Philosophy Apologetics Help

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brown10985
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brown10985

Guest
Hi! I was hoping someone educated in philosophy could help me answer these questions. Thanks!

1.) How could God be all knowing and still have free will?
2.) For the argument from conscience for God’s existance, isn’t it a purely inductive argument that all matter is incapable of having absolute authority over me? Sure, the matter that I come in contact with (other individuals, instincts, energy, etc.) doesn’t have absolute authority over me though how do I know there isn’t matter that I haven’t come into contact with that does have absolute authority over me? Can the claim really be made that the essence of matter is relative when we have come across such a small amount of matter in our entire solar system?
3.) A naturalist argument is that substance dualism violates the law of conservation of energy through the interaction of the mind and the brain. What would be a good counter-argument to this?
4.) Regarding C.S. Lewis’s argument from desire. Skimming through a book by Joseph Pearce called Biology of Transcendence and I was wondering why an innate desire for transcendence couldn’t be done in a naturalistic way. Wouldn’t this innate desire lead to hope and hope would lead to a better chance of survival? Nature wouldn’t be doing things in vain though it just would be using this innate desire for another purpose than corresponding to a real object. I’m not capable of imagining the object to this innate desire and there isn’t an external object to match this innate desire which is why I find the book puzzling that an innate desire could even be formed in the first place on a naturalistic level. What would a good reply be that this innate desire is just the result of people just being naturally selfish?
 
40.png
Brown10985:
Hi! I was hoping someone educated in philosophy could help me answer these questions. Thanks!

1.) How could God be all knowing and still have free will?
Click to expand...
And these have to be exclusive of one another because…?
2.) For the argument from conscience for God’s existance, isn’t it a purely inductive argument that all matter is incapable of having absolute authority over me? Sure, the matter that I come in contact with (other individuals, instincts, energy, etc.) doesn’t have absolute authority over me though how do I know there isn’t matter that I haven’t come into contact with that does have absolute authority over me? Can the claim really be made that the essence of matter is relative when we have come across such a small amount of matter in our entire solar system?
Click to expand...
Haven’t a clue what you are talking about here. :confused:
3.) A naturalist argument is that substance dualism violates the law of conservation of energy through the interaction of the mind and the brain. What would be a good counter-argument to this?
Click to expand...
Nor here. 😉
4.) Regarding C.S. Lewis’s argument from desire. Skimming through a book by Joseph Pearce called Biology of Transcendence and I was wondering why an innate desire for transcendence couldn’t be done in a naturalistic way. Wouldn’t this innate desire lead to hope and hope would lead to a better chance of survival? Nature wouldn’t be doing things in vain though it just would be using this innate desire for another purpose than corresponding to a real object. I’m not capable of imagining the object to this innate desire and there isn’t an external object to match this innate desire which is why I find the book puzzling that an innate desire could even be formed in the first place on a naturalistic level. What would a good reply be that this innate desire is just the result of people just being naturally selfish?
Click to expand...
The desire Lewis is talking about isn’t desire for ice cream or even for our daily bread but the desire to look beyond mere earthly needs, including those of the mind, to those of the soul–the part of us that says, “Let us be thankful” and “Let us pray.”

What two dolphins ever got together to give thanks for the wonderful school of fish they were about to devour? Or what two elephants ever got together and communicated the idea to each other that they ought to pray for their dead?

Only man has these desires because only man is made in the image and likeness of God.
 
I am reading a great book called, The New Man, by Thomas Merton. He is much better than most of us at explaining the mystery of God. I would take a look at it. It opened up my eyes and filled my heart with an unbelievable desire to become closer to God through Jesus Christ.
 
40.png
Brown10985:
Hi! I was hoping someone educated in philosophy could help me answer these questions. Thanks!

1.) How could God be all knowing and still have free will?
Click to expand...
Because God is Love, and He create us out of love and all of our life we learn to love until we comback to Him again. Love needs free will, and God who is love is our ONLY future.
2.) For the argument from conscience for God’s existance, isn’t it a purely inductive argument that all matter is incapable of having absolute authority over me? Sure, the matter that I come in contact with (other individuals, instincts, energy, etc.) doesn’t have absolute authority over me though how do I know there isn’t matter that I haven’t come into contact with that does have absolute authority over me? Can the claim really be made that the essence of matter is relative when we have come across such a small amount of matter in our entire solar system?
Click to expand...
Conscience for God existance… hmm

In this life, is there any matter that has authority over people like you and I ? Some witch might use some objects to have some power over somebody… but these things are lies.

If it is about our solar system… then it is about natural law. Natural law is studied by science.
3.) A naturalist argument is that substance dualism violates the law of conservation of energy through the interaction of the mind and the brain. What would be a good counter-argument to this?
Click to expand...
Please don’t be confused about many things. If it is regarding science, let scientists do their job.
4.) Regarding C.S. Lewis’s argument from desire. Skimming through a book by Joseph Pearce called Biology of Transcendence and I was wondering why an innate desire for transcendence couldn’t be done in a naturalistic way. Wouldn’t this innate desire lead to hope and hope would lead to a better chance of survival? Nature wouldn’t be doing things in vain though it just would be using this innate desire for another purpose than corresponding to a real object. I’m not capable of imagining the object to this innate desire and there isn’t an external object to match this innate desire which is why I find the book puzzling that an innate desire could even be formed in the first place on a naturalistic level. What would a good reply be that this innate desire is just the result of people just being naturally selfish?
Click to expand...
I have never read the above book, and I am not sure whether my opinion is relevant to your question. But at least I hope it will help you

All of our desires comes from God. Some are temporal desires is for our natural survival, but some are “deeper desires” that last for a longer time if not a life time.

Sometimes our temporal desires are so strong, they overpower our “deeper desires”. Roman 7 say that The Law put our fleshly desires in opposition with our spiritual desires. However, such contradiction will not be there anymore for those who are in Christ (Roman 8)

In reality, I have a very strong opinion that somebody’s calling (God’s will in his life) has to be in his “deepest desire”. God created him with musical talent, therefore he is good at it, and has great appetite to do it over and over again.

We are competitive beings : when we win, we want to do it again and again. This is also a form of survival mechanism. We are created to do what we are good at. Thus God’s calling must be around there, because we believe that God want us to live to the full.

The challenge is we are a complicated being : we have so many desires and so much potentials to be discovered, we grow and sometimes our situtations change. So what leads us a long the way? What makes us choose what?

If we think that God is good, we will choose all the good things God has in store for us. But if we think that God is a punisher, then we will make our choices based on fearful reasons. If we think God does not exist then our choices will depend on “how stong we think we are”.
 
I am a philosopher in the Thomistic school so let me try to help you.
  1. I think that your questions stems from a poor understand (albeit a common understanding) of freewill. Freedom is the ability to choose the Good. One never exercises freedom when they choose against the Good. This being true then it makes perfect sense that because God is all knowing he has the perfection of freedom which is the perfect ability to choose the Good. However, what is the Good for God. For God as with Man the Good is God himself thus God is choosing himself from all eternity. As an aside it can be said that this can lend to an explanation of the Trinity of theology if God is choosing himself from all eternity it can fit the idea that the Father chooses (loves) the Son from all eternity and that choosing (loving) is the Holy Spirit.
  2. Matter by nature is finite and thus unable by its very nature to have complete control over a subject. If matter were infinite where would be no motion. Imagine the whole of the Universe to be a static form of infinite matter. We know that this is not true by our experience and thus we know that matter is not infinite and thus cannot by its very nature have the capacity to have complete control over a subject. Inductively we know this through the laws of thermo-dynamics.
  3. The law of conservation of energy only deals with the material and not the immaterial thus no matter what the actions of interactions of the spirit may be it does not do damage to the law of conservation because there is no energy or mass transfer but rather the medium is the spirit which does not materially effect matter.
  4. I would argue that the desire for Transcendence is not only an aspect of the Spirit but is also an aspect of nature. This can be demonstrated by the vast amount of human energy that has been placed to use natural reason to assent to an understanding of the Divine or Ultimate Principle (End) … Whatever. Without the use of revelation or sanctifying grace the Greeks were able to pierce the heavens and understand the God that was revealed to the Jew without a knowledge of the revelation given to the Jews.
However, I must say that I don’t really have a grasp of the question you are asking because I have not read the parts of the book that sparked your thought. However, I would say that as far as innate behavior is concerned it is hard to treat because while there are much in human societies that can be explained as innate behavior because a large cross-section of humanity performs that act or behaves in that matter. Yet at the same time could it not be that these similarities are a product of human reason and that common ability to reason has spawned these similarities in human culture. Thus, while there is much study in the area of innate behavior I am not so sure that there is such a thing as innate behavior in and of itself.

If you could expand on your question I would be happy to address it properly and fully.
 
Hey,

Here is a link for the argument from conscience to those who are unfamiliar with it.
peterkreeft.com/topics/conscience.htm

Regarding question #2. I think what I’m saying is just because the physical aspects of material matter may be finite and limited that the authority that it has can possibly be absolute and lacking nothing or at least have enough authority to obligate another piece of physical matter. Problems with this?

Thanks.
 
This is quite simple. Think about it in reality. All finite things must have the necessary accidents. This is what limits a finite being. If a being is subject to time then it does not have power over time. If a being is subject to space then it does not have power over space etc etc. But, by the very nature of a finite being it is limited by something else. It is illogical to claim that a limited thing (this is the meaning of finite which is a condition of possessing matter because matter is that which differentiates one thing from another thing) has unlimited power. Think of the genie from the Disney movie Aladdin “Phenomenal cosmic power, itty bitty living space.” Something finite always has some type limit. If it is limited then it follows that it cannot exert its power on all things at all times apart from time for all time.

The last part of your statement is more in tune with reality. It can be said that one finite thing has authority over another finite thing and can obligate another finite thing. Think of the laws of gravity and the normal force and all the other forces we study in physics. This is matter obligating or having some authority over another object. However, if you know from your physics classes that all material objects assert some aspect of their power on the other object and limit in some way the efficacy of the other. Think of the study of vectors. However, when it comes to the absolute power that you are trying to associate with a finite being it can only be found in an in-finite being because only an infinite being is not effected by the power of the finite being that it is in proximity to. Think of this:

Two planets come close to each other one larger in mass than the other. The larger planet is going to exert its force on the smaller planet and draw the smaller planet into orbit as a satellite of the larger planet. However, the smaller planet is exerting its power on the larger planet to resist the power of the larger planet so that the effects of the power of the larger planet are made less. However, in contrast, the power of an infinite being cannot be limited in anyway and thus is the only type of being that can have full and immediate power over another being.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top