On agnosticism (Calling Atheists and Agnostics)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matthias123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Matthias123 said:
What are you talking about? We just had what appears to be a first class miracle, just about 15 min away from where I live, in Surrey BC. A man was hours away from death with the flesh eating disease, and after placing the Relic of Blessed Marmion over him, and having the priests whole parish pray for him the flesh eating bacteria disappeared. He was also told he would be brain damaged and never walk again. He is completely fine save for a cane. It was on the front page of the Vancouver Sun.
Click to expand...
The man gets major surgery and urgent care from dozens of medical staff, and months of care and rehabilitation after the infection, and you give credit to a dead monk and some praying? Ridiculous. Willful blindness, in fact.

It’s far more plausible that the doctors underestimated the man’s immune system’s ability to fight the infection, overestimated the extent of the damage done, and underestimated his body’s ability to recover. It is not some suspension of natural law that the human body’s system for killing harmful invaders actually kills harmful invaders – especially when aided by modern antibiotics and procedures.

It amazes me that you consider this voodooesque superstition more plausible than the idea that doctors don’t know everything and can’t predict the future.
 
Matthias123 said:
If your not going to bother to learn the proper philosophical terms and concepts, then I am not going to bother arguing with you. There is no reason why I should create new words to explain these concepts when you can just go and read Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas.
Click to expand...
I would be happy to learn what your words are intended to mean. That’s why I’ve been asking you to provide definitions!

What I’m not willing to do is read an excess of ancient literature because you don’t feel like explaining yourself. Do you not see why it’s unreasonable for you to ask me to read a fourteen-volume tome from antiquity in response to my request you define three or four terms you used on a message board?
The neo-platonic view of existence was that all beings participated in existence. Then after the sack of Constantinople by the Venetians, the European philosophers were able to translate Aristotle’s work into Latin. Only Logic was translated into Latin at that time, therefore the influx of Aristotelian thought was decisive. Thomas Aquinas argued that beings do not exist because they participate in existence. They exist separately from the substance of existence, and that since existence is not in the nature of beings, they must be metaphysically caused by a being that exists by its very nature. They exist from an act of existence that has a metaphysical cause that not only causes their existence but sustains their existence.
Click to expand...
I reject the existence of any such “substance of existence.” Moreover, I find your use of the phrase “act of existence” quite dubious, since that too seems like reification on your part.

There are many ways to define existence, but perhaps the most appropriate definition for our purposes is the following: Existence is just a word referring to the instantiation of some object in reality to which an imagined idea points.
Therefore the metaphysical cause (God) is the creator and the sustainer of all things. Welcome to Thomistic Metaphysics!
Click to expand...
Right, but I’m no Thomist, nor am I a Platonist or Aristotelian.
 
The “act of existence” is the act of a being existing. A being cannot exist from its own nature – proof of this can be found in contingent things.

With existence, there is actual existence, and there is potential existence. A unicorn potential exists, but it does not actually exist. With location in space – you are actually at your computer, but you are potentially 5 feet away. Something that is actually here, is potentially over there.

A pure actuality is a being that is void of anything potential.
 
Matthias123 said:
The “act of existence” is the act of a being existing.
Click to expand...
Okay, but here’s my problem with this: An “action” is, as I understand it, a behavior of matter. When I say that something “acts” a certain way, I’m referring to that thing’s behavior in the material world.

Existence, then, is not an action. Rather, existence is a descriptor for a material object. That’s all it is. For any material object, we can say about that object that it exists. When we say that something does not exist, we cannot be referring to material objects, since material objects by definition exist. Rather, we are referring to ideas about what the material world which inaccurately describe that world. In other words, when we say that unicorns do not exist, what we mean is that no material object fits the description of the idea of a unicorn.

So, when you talk about an “act of a being existing,” either you mean simply “the existence of some being,” or else you mean something foreign to my understanding. If it is the former, then certainly we can see how your argument is a non-sequitur. If it is the latter, then I require further clarification.
A being cannot exist from its own nature – proof of this can be found in contingent things.
Click to expand...
Any material being exists by definition. No effort is required on the part of that being to exist.
With existence, there is actual existence, and there is potential existence. A unicorn potential exists, but it does not actually exist. With location in space – you are actually at your computer, but you are potentially 5 feet away. Something that is actually here, is potentially over there.
Click to expand...
A pure actuality is a being that is void of anything potential.
Click to expand...
I am “potentially” five feet away from my computer only in the sense that I can imagine myself being five feet away. Is that what you mean? That anything “potentially” exists a certain way iff we can imagine it that way?

That seems odd.
 
hatsoff said:
Okay, but here’s my problem with this: An “action” is, as I understand it, a behavior of matter. When I say that something “acts” a certain way, I’m referring to that thing’s behavior in the material world.

Existence, then, is not an action. Rather, existence is a descriptor for a material object. That’s all it is. For any material object, we can say about that object that it exists. When we say that something does not exist, we cannot be referring to material objects, since material objects by definition exist. Rather, we are referring to ideas about what the material world which inaccurately describe that world. In other words, when we say that unicorns do not exist, what we mean is that no material object fits the description of the idea of a unicorn.

So, when you talk about an “act of a being existing,” either you mean simply “the existence of some being,” or else you mean something foreign to my understanding. If it is the former, then certainly we can see how your argument is a non-sequitur. If it is the latter, then I require further clarification.

Any material being exists by definition. No effort is required on the part of that being to exist.

I am “potentially” five feet away from my computer only in the sense that I can imagine myself being five feet away. Is that what you mean? That anything “potentially” exists a certain way iff we can imagine it that way?

That seems odd.
Click to expand...
Okay, but here’s my problem with this: An “action” is, as I understand it, a behavior of matter. When I say that something “acts” a certain way, I’m referring to that thing’s behavior in the material world.
Click to expand...
Existence, then, is not an action. Rather, existence is a descriptor for a material object. That’s all it is. For any material object, we can say about that object that it exists. When we say that something does not exist, we cannot be referring to material objects, since material objects by definition exist. Rather, we are referring to ideas about what the material world which inaccurately describe that world. In other words, when we say that unicorns do not exist, what we mean is that no material object fits the description of the idea of a unicorn.
Click to expand...
No, existence is not a description, that would make it an attribute. Beings don’t have the attribute of existing, beings have the action of existing. The “act of existing” is the metaphysical act of being. The moon exists because it has the act of actually existing. The only other way is that a being participates in a sort of higher order, which is existence. That is neo-Platonism, and if you are a neo-Platonist, then look to the Ontological argument, it was designed for neo-Platonism.
When we say that something does not exist, we cannot be referring to material objects, since material objects by definition exist.
Click to expand...
We are referring to the substantial form (idea) of the material object which is immaterial. Yes you are correct, we are not referring to the matter of the substance.
Any material being exists by definition. No effort is required on the part of that being to exist.
Click to expand...
Nothing material can exist by its very nature. Otherwise it would be non-contingent, and we know that the universe contains contingent things. Furthermore if it did it would not be capable of change, because it would only exist one way.There has to be one thing existing by its nature in order to provide a metaphysical cause.
I am “potentially” five feet away from my computer only in the sense that I can imagine myself being five feet away. Is that what you mean? That anything “potentially” exists a certain way iff we can imagine it that way?
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with our intellect. Something which potentially exists is an objective truth that transcends us. We have the capacity to know the forms(ideas) of beings which don’t actually exist. This is due to our ability of abstraction, it one of the abilities that sets us apart from other animals. This is also one of the philosophical problems of materialism. A materialist is going to have to explain how we can know things that do not actually exist, through purely biological means. The active intellect is immaterial, but the passive intellect is material and relies on the organ of the brain. It is through the active intellect that we are able to know beings that do not actually exist.
 
Matthias123 said:
No, existence is not a description, that would make it an attribute. Beings don’t have the attribute of existing, beings have the action of existing. The “act of existing” is the metaphysical act of being. The moon exists because it has the act of actually existing. The only other way is that a being participates in a sort of higher order, which is existence. That is neo-Platonism, and if you are a neo-Platonist, then look to the Ontological argument, it was designed for neo-Platonism.
Click to expand...
Okay, but I reject the idea that anything acts out existence in that way. In other words, what you call “the act of existence,” I call nonsense.

And so everything which follows, since it relies on your reified definition of “existence,” I likewise reject.
 
tonyrey said:
That doesn’t surprise me in the least when you regard physical survival as more important than everything else, life as a purposeless accident, morality as a human convention and love as an illusion…
Click to expand...
That’s certainly not as romantic sounding as an all powerful perfect father figure that rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked and thinks you are so special that he’ll give you everlasting life after death, but reality is what it is whether Darwin or you are correct.
 
Matthias123 said:
whatever floats your boat.

On Being and Essence by Thomas Aquinas

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/aquinas-esse.html
Click to expand...
It’s not really “whatever floats” our boats, though. These things are either meaningful or they aren’t. And if they are, then the ideas are either correct or incorrect.

But anyway, that’s why the argument in the second post doesn’t work. The author has reified existence to mean something which is at best inconsistent.
 
Matthias123 said:
whatever floats your boat.
Click to expand...
Water?

I never really understood that phrase… hmmmm **googles…
whatever floats your boat - if it makes you happy/it’s your decision/it’s your choice (although I don’t necessarily agree and I don’t care anyway) - a relatively modern expression from the late 20th century with strangely little known origins. Interestingly the phrase is used not only in the 2nd person (you/your) sense; “Whatever floats your boat” would also far more commonly be used in referring to the 3rd person (him/his/her/their) than “Whatever floats his boat” or Whatever floats her/their boat", which do not occur in common usage. Importantly the meaning also suggests bemusement or disagreement on the part of whoever makes the comment; rather like saying “it’s not something I would do or choose myself, but if that’s what you want then go ahead, just so long as you don’t want my approval”. Unofficial references and opinions about the ‘whatever floats your boat’ cliche seem to agree the origins are American, but other than that we are left to speculate how the expression might have developed. The ‘whatever floats your boat’ expression is a metaphor that alludes to the person being the boat, and the person’s choice (of activity, option, particularly related to lifestyle) being what the boat sits on and supports it, or in a more mystical sense, whatever enables the boat to defy the downward pull of gravity. In this latter sense the word ‘floats’ is being applied to the boat rather than what it sits on. Whether the phrase started from a single (but as yet unidentified) quote, or just ‘grew’ through general adoption, the clues to the root origins of the expression probably lie more than anything else in the sense that the person’s choice is considered irresponsible or is not approved of, because this sense connects to other negative meanings of ‘float’ words used in slang. The word ‘float’ in this expression possibly draws upon meanings within other earlier slang uses of the word ‘float’, notably ‘float around’ meaning to to occupy oneself circulating among others without any particular purpose (‘loaf around aimlessly’ as Cassell puts it, perhaps derived from the same expression used in the Royal Air Force from the 1930s to describe the act of flying irresponsibly and aimlessly). Also, significantly, ‘floating’ has since the 1950s been slang for being drunk or high on drugs. ‘Floating one’ refers to passing a dud cheque or entering into a debt with no means of repaying it (also originally from the armed forces, c.1930s according to Cassells). And a ‘floater’ has for some decades referred to someone who drifts aimlessly between jobs. While none of these usages provides precise origins for the ‘floats your boat’ expression, they do perhaps suggest why the word ‘float’ fits aptly with a central part of the expression’s meaning, especially the references to drink and drugs, from which the word boat and the combination of float and boat would naturally have developed or been associated.
Click to expand...
 
liquidpele said:
That’s certainly not as romantic sounding as an all powerful perfect father figure that rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked and thinks you are so special that he’ll give you everlasting life after death, but reality is what it is whether Darwin or you are correct.
Click to expand...
No, if neo-Darwinism is correct it would no way come into conflict with the faith. I don’t know where you get that idea from but it is not from us.
 
hatsoff said:
It’s not really “whatever floats” our boats, though. These things are either meaningful or they aren’t. And if they are, then the ideas are either correct or incorrect.

But anyway, that’s why the argument in the second post doesn’t work. The author has reified existence to mean something which is at best inconsistent.
Click to expand...
But anyway, that’s why the argument in the second post doesn’t work. The author has reified existence to mean something which is at best inconsistent.
Click to expand...
No it is not inconsistent, it corrected some slight errors in platonic philosophy. From what I understand you think existence is just a concept in our mind, and doesn’t really exist. This is erroneous. If we cannot, by our reason to understand being and essence then we really can’t understand anything.
On Being and Essence:
A small error at the outset can lead to great errors in the final conclusions, as the Philosopher says in I De Caelo et Mundo cap. 5 (271b8-13)
Click to expand...
 
Matthias123 said:
No, if neo-Darwinism is correct it would no way come into conflict with the faith. I don’t know where you get that idea from but it is not from us.
Click to expand...
I was talking about the forum user “Charles Darwin” that was posting earlier. Sorry, I should have been clearer. His user name is a bit confusing to reference though.
 
liquidpele said:
Code: 
                             That's certainly not as romantic sounding as an all powerful perfect father figure that rewards the righteous and punishes the wicked and thinks you are so special that he'll give you everlasting life after death, but reality is what it is whether Darwin or you are correct.
Click to expand...
It is not a question of my opinion or being romantic but of correspondence to the right to life, the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity, the belief in truth, justice, free will and responsibility which is the basis of judicial systems throughout the world and of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. The notion that physical survival is more important than everything else, that life is a purposeless accident, that morality is a human convention and that love is an illusion is falsified by the way in which all civilized human beings behave and live. I’m quite sure that in your daily life you don’t live according to those negative assumptions. 🙂 That is the best test of any philosophy - whether it is just a theoretical exercise or whether it corresponds to everyday reality…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top