Supernatural epistemology?

[Abba]

Likewise, to me it looks like a description of the law of conservation

I think FurtherSunlight is presenting the idea that the soul is eternal and is referencing nature as proof.

I think FurtherSunlight’s argument goes like this: we see in nature how things are re-used. A tree for example ruts but it then nourishes the soil. It does not just disappear magically. There are natural laws that we see in the world. There are stages of development in nature and in human beings; e.g. a baby is born, becomes a toddler, teenager, adult, ages, etc… Why would the process all of the sudden stop at death o the body for the ‘self’? We see that things are re-used or re-processed in nature why is it so difficult to understand that the ‘self’ does not disappear but is simply going to a different stage or realm?

I think it is an excellent argument.



Abba

 

[inocente]

Stochastic behavior does not mean something is uncaused. Furthermore, there are at least a number of external conditions that are necessary for the atom to undergo decay. This is enough to dismiss this as a proper objection.

I’m only offering the standard critiques to his arguments. Thomas says “Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another” but there is no other in a radioactive decay.

It was just one example illustrating the principles in use. In fact, the principles themselves have no problem being illustrated from an example of friction. Objects becoming hot due to friction are still actualized from potentially being hot to actually being hot.

If we read him as only saying wood has lots of potentials (damp, green, painted, rotton, chair leg, tree, paper, statue, etc.) it would be too trivial to mention, so he must be saying that actual fire turns the potential fire in wood into actual fire. But when rubbing two sticks together the heat is produced on the spot, it wouldn’t be there if you left the sticks alone.

He has no problem with causal chains ordered per accidens stretching into infinity, only with causal chains ordered per se stretching back into infinity because it is a logical contradiction. If his first mover could be moved by an earlier mover than it would not be the first mover. Aquinas is talking about a first mover ordered hierarchically and not in time.

There’s no logical contradiction in a chain stretching back to infinity (if you reverse the items in the chain it’s always possible to add another).

It is a nominal definition of what we mean when we say the word God. Aquinas goes on to prove that a being exists who has many of the attributes we would ascribe to such a being: omnipotence, omniscience, omni-benevolence, wholly unique, ect. Basically, this objection fails to look at the whole picture.

You said “Aquinas’ 1st way is sound” yet now you seem to be saying it can’t stand alone. But piling up invalid lines of reasoning won’t produce a valid argument.

Really, all the objections you provide are the kind of things I see every day and all can be dismissed once the arguments are understood. I invite you to read Aquinas: a beginner’s guide by Edward Feser to get up to speed with many of the common objections to Aquinas’ five ways and the misunderstandings that they are based upon.

A number of philosophers have restated his argument in modern terminology, making it even clearer that it doesn’t work. If arguments for the existence of God are so opaque they need explanatory volumes, that may tell us something about whether God wants such “proofs”.

 

[Shike]

I’m only offering the standard critiques to his arguments. Thomas says “Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another” but there is no other in a radioactive decay.

My reply was sufficient to show that there is a “other” involved. We’re talking about metaphysical principles here and not necessarily really separable objects.

If we read him as only saying wood has lots of potentials (damp, green, painted, rotton, chair leg, tree, paper, statue, etc.) it would be too trivial to mention, so he must be saying that actual fire turns the potential fire in wood into actual fire. But when rubbing two sticks together the heat is produced on the spot, it wouldn’t be there if you left the sticks alone.

He’s saying that something actual must actualize something that is potential, that something can’t actualize itself in the relevant sense. He gave an example where the effect is contained formally in the cause, but the effect could certainly exist eminently or virtually in the cause–that’s something Aquinas would accept. The case of friction you gave would be an example of an effect contained virtually in the cause. But nevertheless, the effect is still actualized by something other than itself, no matter which way you slice it.

There’s no logical contradiction in a chain stretching back to infinity (if you reverse the items in the chain it’s always possible to add another).

And if you read my first response you would see that Aquinas allows for that possibility. He is talking about a specific kind of causal chain, however, one that by its very nature can’t stretch back to infinity. So such an objection misses the point.

You said “Aquinas’ 1st way is sound” yet now you seem to be saying it can’t stand alone. But piling up invalid lines of reasoning won’t produce a valid argument.

Aquinas’ 1st way is sound. But no one said that it had to prove that the Unmoved Mover has almost all of the attributes traditionally associated with the Judeo/Christian God by itself all in one go. Accept Aquinas’ 1st way and we will go from there.

A number of philosophers have restated his argument in modern terminology, making it even clearer that it doesn’t work. If arguments for the existence of God are so opaque they need explanatory volumes, that may tell us something about whether God wants such “proofs”.

Yes, except if his arguments were restated in terms of modal necessity they are almost undoubtedly mistaken. There has been a lot of confusion related to these arguments.

Again, I offer the intrigued to give Aquinas’ arguments another chance. Aquinas: a beginner’s guide by Edward Feser is a good start to get up to speed and get past a lot of the nonsense out there that is often passed off as serious objections.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I think FurtherSunlight is presenting the idea that the soul is eternal and is referencing nature as proof.

I think FurtherSunlight’s argument goes like this: we see in nature how things are re-used. A tree for example ruts but it then nourishes the soil. It does not just disappear magically. There are natural laws that we see in the world. There are stages of development in nature and in human beings; e.g. a baby is born, becomes a toddler, teenager, adult, ages, etc… Why would the process all of the sudden stop at death o the body for the ‘self’? We see that things are re-used or re-processed in nature why is it so difficult to understand that the ‘self’ does not disappear but is simply going to a different stage or realm?

I think it is an excellent argument.



Abba

Exactly … All the material evidence gathered by the materialst is now labeled…
… spiritual evidence…

As far as people not following the entire construction of my entry… well,

Everything is relative …Stories help understand this mysterious necessity in creation. My relative activity in this chat was used in a clever suggestive adding the undeniable relative fact of our setting…

within…

a proper look at the nature of all material in the universe. Relativity, its effect and role is a major player and must be addressed… in order to properly argue the aspect of truth in perception.

Texture in argument is in motion. Texture in our expression
demonstrates a contradiction to the material essence only, of a human being .

We can look at a tree . We can say the atmosphere and the soil is for the tree…or we could say the tree is for the atmosphere and the soil. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that…

all is for all… So the operative word is “for”…Individual self a growing living, maturing reality
for…what? It cannot be left un-negotiated. It denies all the material evidence we now have at our …handy disposal!!!

Nothing is left un-negotiated , obviously including the unique achieved essence in self. Its as clear as day…but relative like everything else.

If above was untrue, man would have self destructed by now based on the illogical potential for
pain in the human body. Without meaning pain is illogical and greatly outweighs comfort… We know there is meaning other than the material unconsciously.

All we are doing is exchanging hope in the realities of existence which are not always evident
due to how people treat each other. This one of the factual truths in the enlightenment which holds toddlers to be less tainted in requiring reason for existence. How people can treat each other suggesting the material is all ,is not yet fully mounted into life experience. They are full of natural hope showing courage. Serious sickness ect is managed very well by the toddlers.
Everything is perfectly inter-connected.

 

[Shike]

I think FurtherSunlight is presenting the idea that the soul is eternal and is referencing nature as proof.

Maybe. But I don’t see why one couldn’t say that the soul is reused in such a way that doesn’t retain any remnant of personal identity.

And in general, when things decompose, it seems like a stretch to say that the thing is reused, simply because that thing is no longer the same thing, regardless if one of its metaphysical principles is reused.

But I do agree that nature is shot through with an immaterial element, and it is foolish to say that strict metaphysical materialism is true. But then again, usually in practice the materialist just subsumes all reality under the category of materialism and the physical… and perhaps denies anything they consider supernatural, whether it actually is or isn’t.

This is one reason why defining ones terms is very important.

 

[inocente]

Again, I offer the intrigued to give Aquinas’ arguments another chance. Aquinas: a beginner’s guide by Edward Feser is a good start to get up to speed and get past a lot of the nonsense out there that is often passed off as serious objections.

We could debate this for weeks and still not agree. However , the First Way is only 300 words long and none of those words are technically difficult, so saying we need to read other books first to get us in the right mood to see its shining light indicates it can’t stand up by itself. Even then our mood would depend on which books we read, and we’d still disagree, which doesn’t do much to demonstrate the argument is sound.

 

[inocente]

I think FurtherSunlight’s argument goes like this: we see in nature how things are re-used. A tree for example ruts but it then nourishes the soil. It does not just disappear magically. There are natural laws that we see in the world. There are stages of development in nature and in human beings; e.g. a baby is born, becomes a toddler, teenager, adult, ages, etc… Why would the process all of the sudden stop at death o the body for the ‘self’? We see that things are re-used or re-processed in nature why is it so difficult to understand that the ‘self’ does not disappear but is simply going to a different stage or realm?

I think it is an excellent argument.

Sounds like reincarnation.

So in terms of the OP, we have two competing versions of the supernatural - souls go to heaven or souls are perpetually reincarnated. How do we know which is true?

 

[Shike]

We could debate this for weeks and still not agree. However , the First Way is only 300 words long and none of those words are technically difficult, so saying we need to read other books first to get us in the right mood to see its shining light indicates it can’t stand up by itself. Even then our mood would depend on which books we read, and we’d still disagree, which doesn’t do much to demonstrate the argument is sound.

Most of the words are detailed technical terms, whether difficult or not.

Can you say that you have a strong background in Aristotelian metaphysics? If not, then chances are you are misreading Aquinas. And you are only referring to his summary argument of the 1st way contained in the Summa Theologiae. I’m not saying that it can’t stand on its own there (as that has been the source of my re-presentation of Aquinas’ 1st way), but it is fleshed out in much more detail in other works, such as the Summa Contra Gentiles.

All I’m saying is that at least some introductory knowledge is needed to understand the arguments. Whether one obtains that knowledge through a book or a lecture or from coming to the same conclusions as Aristotle through one’s own mind… it doesn’t matter for my purposes.

We could debate this for weeks and still not agree.

If the two parties had a good grasp on the technical terminology, then I daresay the debate wouldn’t last that long. And what if it did? Truth is truth.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Maybe. But I don’t see why one couldn’t say that the soul is reused in such a way that doesn’t retain any remnant of personal identity.

And in general, when things decompose, it seems like a stretch to say that the thing is reused, simply because that thing is no longer the same thing, regardless if one of its metaphysical principles is reused.

But I do agree that nature is shot through with an immaterial element, and it is foolish to say that strict metaphysical materialism is true. But then again, usually in practice the materialist just subsumes all reality under the category of materialism and the physical… and perhaps denies anything they consider supernatural, whether it actually is or isn’t.

This is one reason why defining ones terms is very important.

Ok good…my idea is completely mis-understood. I think its a good concept. I will be very clear.

Also…in trying to show that the soul is immortal without solid physical evidence, the product of an attempt is a concept. A concept or idea can only help us to try and figure out what would be reasonable, or what would follow in a circumstance which cannot be perfectly determined.

I think the answer or attempted approach must encompass all that we know in creation. In other words , everything should fit without any contradictions and include what would be very easy to follow …common sense.

If philosophical idea or concept cannot be reduced to easy to follow common sense, there is NO value. Introducing words like metaphysical are illogical relative to efforts at common sense because the word “metaphysical” has about 5-6 different available context meanings which interfere with clarity. As mentioned before, most of philosophy style jargon can be easily replaced with common easy to follow words
Try it with a dictionary. Try Chalmers ,Feser, Harris or whoever and condense a couple of chapters… you will be amazed with the non-sense and verbal baloney in order to accommodate the publishers and the groupies.

Ok…this is a story which is not, I repeat not a dramatization in order to excite emotion. The intention is to draw out the chief players in this subject we are discussing, The players are as follows

1. Man & his unique self
2. Value
3. Creation
4. Reason.

A young man is walking down the street. He has a wholesome outlook and thoroughly enjoys and appreciates the company and so forth of all his friends , relatives etc. An old man is walking down the street. The old man has lived most of whats expected in time, given to life.

The young man see’s a vehicle coming while the old man is crossing the street, runs out , saves the old mans life…and is instantly killed.

In creation, we learn through science that nothing is wasted.(negotiated) All the material in the world has value relative to itself & all that is

.If the soul is not immortal, the value of sacrifice in the “subjective estimate of quality for human life” (worthiness) is the only known value in creation which somehow magically dis-appears.

Cause and effect is denied if the self determined sacrifice , a value relative to all in creation, falls upon absolute abolishment. The effect relative to its own cause,magically dis-appears.

Nothing we know of is “wasted” (non-negotiated) I posted this because I’m positive in reading your commentary, you completely missed the approach at hand in my thought…and also noted idea in this discourse…The soul is immortal…true or false.

I think if hard core evidence is what would delight, perhaps there are a few near death experience’s or science involved in soul searching criteria. I saw one where a little girl passed on…oh about 13 or so…she said that when she left the body, rising over the operating table,
she distinctly saw a running shoe in a specific location on the roof of the rather large building.
Sure enough the shoe was exactly as described and in exactly said location on this large buildings roof…
those mediator guys look like a total farce,

Basically, the human mind in attempts to uncover un-knowns can get out of control with abstract
notions. A weak un-disiplined human mind can wonder in all kinds of imaginairy wonderings.
Keeping tight to the basic’s and common sense can allow for a general idea or respectable …kick at the cat…most of philosophy is for chasing after the ego The objective
sought after truth gets lost in the maze…how could it not?
Clean thinking rules:thumbsup:

.

 

[Abba]

If philosophical idea or concept cannot be reduced to easy to follow common sense, there is NO value. Introducing words like metaphysical are illogical relative to efforts at common sense because the word “metaphysical” has about 5-6 different available context meanings which interfere with clarity. As mentioned before, most of philosophy style jargon can be easily replaced with common easy to follow words
Try it with a dictionary. Try Chalmers ,Feser, Harris or whoever and condense a couple of chapters… you will be amazed with the non-sense and verbal baloney in order to accommodate the publishers and the groupies.

I agree with you here FurtherSunshine,

Our Lord Jesus spoke to be understood.

Plato wrote dialogues so people could better understand what he was trying to express.

The apostles wrote to be understood.

When I met Stephen Hawking, I thanked him for writing about physics in such a way that the general public and laymen could appreciate and enjoy. The general public should be able to appreciate the new finding etc… of physics. Afterall, it is our universe too, right?

Unfortunately, there are people that are very insecure and they try to show how much they know and communicate over people’s head to feel good about themselves. Some people others are frustrated with themselves because they are coming to the end of their life and have not accomplished as much as they would have liked and to make amends by demeaning others to the point at times of being very offensive to people whose life and problem they don’t know and seem not to care.

I think this philosophy forum would be much better and there would be a better exchange of ideas and more participation if people were more open and would stop trying to show off and intimidate others.

 

[Shike]

If philosophical idea or concept cannot be reduced to easy to follow common sense, there is NO value. Introducing words like metaphysical are illogical relative to efforts at common sense because the word “metaphysical” has about 5-6 different available context meanings which interfere with clarity.

The word “metaphysical” is fairly precise and has much value for those who understand. Now, I could use layman terms for everything I say, however, one will realize that we are in a philosophy sub-forum, so I shouldn’t have to. But regardless of this fact, it would be a great mistake: sometimes technical terminology is needed because “common sense” words lack the requisite detail to capture the intended meaning. Who says our language as is remains sufficient for expressing the necessary detail of reality?

I will not deny that there is a lot of unnecessary mental and verbal gymnastics in the field of philosophy (you can thank the onset of modern philosophy for much of it), but there is much that is to the point and very clear.

In creation, we learn through science that nothing is wasted.(negotiated) All the material in the world has value relative to itself & all that is.

If the soul is not immortal, the value of sacrifice in the “subjective estimate of quality for human life” (worthiness) is the only known value in creation which somehow magically dis-appears.

Despite the attempt to put things in “common sense” form, these sentences seem much more cryptic to me than **Gödel’*s
** Incompleteness Theorems–*I Doubt that I am the only one experiencing this, honk if you agree. Perhaps a greater attention to grammar will help in the understanding of your position. Also, it may help to spell out the logic that is used between the sentences a bit more.

I am not saying this to be a jerk, just to help.

 

[Shike]

I agree with you here FurtherSunshine,
…

I agree with you. But there is no reason why people here can’t learn new terms to help express the ideas that they are talking about.

I am willing to help anyone who doesn’t understand a term that I employ. Though I don’t try to use unnecessarily complicated language, especially to put others down or feel better about myself. Sometimes a very specific, choice word is needed to get the job done, to not sacrifice the bigger picture while explaining a smaller one.

Philosophy is very much a study. I will help as best as I can.

 

[inocente]

Can you say that you have a strong background in Aristotelian metaphysics? If not, then chances are you are misreading Aquinas. And you are only referring to his summary argument of the 1st way contained in the Summa Theologiae. I’m not saying that it can’t stand on its own there (as that has been the source of my re-presentation of Aquinas’ 1st way), but it is fleshed out in much more detail in other works, such as the Summa Contra Gentiles.

Let’s suppose God wants us to be able to logically prove His existence, what properties would such a proof have? He is Almighty God, creator of heaven and earth, creator of everything, so the proof would be fairly obvious and ring out clear, this is God not the quantum mechanical derivation of the nonlinear susceptibility tensor including second, third, and fourth order hyperpolarizabilities ( found that on google, supposed to be the most complicated theory ever).

He is also God of all, so the proof would be acceptable to all, it shouldn’t be necessary to read Aristotle unless he is God’s prophet, we shouldn’t need special glasses, it would be in the grasp of the average child of God.

But even many who have read Aristotle don’t accept the argument because of its defects, and again this isn’t just me. So take your pick: (a) God does not exist, or (b) God does not want us to be able to prove His existence therefore all “proofs” will be defective, or (c) there might be a good proof somewhere but the First Way doesn’t cut the mustard.

 

[Shike]

Let’s suppose God wants us to be able to logically prove His existence, what properties would such a proof have? He is Almighty God, creator of heaven and earth, creator of everything, so the proof would be fairly obvious and ring out clear, this is God not the quantum mechanical derivation of the nonlinear susceptibility tensor including second, third, and fourth order hyperpolarizabilities ( found that on google, supposed to be the most complicated theory ever).

The heavens proclaim the glory of God and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. The existence of God can be known to those who are humble and want to find him, and his handiwork is all over providing innumerable proofs. That said, we are fallen human beings and our intellects no longer see clearly; reason is sound when properly used, but we don’t always properly use it, and even then, some people have better reasoning skills than others.

There are very few arguments that have no disagreements. In fact, if one was Christian, one would expect that any formal proof for the existence of God would meet with objections.

He is also God of all, so the proof would be acceptable to all, it shouldn’t be necessary to read Aristotle unless he is God’s prophet, we shouldn’t need special glasses, it would be in the grasp of the average child of God.

Can someone read a book without learning what the words mean? A source outside the self is needed to comprehend everyday language, why not the same for formal proofs that have very precise and technical (not necessarily difficult) terminology? Besides, it provides a good opportunity for humility; that someone doesn’t know everything there is to know.

But even many who have read Aristotle don’t accept the argument because of its defects, and again this isn’t just me.

And every objection you brought forth has a solution that I provided. Is there another objection that you wish to bring up? In philosophy it is important for each and every person to try and reason things out; parroting objections ignores the person’s thirst for the truth. Heck, if we took the same line of reasoning displayed in the above quote, then someone shouldn’t accept Christianity because people object to it all the time.

So take your pick: (a) God does not exist, or (b) God does not want us to be able to prove His existence therefore all “proofs” will be defective, or (c) there might be a good proof somewhere but the First Way doesn’t cut the mustard.

These options are in no way mutually exclusive, so I don’t see why I need to choose one. We are rational human beings by nature and the proof for God’s existence is everywhere: the heavens proclaim the glory of God. If so, then there are all the reasons in the world that some of these proofs can be formalized.

And in case someone was wondering, Aquinas’ proofs don’t do away with the need for faith. He proves that classical theism is true, not that God is the Trinity or some of the other truths from theology proper.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

The word “metaphysical” is fairly precise and has much value for those who understand. Now, I could use layman terms for everything I say, however, one will realize that we are in a philosophy sub-forum, so I shouldn’t have to. But regardless of this fact, it would be a great mistake: sometimes technical terminology is needed because “common sense” words lack the requisite detail to capture the intended meaning. Who says our language as is remains sufficient for expressing the necessary detail of reality?

I will not deny that there is a lot of unnecessary mental and verbal gymnastics in the field of philosophy (you can thank the onset of modern philosophy for much of it), but there is much that is to the point and very clear.

Despite the attempt to put things in “common sense” form, these sentences seem much more cryptic to me than **Gödel’**s

• Incompleteness Theorems–*I Doubt that I am the only one experiencing this, honk if you agree. Perhaps a greater attention to grammar will help in the understanding of your position. Also, it may help to spell out the logic that is used between the sentences a bit more.

I am not saying this to be a jerk, just to help.

Firstly I will agree a touch with your defense of the human language. Theres always a flip side in any argument.

But I’m correct. Look at that 1st way you referred to. There are two idea’s in the paragraph.
The idea of first mover and the initiative to uncover a God. The obvious is that the reader gets smoke-screened into the first mover idea, and then is expected to “forget” that the nature of this God is the ultimate query. God-given-nature…is assumed. Its a trick shike, a marketing tool
Its everywhere in the approach to philosophy. The variety of words do not have concrete meaning and are used as tools to enhance-divert, the ultimate initiative.

You are the salesmans ultimate dream come true

continued

 

[FurtherSuntime]

continuing…

Websters , metaphysical…Branch of philosophy dealing with first principal of things, including such concepts as …being, substance,space, time, identity.

Websters, principal…first in rank of importance, chief, main.

The word itself is non-specific by definition. Therefore it is a garbage word where clarity is in need. The word is simply another tricky word for what “most” of philosophy represents…give me a break on this. ( shike this reminds me of your in-correct meaning with the word consciousness a few short weeks ago)

Anyway, knocking my observation flattens the concept of Christianity in value re sacrifice…so I haven’t a clue what page your on.

People sacrifice their self interests everyday in order to accommodate others. Maybe a person would like to go golfing 2 days a week but only ventures out 1 day a week and spends some time driving the less fortunate to get groceries. Maybe there are countless examples of people who do things with zero self interest other than brightening up some other persons day

Why bother shike…? To be in keeping with a spiritual booklet in order to get something?

If that is true, the reception of good will is tainted with self interest isn’t it…? The genuine
interest to enhance our neighbors experience in life must be genuine care in order to elevate
un-necessary suffering felt physically as well mentally ( societal rejection) .

The idea in , I feel your pain and must do something about it, is illogical relative to a material self centered interpretation of life. Joy cannot be exchanged out of “duty”

The charity is then begrudged as duty is clearly an act for alternate means other than the care for another.Self sacrifice is an expression of need . The need address’s a will, our will, our choice, to optimize the best natural outcome in life, for another.

True self sacrifice is illogical relative to a soul or person we’ll say, who’s construction is
not immortal. I’m not talking about conscience in action, I’m referring to making a choice out of
felt care which is in-escapable out of “need” to reject self , in order to bring what? Order in
experience to another so that they may flourish as creation intended.

The choice to put aside best interests for another’s well being out of genuine felt care, conforms not with self progress toward order in survival, but another, joining the initiative in motion by
creation through…the creation of this human being. This unfolds the depths and meaning of charity itself, self sacrifice connects man with not self material survival but Creation.

In keeping with the whole initiative in creation there would be a pointed value in contributing
to all that is. There is no point to this contribution relative to self, other than peace in doing the best you can to eliminate the felt suffering of another. The peace is in knowing your being,
conforms with Creation by participating in its initiative. The “giver” helps creation along and
transforms from a “taker” to a “giver”

This value in contribution is left un-answered relative to the giver. The giver receives peace in
self meaning while denying material progress. The self meaning achieved installs content
into the human beings self understood worthy existence. The value is connected with
creation itself as brought forward in earlier paragraph above.

Creation does not answer to the value of self sacrifice relative to the giver other than peace in existence for meaning. The very meaning-peace itself is out of the “for” creation. The “for” gives peace in knowing all that is “for” is answered in nature itself. The tree is “for” the atmosphere and the soil. The soil and atmosphere is “for” the tree. The value in self sacrifice relative to self is left outstanding in answer. The immortal idea, is the only way creation can answer a to the given contribution of received value

You know something, everybody is different and has there own idea about how things make sense. Different history’s, experience’s and so on.

Therefore since you like the absolute logic , and by the way who says life is logical, asking people to honk in and splatter rejection all over my thinking is in fact illogical.

Don’t forget shike, there is a reason why nothing is gained in spirit-encouragement for the receiver of begrudged dutiful charity. The act becomes a meaningless exchange of goods,
just like money.

Theres an obvious reason why Christianity has so much power. Self sacrifice. Its a value in giving back to creation. It is a participation in not self objective but creations objective.
We could not comprehend the option itself if we did not have a spirit or soul which lived apart
from individual material progress… The logical conclusion is in step with all that we know…there is a reason for everything. Reason is not met relative to self in the act of self sacrifice. The value is left un-negotiated in the idea of a soul which is not…immortal

Anyway, knocking my observation flattens the concept of Christianity in value re sacrifice…so I haven’t a clue what page your on.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Quick fix…#7 paragraph above…

If that is true, the reception of good will is tainted with self interest isn’t it…? The genuine
interest to enhance our neighbors experience in life must be genuine care in order to… minimize…(Fix…not elevate) un-necessary suffering felt physically as well mentally ( societal rejection) .

 

[Shike]

But I’m correct. Look at that 1st way you referred to. There are two idea’s in the paragraph.
The idea of first mover and the initiative to uncover a God. The obvious is that the reader gets smoke-screened into the first mover idea, and then is expected to “forget” that the nature of this God is the ultimate query. God-given-nature…is assumed. Its a trick shike, a marketing tool
Its everywhere in the approach to philosophy. The variety of words do not have concrete meaning and are used as tools to enhance-divert, the ultimate initiative.

The uncovering of a being who has most of the traits traditionally associated with the Judeo/Christian God is the conclusion eventually reached and is not presupposed. In Aquinas’ 1st way the conclusion of a First Mover is reached. Now please show which premise of the argument that I presented, which # (1-3) presupposes the conclusion. Good luck.

Stick closely to the argument, anything more is just distraction.

Therefore since you like the absolute logic , and by the way who says life is logical, asking people to honk in and splatter rejection all over my thinking is in fact illogical.

I do not ask people to outright reject your reasonings. One has to understand what one is saying before it can be rejected. If you took it in its positive intended meaning, it would be an invitation to explicate the sentences I quoted… since I can’t understand the jump in reasoning.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

The uncovering of a being who has most of the traits traditionally associated with the Judeo/Christian God is the conclusion eventually reached and is not presupposed. In Aquinas’ 1st way the conclusion of a First Mover is reached. Now please show which premise of the argument that I presented, which # (1-3) presupposes the conclusion. Good luck.

Stick closely to the argument, anything more is just distraction.

I do not ask people to outright reject your reasonings. One has to understand what one is saying before it can be rejected. If you took it in its positive intended meaning, it would be an invitation to explicate the sentences I quoted… since I can’t understand the jump in reasoning.

To be honest the reason why this approach is not my cup of tea is because the whole playing field he uses assumes the chain of causes can’t go back forever. His idea is all about time and the absence of time.Forever is a different word today.Infinity , time, relativity, black holes, hypothetical white holes…theres just too many un-knowns with respects to time to even think this approach makes good sense in an absolute way. If it works for some people super, maybe he’s on the money who really knows for sure? Thats why I basically don’t look to this stuff to force a judgment which cannot behave as written in stone evidence. Its a guess which is a product of another persons mind . The same faith asks us to believe God is un-changing. So how the heck did the first grandiose cause happen?

What we have had to happen. I believe a powerful infinite source is responsible. Its a faith though which gets pieced together by living the idea rather than trying to force a non verifiable . Like I say everybody’s different and enjoys piecing things together in ways that make sense. I read a book called about time by Paul Davies. Its a real eye opener on the subject of time and infinity. Its simply not possible to swallow this idea hook line and sinker in a factual way. Maybe I’m missing something, who knows but I don’t think I need a first cause idea which for me is vague relative to the on-going inner dynamics of life itself.
I just follow what I read shike and do not introduce new things unless it seems theres a gap in something.

 

[inocente]

The heavens proclaim the glory of God and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. The existence of God can be known to those who are humble and want to find him, and his handiwork is all over providing innumerable proofs. That said, we are fallen human beings and our intellects no longer see clearly; reason is sound when properly used, but we don’t always properly use it, and even then, some people have better reasoning skills than others.

Methinks it proves my point that when push comes to shove you quote the psalmist rather than the First Way. Faith starts and ends with evidence, not theory. I can understand why some want theories, since the evidence can be read both ways and can seem touchy feely, but no theory can prove or disprove God.

Faith doesn’t depend on ace reasoning skills, no one needed a post doc education and technical dictionaries when Jesus preached. Just the opposite, as Paul says we preach Christ crucified:

Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. …] Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. – 1 Cor 1 NIV

Not only is the First Way shot through with faulty logic (I like FurtherSuntime’s analysis in post #291 ) but it’s irrelevant.