Recurring, but incorrect questions/arguments (part 1)

[John_Martin]

The reason why there are so many reasonable arguments proving God “IS”, is because each is meant to answer a specific error in reasoning. The plethora of arguments is not for the purpose of overpowering, but only exist because each one is needed for a specific instance of reasoned explanation. They are easy to formulate, because it is supremely reasonable that God IS. And it is always a defective reasoning that challenges or denies this.

Your reasoning, Ruqx, centers around the error that truth is in the object observed, when it is actually in the intellect.

It is we, in our intellect, who have the occupation of, and operation of, knowing things and then understanding (the truth of) things (deciding whether the known observed is true or not). And this understanding is not via continued and closer observation, but by comparison with whether it could be an object “as it is” in the intellect of its creator before it became an object, matching its creator’s understanding of it once it is now an object. We can call some object true or defective of truth, even though it is sitting right in front of us, because we know “that is IS”, and “what it is” and “wherefrom it is (cause)” and “what it was intended to be in the intellect of that which caused it”.

 

[Ruqx]

The reason why there are so many reasonable arguments proving God “IS”, is because each is meant to answer a specific error in reasoning.

There was a time when pretty much everyone agreed that God exists. And that was based upon the so-called revelation. Then some philosophers wanted to establish God’s existence on purely rational (non-revelational) ground only, and that was when the proverbial substance hit the fan.

Your reasoning, Ruqx, centers around the error that truth is in the object observed, when it is actually in the intellect.

Nope, you misunderstand me. “Truth” is just a concept which describes the evaluation of a proposition. The proposition may refer to the external reality (open, inductive system) in which case one must examine the reality and compare it to the mental image; or it can be uttered in a formal, axiomatic environment, in which case the proposition is “true” if it is the correct derivative of the axioms by using the rules of transformation.

It is we, in our intellect, who have the occupation of, and operation of, knowing things and then understanding (the truth of) things (deciding whether the known observed is true or not). And this understanding is not via continued and closer observation, but by comparison with whether it could be an object “as it is” in the intellect of its creator before it became an object, matching its creator’s understanding of it once it is now an object. We can call some object true or defective of truth, even though it is sitting right in front of us, because we know “that is IS”, and “what it is” and “wherefrom it is (cause)” and “what it was intended to be in the intellect of that which caused it”.

Objects are not “true” or “false”, propositions about the objects can be true or false (or undecidable).

 

[MarkInOregon]

1. **

In the atheist worldview the Universe simply exists. It requires no explanation, it did not “come” from anywhere, it just exists**. It is the ontological foundation of existence. There is no “before” or “outside” the universe.

Are you sure this is what most Atheists believe? In my experience most people seem to believe the universe is roughly 13 billion years old and has a beginning–not that is just exists. To be quite truthful you seem to be taking a form of the definition for God (i.e. ipsum esse or “the sheer act of being itself”; God is existence) and then attempting to apply it to the universe.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Ruqx]

Are you sure this is what most Atheists believe? In my experience most people seem to believe the universe is roughly 13 billion years old and has a beginning–not that is just exists.

Only the ignorant ones believe that the universe “popped” into existence. The knowledgeable ones understand that the singularity changed about 13 billion years ago - and that is when “time” started. They do not try to postulate anything “before” the singularity.

 

[petra22]

No, I do not say any of that. I say that the questions are syntactically correct and semantically meaningless. Just because you have a bunch of perfectly good words, it does not follow that stringing them together will result in a meaningful question or proposition.

“When did you stop beating your spouse?” is a meaningless question. “What exists outside the universe?” is another one. The direction of “north” cannot be defined for the North Pole. I am about to start a new thread about this very subject.

But who gets to decide what defines a “meaningless” question? Doesn’t it seem like you have to follow the questions to the very end (or beginning) to get a satisfactory answer? You can’t just say it’s meaningless and therefore has no answer…? so don’t ask that anymore?

 

[John_Martin]

But who gets to decide what defines a “meaningless” question? Doesn’t it seem like you have to follow the questions to the very end (or beginning) to get a satisfactory answer? You can’t just say it’s meaningless and therefore has no answer…? so don’t ask that anymore?

Why, of course Ruqx gets to decide:

He has decided and informed us all that “Only the ignorant ones believe that the universe “popped” into existence. The knowledgeable ones understand that the singularity changed about 13 billion years ago -”

He has decided and informed me (and all of us) that “There was a time when pretty much everyone agreed that God exists. And that was based upon the so-called revelation. Then some philosophers wanted to establish God’s existence on purely rational (non-revelational) ground only, and that was when the proverbial substance hit the fan.”

He has decided an informed us that "To the uneducated person nothing is obvious. " and that “The direction of “north” cannot be defined for the North Pole. I am about to start a new thread about this very subject.”

He has decided and informed us all that “I have been familiar with the concepts of “universals” and “abstract objects” and found them nonsensical.”

And he has informed us all that “You provided your interpretation, which I reject.”

 

[Ruqx]

But who gets to decide what defines a “meaningless” question? Doesn’t it seem like you have to follow the questions to the very end (or beginning) to get a satisfactory answer? You can’t just say it’s meaningless and therefore has no answer…? so don’t ask that anymore?

Is the question: “how many angels fit on the tip of the needle?” a meaningful question? It was debated by some theologians. Or “what is the taste of sound of middle “C”, especially when it is painted green?” Is that a question which needs to be explored?

 

[e_c]

My first intent was to present a long answer, but then I realized that I have no idea what you mean by the phrase “we can’t know [if] the axioms are true?” Do you mean “if the axioms correctly reflect the objective reality?”. Because that is what it looks like.

Please enlighten me.

I didn’t make it very clear, did I. I admit that the word “observation” is too broad and does not work as a critique as a result.

Let’s try something different… Can there be such a thing as a meaningful statement that does not refer to something that can be directly sensed, at least hypothetically, by the sense organs?

 

[e_c]

Is the question: “how many angels fit on the tip of the needle?” a meaningful question? It was debated by some theologians. Or “what is the taste of sound of middle “C”, especially when it is painted green?” Is that a question which needs to be explored?

I’d like to see the source for your claim that such a thing was ever discussed except as a mocking critique of scholasticism. (Hint: it doesn’t exist, except in Dan Brown novels, etc.)

Also:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

Not so clear all of a sudden.

At the end of the day, you are right, middle C does not have a taste, but you leap over the entirety of the discussion with your “answers” which are just as dogmatic as the arguments from revelation which you disdain. If you want to engage in a holistic rational discussion of this stuff, you need to be both holistic and rational and actually have a discussion.

 

[Ruqx]

I didn’t make it very clear, did I. I admit that the word “observation” is too broad and does not work as a critique as a result.

Let’s try something different… Can there be such a thing as a meaningful statement that does not refer to something that can be directly sensed, at least hypothetically, by the sense organs?

Well, this is somewhat different, but I will answer both the original question and this follow-up, too.

1. The axioms in ANY formal (axiomatic ) system are true, by definition - as long as the axioms are not mutually contradictory. Not all axiomatic systems are “useful”, in the sense that they correctly describe the objective reality.
2. Yes, there can be meaningful propositions which refer to entities that cannot be sensed by our sensory organs. Every axiomatic system is of this kind. Now, the phrase: “axiomatic” or “formal” system is much broader than mathematics, or geometry, or formal logic. It includes all the games, for example.

Let’s consider: “it is a meaningful proposition that in tic-tac-toe the game is a theoretical draw if both players choose the optimal strategy”; or “it is a meaningful proposition that in chess you cannot win a game if you have the king and two knights, and the opponent has only his king - as long as both players choose the optimal move”. Axiomatic systems may or many not approximate the objective reality.

I’d like to see the source for your claim that such a thing was ever discussed except as a mocking critique of scholasticism. (Hint: it doesn’t exist, except in Dan Brown novels, etc.)

Maybe not verbatim, just like the oft-quoted “Credo quia absurdum est” has not been uttered by Tertullian in exactly this form. The point is that not all questions and arguments merit attention and answer.

 

[e_c]

Well, this is somewhat different, but I will answer both the original question and this follow-up, too.

1. The axioms in ANY formal (axiomatic ) system are true, by definition - as long as the axioms are not mutually contradictory. Not all axiomatic systems are “useful”, in the sense that they correctly describe the objective reality.
2. Yes, there can be meaningful propositions which refer to entities that cannot be sensed by our sensory organs. Every axiomatic system is of this kind. Now, the phrase: “axiomatic” or “formal” system is much broader than mathematics, or geometry, or formal logic. It includes all the games, for example.

Let’s consider: “it is a meaningful proposition that in tic-tac-toe the game is a theoretical draw if both players choose the optimal strategy”; or “it is a meaningful proposition that in chess you cannot win a game if you have the king and two knights, and the opponent has only his king - as long as both players choose the optimal move”. Axiomatic systems may or many not approximate the objective reality.

Maybe not verbatim, just like the oft-quoted “Credo quia absurdum est” has not been uttered by Tertullian in exactly this form. The point is that not all questions and arguments merit attention and answer.

1. This sounds like pragmatism. Are you really willing to bite that bullet? Have you thought it all the way through?
2. If it’s not pragmatism, how do we know which axioms are true? Can they be true at all, or are they not truth-apt? How do we know this?
3. See above.
4. No, not at all. Let’s make it a rule not to call pop cultural idioms real history. It will be part of our axiomatic system for posting. (I’ve been caught doing this on CAF too, by the way. When someone points it out, it’s not fun, is it?) You have made your point, and your point has been taken. What you have yet to show is why this applies to what you claim it applies to. Why is “nothing” off-limits to meaningful discussion in the way you suggest? Specifically, whence comes our idea of “nothing” if “concepts,” as you call them, are representations of “entities,” as you call them? If there is no real entity, then how can there be a meaningful concept attached to it? (The answer is clear - “nothing” is a special concept, just as God is a special entity… and yes, they are intimately related, with this question of causation being the primary link!)
5. No answer on the synesthetes? They feel very orange about that.

 

[Ruqx]

1. This sounds like pragmatism. Are you really willing to bite that bullet? Have you thought it all the way through?

Some axiomatic systems have practical uses. Others don’t. Totally irrelevant.

1. If it’s not pragmatism, how do we know which axioms are true? Can they be true at all, or are they not truth-apt? How do we know this?

Anyone can set up a bunch of starting entities, a bunch of transformation protocols, and thus create an axiomatic system. If the proposed axioms are without contradictions, you have a valid axiomatic system. Any proposition that is the derivative of the axioms by using the transformation protocols is true proposition. That is all. I still don’t know what is your point.

Suggestion. Read web.mnstate.edu/peil/geometry/C1AxiomSystem/AxSysWorksheet.htm

If there is no real entity, then how can there be a meaningful concept attached to it?

Is a seven-headed, fire-breathing dragon in a fairy tale a “meaningful concept”? Humans have a lot of imagination, we can come up with all sorts of imaginary “beings”.

PS: I have not read your link yet. The Olympics is more interesting.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Only the ignorant ones believe that the universe “popped” into existence. The knowledgeable ones understand that the singularity changed about 13 billion years ago - and that is when “time” started. They do not try to postulate anything “before” the singularity.

That’s because they don’t know that there is a singularity and the current equations aren’t powerful enough or usable enough to allow for clear and unique conclusions. Singularities that turned up in equations in the past disappeared with improved equations and understanding. So they’re still trying to postulate back to the “singularity” as you call it. Most people–even knowledgeable ones–speak of the universe as having a beginning. I guess the singularity should just be understood as–what we don’t currently understand. But all this is way above my pay grade and really my interest (More interested in the Olympics).

Still–I don’t see how stating in your OP that “the universe simply exists. It requires no explanation, it did not ‘come’ from anywhere, it just exists. It is the ontological foundation of existence. There is no ‘before’ or ‘outside’ the universe” is any better than our explanation and definition of God. When we say something like that regarding God–those like you say “prove it”, but here you are stating it about the universe as if it is a scientific fact requiring no explanation or proof. Something seems off there.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

1. Why is there something, rather than nothing?

Some people even consider it a “fundamental” question, and they like to point out (with some smug condescension) that atheism has no answer to this “problem”. But they simply did not think it through. “Nothing” is just a concept, not an ontological entity. The question, however, presumes that “nothing” could be a valid state of affairs, while nothing is the total, complete lack of existence. To presume that the lack of existence “could” exist is lunacy.

Aren’t they speaking about the universe and what they believe to be created matter? They are not defining nothing as the “lack of existence” in the way that you are because they would say God exists, actually that God is the sheer act of being, existence itself, and that God exists outside of our universe and time. You’ve postulated that the universe has to exist, has always existed, that it just is, that there is no outside our universe, but you’ve offered no proof–and using this postulate about the universe proclaimed the idea nothing to be lunacy.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[e_c]

**1. **Some axiomatic systems have practical uses. Others don’t. Totally irrelevant.

**2. **Anyone can set up a bunch of starting entities, a bunch of transformation protocols, and thus create an axiomatic system. If the proposed axioms are without contradictions, you have a valid axiomatic system. Any proposition that is the derivative of the axioms by using the transformation protocols is true proposition. That is all. I still don’t know what is your point.

Suggestion. Read web.mnstate.edu/peil/geometry/C1AxiomSystem/AxSysWorksheet.htm

**3. **Is a seven-headed, fire-breathing dragon in a fairy tale a “meaningful concept”? Humans have a lot of imagination, we can come up with all sorts of imaginary “beings”.

**4. **PS: I have not read your link yet. The Olympics is more interesting.

1. What is the axiomatic system that allows for us to account for the universe’s existence as something definite, meaning, “that it exists in this particular way”? This is what I’m interested in. Otherwise I don’t see the point of discussing axioms at all.
2. See above. We shouldn’t want to set up entities, we should want to learn from the ones that are around us, right? We must learn from what we actually encounter, not simply build syllogisms in our head.
3. Yes, it is a very meaningful concept. “An infinitely large rock” is a meaningless concept, for such a thing could not exist… it has opposing terms. You are still clear as mud on what “meaningfulness” is. You will want to say “nothing” is therefore a meaningless concept as well, except we understand this word simply as indicating a negation of everything rather than an actually existing thing. “Nothing” is not a being. Neither, by the way, is God. In both cases, we can only ever really say what these two “things” are NOT (except in certain instances of revelation for the latter, namely the Trinity).
4. There’s a problem. Why did I bother reading yours?

 

[petra22]

The point is that not all questions and arguments merit attention and answer.

But here is the rub IMHO, there may be some curious soul that sees a pointless question in a different light that you who may find some value in looking at it and expanding and expounding… why would you try to stop that conversation and investigation by saying it has no merit… (Like why is the sky blue or why is water wet?) I can see that it may not have merit to me… my husband asks me all the time say like when the news comes on… “who cares about that?” other people have a different way of looking at what you consider ridiculous, right? Seems like you are trying to fit investigation into a box of rules that you make up. I think a scientist or philosopher would not want any question limited by someone calling it merit-less.

 

[Ruqx]

1. What is the axiomatic system that allows for us to account for the universe’s existence as something definite, meaning, “that it exists in this particular way”? This is what I’m interested in. Otherwise I don’t see the point of discussing axioms at all.

You tried to pigeonhole me into logical positivism. I denied it. Then you asked me, if there is a way to establish correct (“true”) propositions without resorting to our senses. So I presented you with the formal, axiomatic systems, which do not rely on sensory information. That is all. I see no point in pursuing the matter any further.

You will want to say “nothing” is therefore a meaningless concept as well, except we understand this word simply as indicating a negation of everything rather than an actually existing thing.

That is NOT what I said. “Nothing” is a very meaningful - ABSTRACT concept. Just like “zero” in mathematics, or the “empty set” in set theory.

“Nothing” is not a being.

Indeed. It is - again - an abstract concept.

Neither, by the way, is God.

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

In both cases, we can only ever really say what these two “things” are NOT (except in certain instances of revelation for the latter, namely the Trinity).

Negative theology is not particularly helpful. And the “concept of Trinity” has the same informational value as a “married bachelor”.

1. There’s a problem. Why did I bother reading yours?

That is for you to decide. I don’t insist.

 

[Ruqx]

But here is the rub IMHO, there may be some curious soul that sees a pointless question in a different light that you who may find some value in looking at it and expanding and expounding… why would you try to stop that conversation and investigation by saying it has no merit… (Like why is the sky blue or why is water wet?) I can see that it may not have merit to me… my husband asks me all the time say like when the news comes on… “who cares about that?” other people have a different way of looking at what you consider ridiculous, right? Seems like you are trying to fit investigation into a box of rules that you make up. I think a scientist or philosopher would not want any question limited by someone calling it merit-less.

Why should one contemplate the question: “why does the triangle have exactly three sides, and not four?” Is that a valid question?

 

[e_c]

**1. **You tried to pigeonhole me into logical positivism. I denied it. Then you asked me, if there is a way to establish correct (“true”) propositions without resorting to our senses. So I presented you with the formal, axiomatic systems, which do not rely on sensory information. That is all. I see no point in pursuing the matter any further.

**2. **That is NOT what I said. “Nothing” is a very meaningful - ABSTRACT concept. Just like “zero” in mathematics, or the “empty set” in set theory.

**3. **Indeed. It is - again - an abstract concept.

**4. **I agree with you wholeheartedly.

**5. **Negative theology is not particularly helpful. And the “concept of Trinity” has the same informational value as a “married bachelor”.

**6. **That is for you to decide. I don’t insist.

This is my last post in this thread. Your other one is better and oddly enough examines basically the exact same thing.

1. And yet you continue to display serious similarities. The whole Vienna circle would be in your corner right now. And William James would be too.

Your examples of axioms are just that - examples of axioms. We might as well just do math. What are the ones that are “useful” for understanding the universe? That’s been my question, and you’ve left it unanswered.

1. So “nothing” is a meaningful concept (or “abstract concept,” whatever that means), but “three-headed fire-breathing dragon” is not? I confess, I’m having trouble following.
2. Whence the difference between abstract concepts and whatever they are contradistinguished from? “Concrete” concepts? This is where some study would help… find someone who has gone through this line of thought before.
3. Ok. Probably for a different reason, but fine.
4. See #4. And now you have immediately excluded all study of God in Himself - negatively, and positively. You don’t give reasons, I notice. Try looking at the approach of St. Thomas in the Prima Pars… You will find him saying that we can’t know what God is by natural reason, we can only know what He is not (in Himself, not in relation to creation).
5. You will not progress if you will not put in the effort.

 

[ccmnxc]

1. Why is there something, rather than nothing?

Some people even consider it a “fundamental” question, and they like to point out (with some smug condescension) that atheism has no answer to this “problem”. But they simply did not think it through. “Nothing” is just a concept, not an ontological entity. The question, however, presumes that “nothing” could be a valid state of affairs, while nothing is the total, complete lack of existence. To presume that the lack of existence “could” exist is lunacy.

Usually it comes with an accompanying question:

1. Why do atheists say that something comes from nothing?

Of course they do not. In the atheist worldview the Universe simply exists. It requires no explanation, it did not “come” from anywhere, it just exists. It is the ontological foundation of existence. There is no “before” or “outside” the universe.

So to summarize: Atheists do NOT believe that something came out of nothing. They do NOT consider the question: “why is there something rather than nothing” a valid question.

Would it be possible to have a conversation without these (and similar) misconceptions? We both might gain some insight and learn something new.

1. Okay, let’s go with what you say as being true. Why cannot one just ask “Why does anything exist at all?”
2. Perhaps this may not apply to you, but I’ve heard the whole “virtual particle” counter-example come up too many times to believe that atheists, by and large, tend not to say something comes from nothing. Maybe most don’t, but plenty do.

Also, one least quesiton. Does the name Solmyr ring a bell at all?