The ontological foundation of existence and the North Pole

[JDaniel]

How do you test for gods?

Seems difficult, I know, but, it isn’t! Ready?

I. Human beings can study and fully understand causality in the universe.

II. We can study and fully understand the contingent nature of the universe.

III. We can study and fully understand motion in the universe. And, we can study and fully understand change in the universe.

IV. We can study and fully understand that things in the universe have purposes belonging specifically to each of them.

Thus, we can study and fully understand why things are here.

V. We can study and fully understand being by necessity in the universe.

VI. And, we can study and fully understand gradations of being in the universe.

These studies/tests have lead us to the knowledge that there must exist:

(1) a First and Uncaused Causal-being;

(2) a Necessary Being without which nothing would now exist;

(3) a First Mover which set all else in motion;

(4) a First Changer which set all subsequent changers and changes into motion;

(5) a Final Cause without which nothing would have an ultimate purpose;

(6) a Topmost Being and level of being below which is a cascading order of subsequent levels of being, down to the lowest forms of being.

We call this being, God. We know what to call him because we found His name all over the compilation of history books we call the Bible. Some people have tried to debunk the authenticity of this compilation of books, but, the unimaginable happened: some Dead Sea Scrolls were found. They corroborated the compilation of books of the Bible.

In those corroborated books of the Bible, we find myriad references to Someone called Yahweh, “God”. Thus, was God looked for, tested for, and found.

jd

 

[crowonsnow]

Seems difficult, I know, but, it isn’t! Ready?

I. Human beings can study and fully understand causality in the universe.

II. We can study and fully understand the contingent nature of the universe.

III. We can study and fully understand motion in the universe. And, we can study and fully understand change in the universe.

IV. We can study and fully understand that things in the universe have purposes belonging specifically to each of them.

Thus, we can study and fully understand why things are here.

V. We can study and fully understand being by necessity in the universe.

VI. And, we can study and fully understand gradations of being in the universe.

These studies/tests have lead us to the knowledge that there must exist:

(1) a First and Uncaused Causal-being;

(2) a Necessary Being without which nothing would now exist;

(3) a First Mover which set all else in motion;

(4) a First Changer which set all subsequent changers and changes into motion;

(5) a Final Cause without which nothing would have an ultimate purpose;

(6) a Topmost Being and level of being below which is a cascading order of subsequent levels of being, down to the lowest forms of being.

We call this being, God. We know what to call him because we found His name all over the compilation of history books we call the Bible. Some people have tried to debunk the authenticity of this compilation of books, but, the unimaginable happened: some Dead Sea Scrolls were found. They corroborated the compilation of books of the Bible.

In those corroborated books of the Bible, we find myriad references to Someone called Yahweh, “God”. Thus, was God looked for, tested for, and found.

jd

I had edited my post so as not to get bogged down about gods. I wanted it to be more generic. I changed it to angels obviously after you’d prepared your reply.

So how do we test for angels?

 

[Spock]

if your arguments violate well established physical laws, then there is more likely a problem with your argument than the physics.

IF it would… but it does not. I am not arguing against causality in geneal, all I am saying is that there seem to be exceptions. It does not “shake” the foundation of science, only the assertion that causality must be applicable to the universe.

It is quite ironic, that the “ex-nihilo” creation of this whole “shebang” does violate the principle of preservation of matter / energy / momentum, etc… You seem to have no problem with that.

and you never will see any non-physical entity, as by its verynature it would be unobservable by physical means.

in the same way that we infer the existence of unobservable partices, electrons, etc, are inferred from their effects

Not the same, not by a long shot. Once the hypothesis of the electrons was made, then there were experiments, which empirically substantiated the hypothesis. By the very nature of the hypothesized non-physical existence, there can be NO empirical verification - in principle.

as we live in an entirely mathematically determinative universe, we cant have free will, by any physical means.

You still advocate the Newtonian worldview, long obsolete. The idea that knowing all the particles along with their position, direction, momentum, etc… allows you to calculate the furure state of the universe (which also presupposes the existence of absolute space and time) has been discredited a long time ago. Also you brought up the second law of thermodynamics. That is not a deterministic law, it does not adhere to the assumption that the universe is determinsitic.

are you implying non-physical means to violate the determinative nature of the universe? because that happens to be my argument for the way in which we live in a determinitive universe, with apparent free will.

You are unnecessarily multiplying the assumptions again. From the apparent existence of free will we can draw two conclusions: 1) the universe is not fully deterministic, or 2) there is again a mysterious non-physical “cause” for it. The former is simpler, so it should be the working hypothesis.

who knows for sure? yet we have physical exzample of similar effects, i.e. 2 inert chemicals can be combined for to create an active chemical. say amfo, or other binaries

Bad example. Chemicals are physical substances. No matter how hard you try, the conceptual mixture of 2H and O molecules (writing down: 2H+O) will not create a puddle of water.

the same as any other explanation, how does a car work? or an airplane fly? if you understand the mechanism you can make choices maxising you benefit from this knowledge, say buying a more effecient car, or choosing to charter a particular plane for its comfort.

Except the non-physical causative mechanism is pure magic.

in the same way knowledge of a non-physical first cause, allows one to maximise the benefits of ones life, to choose a philosophical path based on that knowledge.

i.e. one can find a value to life more than simply existing for no reason.

Uh-oh. I never brought up a theistic argument. And I don’t think that the assumed deistic non-physical causative force would give any reason to live your life in a any specific manner.

And from the possible deistic non-physical causative force there is no road to the theistic concept of a personal god, unless some other assumptions are taken.

 

[Spock]

Okay, why choose the “titanium” example over the “six-foot-long” example? Because the universe does, in fact, seem to be contingent, or at least it has many of the qualities of contingency—it is variable, changeable, could have been different from what it is, and so on. So it appears contingent, as does everything within it. If so, it requires a causal explanation.

Well, first of all, appearances can be deceiving. (I am not saying that they are always deceiving, mind you. ) But, seriously, you just substitued one word with another, instead of “caused” you now say “contingent”. Same thing. It does not explain why it should be the working hypothesis (or the titanium model versus the six-foot model). We are still at impasse.

So do acts of the free will. I don’t think freedom and causation exclude each other; it’s just that in some cases, the cause of the event is the decision of the agent. If one asks, Well, what caused the decision? the answer would have to be “the agent is the cause”—which, by the way, leads us to another non-material cause.

The principle that thinking agents (humans, for example) are the primary causative agents is the atheistic worldview as well. With one exception, we do not assume a mysterious, non-physical component, we simply admit that we don’t know what mechanism of our brain allows us to make free decisions. (Personally I think - at that is just my opinion, nothing more - that the incredible complexity of the brain makes it a finite, but stochastic “computer”.)

But you can’t have it both ways. If we are free agents, then causality is not universal, so the basic reasoning to establish a non-physical causative factor for the whole universe collapses.

Regarding your last objection: I agree that this line of argument seems to lead to an “unknowable” phenomenon (a singularity, one might almost say ); however, God is not completely unknowable, just as human-agent causation is not completely unknowable. It is, however, mysterious.

Sorry, I never said a word about “God”. All I was talking about a hypothesized non-physical causative entity (or a “force”, if you will), which is unknowable, which “used” an unknowable method to create the universe “ex-nihilo”. From that there is no direct way to any “gods”, unless a whole lot of other assumptions are taken. From the hypothesized existence (and the word “existence” is highly dubious in this context) of a non-physical causative entity it does not follow that this entity is still “around”, it does not follow that it was a “thinking personal being”. No special attributes can be logically deduced from the original hypothesis.

Why does the cause of the material universe have to be non-material? Well, if it weren’t, it would have to be part of the material universe itself, right? and as such (given that I am arguing that the universe itself is contingent) it couldn’t be self-caused.

We are back to square one. You still say that the universe “needs” an external cause (the titanium hypothesis), but I see no supporting evidence.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Hope to hear from you as well.

 

[Spock]

But, we have found, from your arguments, deception, spin, accusations, veiled name calling, arrogant non-sufficient assertions, and condescension - and not one single provocative rebuttal.

Please, don’t hold anything back. Don’t beat around the bush, let me know what you really think.

 

[Detales]

I *really *think that the vast majority of the posts so far are beside the point. Knowledge, especially intellectual knowledge, faith “knowledge” in particular, including logics and tests, are but a small part of being, and a very small part of the modes of awareness and knowledge available to what we call the “human.” Since they are not inclusive of all the aspects of human knowledge ability, they cannot be inclusive of a cosmological whole, either. If they were, you would be able to start at a single premise, and y’all can’t even agree on that. Ergo, failure of inclusivity.

 

[JDaniel]

Please, don’t hold anything back. Don’t beat around the bush, let me know what you really think.

Sorry

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I had edited my post so as not to get bogged down about gods. I wanted it to be more generic. I changed it to angels obviously after you’d prepared your reply.

So how do we test for angels?

Well, you’ve got me there. I don’t know.

What I do know about angels is what we’ve been told by various historians and writers of that compilation I mentioned in my other post. Since I know God exists, and I have Faith that He would not mislead, I take it on Faith that angels exist.

Moreover, that we have “souls”, “thetans”, or, whatever, you wish to call them, is as well true. When we die, where else and in what other form would we go or be?

Otherwise, I guess we could look for a pin with a head on it.

jd

 

[Detales]

Here is a thought: I have no doubt that there is “Soul,” though I have seen no satisfying treatment of that idea here. But whenever I have seen the idea of “soul” talked about, it is by far most usually spoken of in the possessive. Eg, “that we have souls,” “our souls…” this and that, or “My soul…” etc. From all of you who have spoken of it as a possession, who is it exactly that has that soul, what are the attributes of that being, and what relevance do those attributes or that being have to Earthly existance? In fact, where in the scheme of things is that “owner” of the “soul?”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

IF

it would… but it does not. I am not arguing against causality in geneal, all I am saying is that there seem to be exceptions. It does not “shake” the foundation of science, only the assertion that causality must be applicable to the universe.

im sorry, i know that you dont care to talk about it any more but your position, on a universe that ‘just is’ violates basic physics.

if you are refering to free will being uncaused, you have yet to provide any basis for that.

It is quite ironic, that the “ex-nihilo” creation of this whole “shebang” does violate

argument. And I don’t think that the assumed deistic non-physical causative force would give any reason to live your life in a any specific manner.

sure, if you do not exist for no reason, that implies purpose.

And from the possible deistic non-physical causative force there is no road to the theistic concept of a personal god, unless some other assumptions are taken.

there is a bridge, but thats step two, and we have barely begun step one. be patient

[/QUOTE]

 

[crowonsnow]

Well, you’ve got me there. I don’t know.

What I do know about angels is what we’ve been told by various historians and writers of that compilation I mentioned in my other post. Since I know God exists, and I have Faith that He would not mislead, I take it on Faith that angels exist.

Moreover, that we have “souls”, “thetans”, or, whatever, you wish to call them, is as well true. When we die, where else and in what other form would we go or be?

Otherwise, I guess we could look for a pin with a head on it.

jd

Could I bother you to chew that a tad finer? Are you telling me that you know there are angels?

 

[Spock]

if you are refering to free will being uncaused, you have yet to provide any basis for that.

If you need a “basis” for the law of noncontradiction, I see no reason why even bother reading anything you say, much less wasting time to respond.

But, I will indulge you one more time.

Free = undetermined.
Caused = determined.

“free” and “caused” = “determined” and “undetermined”.

Is there a clearer case of contradiction? I don’t think so.

Also you accused me of selectively choosing the laws of nature, and then you say that the principle of conservation of matter / energy / momentum only applies within the universe, but causation (which is interaction of physical particles) applies to the universe. The rules of the board do not permit me to charactarize your behavior, so I will leave it a homework to imagine what I think of your “debating”.

Bye.

 

[cpayne]

Could I bother you to chew that a tad finer? Are you telling me that you know there are angels?

Hi, crowonsnow (we seem to be meeting all over the place, don’t we?). Not to jump into someone else’s argument, which is also different from the argument I originally was having with Spock, BUT: I would suggest that yes, I know there are angels. However, this type of knowledge is not necessarily empirically testable. Because it is not empirically testable, for some people it will not count as knowledge—however, for those who in fact possess this knowledge, the fact it is not empirically testable is not really a problem. It is “true justified belief”–a belief, true, and justified based on what one knows of God and His reliability.

A minor example: I have two children. Now you know something you probably didn’t before (unless I’ve mentioned it elsewhere). Your belief about my children is true, and justified based on what you know of me. Therefore, you now have knowledge that is not empirically testable (unless I provide more information, such as my address, for example).

The presumption that empirically testable knowledge is the only real sort of knowledge is the issue here.

 

[Spock]

Hi, crowonsnow (we seem to be meeting all over the place, don’t we?). Not to jump into someone else’s argument, which is also different from the argument I originally was having with Spock, BUT: I would suggest that yes, I know there are angels. However, this type of knowledge is not necessarily empirically testable. Because it is not empirically testable, for some people it will not count as knowledge—however, for those who in fact possess this knowledge, the fact it is not empirically testable is not really a problem. It is “true justified belief”–a belief, true, and justified based on what one knows of God and His reliability.

A minor example: I have two children. Now you know something you probably didn’t before (unless I’ve mentioned it elsewhere). Your belief about my children is true, and justified based on what you know of me. Therefore, you now have knowledge that is not empirically testable (unless I provide more information, such as my address, for example).

The presumption that empirically testable knowledge is the only real sort of knowledge is the issue here.

Yes, that is the true question. The second part of philosophy: epistemology (how do we know something?, what is “knowledge”?). I wonder if this thread is the best place to talk about it, or should we start a new thread?

Just for the fun of it, here is a link to the Gettier problem, well worth to read it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_case

 

[cpayne]

I wonder if this thread is the best place to talk about it, or should we start a new thread?

This was rather a nice way of saying, “The thread is getting off course.”

 

[1holycatholic]

Well, when I went to college, the three branches of philosophy were:

1. metaphysics: what exists? (or what is real?)
2. epistemology: how do we know it? (or what are the ways and means of acquiring knowledge?)
3. ethics: so what now? (or how should we behave?)

Of these the most important one is the second (in my opinion). The first one, which can be viewed from naturalistic or non-naturalistic points of view is a matter of “taste”. (I don’t like to call it super-naturalistic, since it would also assume something sub-naturalistic.)

Without ontology there is no epistemology.

 

[crowonsnow]

Hi, crowonsnow (we seem to be meeting all over the place, don’t we?). Not to jump into someone else’s argument, which is also different from the argument I originally was having with Spock, BUT: I would suggest that yes, I know there are angels. However, this type of knowledge is not necessarily empirically testable. Because it is not empirically testable, for some people it will not count as knowledge—however, for those who in fact possess this knowledge, the fact it is not empirically testable is not really a problem. It is “true justified belief”–a belief, true, and justified based on what one knows of God and His reliability.

A minor example: I have two children. Now you know something you probably didn’t before (unless I’ve mentioned it elsewhere). Your belief about my children is true, and justified based on what you know of me. Therefore, you now have knowledge that is not empirically testable (unless I provide more information, such as my address, for example).

The presumption that empirically testable knowledge is the only real sort of knowledge is the issue here.

I understand all that, though perhaps not as well as you and Spock, and I think that it’s appropriate to diverge somewhat.

Regarding Spocks link and your knowing that angels are real, the question is whether there exists a methodology we can apply to test whether the farmer’s knowing Daisy is in the field or your knowing there are angels is in fact accurate. Does this knowledge reflect a condition outside of your own thoughts? Is Daisy really in the field? Are there really angels?

So it seems appropriate to ask how you determine that your brain isn’t simply pretending that angels are real. How do you determine that?

 

[cpayne]

So it seems appropriate to ask how you determine that your brain isn’t simply pretending that angels are real. How do you determine that?

My answer would be similar, I think, to your answer to this question: “How do you know I have two children?” Given your current situation, the answer is not empirically testable. You would have to respond something like, “You told me you have two children, and I trust what you told me. I have no reason not to.”

Something similar is why I believe in angels.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you need a “basis” for the law of noncontradiction, I see no reason why even bother reading anything you say, much less wasting time to respond.

it seems like your saying that if i dont agree with you, then you arent going to talk with me?

But, I will indulge you one more time.

 

[crowonsnow]

My answer would be similar, I think, to your answer to this question: “How do you know I have two children?” Given your current situation, the answer is not empirically testable. You would have to respond something like, “You told me you have two children, and I trust what you told me. I have no reason not to.”

Something similar is why I believe in angels.

That would mean that you and I are to accept as accurate everything we are told. Certainly neither you nor I do that. I could tell you that you owe me $1,200.00. Surely I shouldn’t expect to receive a check in the mail.

So I’m going to ask you how I should go about determining whether I’m pretending that you have two children and whether there are angels. Remember, I only wish to know whether these things are real independent of my own thoughts.

So how would I do that?

The reason I’m asking about pretending is because our brains have these thingies called mirror neurons. With mirror neurons, the ability to pretend is literally hardwired into our brains. That’s pretty intriguing. The question is why this would be so. My take is that the ability to pretend makes for a stronger brain. A stronger brain is like a stronger wall. It can still be misused but it’s still stronger, and as such better prepared to survive. And so we pretend and fantasize because it makes our brains stronger.

But too much pretending would actually weaken the brain. It can even kill it, if it pretends that it can fly off a cliff or stop a locomotive by holding out a hand. So there’s this balancing act enforced by natural selection.

So how about an answer? Pretty please?