perhaps your cynicism explains why you refuse to believe in God. For you question the existence of goodness itself. Are we, including God, essentially beings who impose ourselves on others?

Here is my favorite little story: A boy-scout goes home and his father asks him what kind of good deed has he performed today. He proudly answers: “I and my 5 friends helped an old man cross the street”. The father says: “That is very nice. But why did you need your 5 friends?”. The boy-scout answers: “Because the old man did not want to cross the street”.

People who consider acts of bravery or moral courage as an imposition on oneself are purely selfish and egotistic.

I did not say that all behaviors are an impostion. I just said that the original version allows and encourages imposition. By the way I hope you know that the original version of the golden rule is much older than the Bible.

Faith is the realization of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. {Hebrews 11,1}

Translation: this particular type of faith (and there are other kinds) is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Note: I did not answer the other parts of your post, because I did not read it. Many times I asked you to use paragraph breaks.

 

[Good_Fella]

Still no paragraph breaks, eh? Please consider them. I do not want to sound rude, but I will not try to make sense of such uninterrupted monologues.

No, that is not the reason. The real reason is that I am permissive in the sense that I do not try to interfere with other people’s lives. I respect their rights to have their own particular views of reality (even if those views are nonsensical to me), and I respect their rights to say what they want.

Please, investigate materialism a little deeper if you wish to criticize it. What is this “nihilism” you speak of?

Sorry, that argument carries no weight for me. In Luke 19:27 he also commanded to slaughter everyone who does not wish to accept him to rule over them. Be careful with quoting the Bible.

Why not? I was born with certain talents (inherited them from my parents) and I tried to utilize them in my life. I am not proud of the accidental composition of my DNA, but I am proud of what I did with it.

Sorry, but I can’t predict exactly what you want to edit and isolate in keeping with your rhetorical scheme. I form my paragraphs as part of a unified whole for all the readers. I am adressing all the readers, not only you, which would be a waste of my time. I’m not doing this for fun like you are. And I’m not trying to convert you by argument. Only the grace of God could do that through my prayers. I thought you might not like to impose yourself on me.

Then you are willing to admit that by deliberately interfering with other people’s lives you are doing something wrong regardless of what you think, and it is decent of us to respect the rights of others even though we may disagree with what they say. Political or religious tolerance may prove inconvenient or discomforting to us, but it’s a human feat that defies our natural inclinations and primordial instincts. It points to a higher order of existence where we are required to renounce ourselves for the sake of what is right. Your impersonal, mindless, and indifferent atomic “Singularity” could not possibly be ultimately behind such a human virtue.

Now you might argue that we are tolerant of each other because it is in all our interest to live peacefully together for our security and happiness. In other words, we are acting on our mutual instinct of survival: a purely biological and genetic predisposition. But this still doesn’t explain why we have this notion of right and wrong. As C.S. Lewis puts it: “If we ask, ‘Why ought I to be unselfish?’ and you reply, ‘Because it is good for society,’ we may then ask, ‘Why should I care what’s good for society except when it happens to pay me personally ( happiness and security)?’ and then you will have to say, ‘Because you ought to be unselfish’ - which simply brings us back to where we started” ‘Mere Christianity’, pp. 19-20: Harper Sanfrancisco]. The instinct of survival is a selfish principle. I may refuse to save a drowning man because I value my life more than his. And I may help preserve society for my sake. The preservation of society has nothing to do with the individual’s survival instinct beyond his own interest. The Law of Human Nature comes in when we act without regard to ourselves because it is the right thing or unselfish thing to do.

Nihilism ( from the Latin ‘nihil’: nothing) is a philosophical position, adopted by materialists, that contends human existence has no essential value (an atomic fluke) and purpose or objective meaning. Nihilists assert there is no proof of a higher order of existence beyond the physical realm; nor is there any sufficient proof for the existence of God. Nihilists are preoccupied with the external order of the physical universe; hence, by ignoring the internal order of mankind ( I don’t mean DNA. That’s more an individual thing.), they fail to see an objective reality beyond the physical world. They claim that an absolute and objective morality does not exist. “Moral relativism” is what exists at most: whatever is convenient for a certain people at a given time. There are various branches of Nihilism with different shades of the same stupid thought. If you read Dostoyevsky’s ‘The Devils’, you’ll get an idea of the kind of people I’m talking about.

“Now as for those enemies of mine who did not want me as their king, bring them here and slay them before me.” {Luke 19,27}

Jesus is not commanding anyone to literally slay anybody who rejects him. This verse is part of a parable (The Ten Gold Coins), and the speaker is a nobleman who had set off to obtain a kingship for himself. The slaying of the king’s enemies probably alludes to the eternal spiritual death of the scribes and Pharisees for having voluntarily rejected the Messiah out of religious pride and spiritual blindness. The parable is intentionally directed by Jesus to the Jewish religious elders who should have recognized and accepted him as the Messiah, if not for their arrogance. It also concerns those who believe they are faithful to Christ but are unfruitful in their faith. The language in parables can be metaphoric.

The fact you can act upon your talents and gifts means you are more than the DNA that constitutes your being. If someone had “chosen” not to act upon his musical talent, for instance, he could not be “proud” of his accomplishment as a world famous violinist and virtuoso. But since we did not create our potential selves, we have nothing to be proud of, but rather should be grateful to the One who gave us this DNA in the first place. Our DNA is not an accident. If I accidentally spill a cup of coffee on the kitchen table, I doubt I could do anything creative with that stain to expect acclaim.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[ateista]

I thought you might not like to impose yourself on me.

And I don’t. You are free to write in any style you want to, and I am free not to read it if it causes my eyes too much stress.

As for the rest of your ideas, I would like to direct you to the thread about the soul of bacteria. I already gave a detailed explanation why your reductionist demands are in error. I do not want to write the same post twice.

As a matter of fact, all this does not belong to this thread. Time permitting I will open a new one which deals directly with mateiralism. I hope to see you there.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.