The Thomistic Cosmological Argument

[wussup]

Now, in STEM, we can do away with time in two ways. First, immobilize all mobile beings. No mobile beings, no time. Second, destroy all clocks. Period.

IYO, are there only ‘two way’ to do away with time? Addressing the first; If I visualize a Being existing and experiencing all time, past, present, and future there are among the many attributes the attribute of perfect stillness. Yet, all time would still be present. The second; this sounds like an odd version of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, essentially stating that if an effect is unobserved, it does not exist. Again, back to the ‘if a bear does do-do in the woods, and nothing is there to smell it will it still stink’ question. I think it will.

In STEM, we can do away with space. Simply move all mobile beings into contiguity. (Obviously, this may not be as “simple” as I postulated, but, it is a possible universe.) Second, reduce the multiplicity to a singularity. Space is relative. It is the relationship between two or more objects.

I would argue (along with followers of Leibniz, Spinoza, Pantheists in general such as Taoists, and many more, not trying to make ad populum, or ad authoritarian arguments, just to pinch any buds that suggest my concepts are absurd because they have no logical basis) that we do live in an existence of contiguity, and the ‘multiplicity’ we experience are manifestations within the contiguous ‘singularity’. This would make space not ‘relative’ but a phenomenological term people use to describe a perceived ‘distance’ or ‘space’ between objects or beings. My understanding of Spock’s use of ‘space’ within his STEM is a little different, I do not deny there is a ‘space’ just that ‘space’ as we know it is in reality a function of T, E, and M. In fact, the essence of the universe could be stated to be an ‘ether’ of which we perceive STEM in this dimension.

Matter could be done away with by making energy non-transformable. And, of course, there would be no such thing as “energy” - except in the form of perpetual potential energy - if we did away with ALL mobile being.

Hmmm, while I understand and appreciate the value of the subjective ‘what if’ question in philosophy, stating an impossibility (such as doing away with the transmutable properties of energy and matter) as an actual reality (which in the multi-verse would exist) is faulty appeal to reason. One could absurdly state, “yeah well, if I flip my light switch and make the Sun go out, what then? We would all die, that’s what!” I am inferring your reasoning to be one of denying a definition and then claiming the definitive false.

The fact that mobile being exists, and, the fact that there is space between the mobile beings of this universe is more of a “why” of motion than the mere description of kinetic energy, atoms, electrons, bosons, muons, etc., which are the “how” of motion at the quantum level.

As previously stated, ‘space’ does not exist, it is a construct we use in this existence to describe the separate qualities we observe between beings and objects. Because we ‘observe’ something (such as space) does not mean our interpretation of what we observe is correct.

However, we still have the reality of a Prime Mover.

In this thread I see a mixing of Prime Mover, First Cause and Necessary Cause, back and forth, from argument to argument. We must take care not to confuse these terms (and definitions) with each other, or, we will all be in a blurr of semantics without the possibility of any Truth coming forth.

Primary Motion (the Prime Mover) is, nonetheless, a different argument from the other two. It derives from the real relationship between the movers in the series which makes them simultaneous movers. First Cause is different from the other two in that it speaks to an external Efficiency that if essentially subordinated cannot regress infinitely. And, thirdly, Necessary cause, is a matter of real necessity vs. merely contingency in the real world of mobile beings. When we investigate any and all mobile being, we discover that there is nothing that exists - except God - in and of itself. All mobile being is dependent upon something else for not only its ability to interact with other mobile beings, but also, its existence, and this cannot regress infinitely.

jd

I doubt if there will be an interaction with this statement, but here goes. Intellectually, eastern philosophy does not reject the western concepts of causality because it defines it illogical. It does not include within itself the concept of a First Cause because their logic followed the course that there is no ‘causation’ involved, but rather there is an ‘is’. All existence simply is, and we are part of it. The lack of a ‘first mover’ etc., is not a logical fault but a natural philosophy of its own. While I think this thread is interesting following the twists and turns of the logic, ultimately, is there really a ‘first mover’? To the western mind it is vital we establish a list of causalities because, like space, we observe causalities in this reality, and feel it is necessary to include that concept in our ontological arguments. I think we are missing the boat completely by addressing our existence, creating arguments for God, etc, in terms of what we observe in this reality. Again, just because we observe something does not mean our observation is correct.

-Wussup

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Which is no explanation at all. It is an arbitrary stopping point. One could surmise that God is also contingent upon a super-God, who is also contingent upon a hyper-God, and so on… If we wish to stop somewhere and avoid the infinite regress, we can stop right at the p-existence, and leave it at that. P-existence is self-explanatory, it needs no further “justification”, just like God’s x-existence is supposed to be.

actually you cant have a hyper, super or other G-d in some kind of ICR, the regression stops at pure existence, the maximal state of being. whats past that? the impossible, non-existent “nothing”. you keep making these claims after it has been shown to you that there is no further back one can go. you merely wish to stop at physical existence, in violation of the PSR. you seem willing to trade the basis for all the physical sciences in order to keep this false idea that physical existence explains itself. obviously it does not, why do you think that billions are spent on super colliders, and theoretical physics? they are looking to fulfill the PSR.

The objection about contingent and necessary existence is an artificial and meaningless dichotomy. In relation to my parents my existence is contingent. In relation to my child, my existence is necessary. We can say that since “something exists”, therefore something must exist - which is pretty tautological.

why dont you follow the chain all the way back? you wind up at pure existence, you wish to arbitrarily stop at the physical universe. why? the physical universe doesnt expain itself, see above.

There is another problem, hidden in the discussion. To say that the universe (the set of p-existing objects) is contingent, because all its constituent elements (p-existing objects) are contingent would evoke the fallacy of composition.

the universe is nothing more than the sum of its parts, there is no whole “universe” apart from them, anymore than the huiman race is seperate from its members. -Copleston (not an exact qoute)

The PSR is just another nice idea.

its the basis of all the physical sciences, everytime you say such a thing you deny the science that you qoute everywhere else. no serious scientist would agree with that.

But it either leads to infinity, or there is some stopping point, which remains “ultimately” unexplained.

let me deconstruct and show why each of these statements is false.

But it either leads to infinity,

it cannot lead to infinity because you reach the maximal state of being or, pure existence, to carry on beyond that point enters the realm of “nothing” something that is impossible and non-existent, a mere artifact of language. so there is a definite stopping point.

or there is some stopping point, which remains “ultimately” unexplained.

the stopping point is pure existence, the maximal state of being, as above. so what you are saying here is that "existence is unexplained. let me deal with the falsity of this issue.

what explains existence? its corollary non-existence is a way of saying “nothing” and nothing is impossible. it cannot exist, have form or substance, it cannot be. its simply an artifact of language that attempts to refer to a hypothetical negation of existence.

therefore, existence is the only possibility and is therefore explained by necessity. existence is in fact the only thing that can be. so when you say it is unexplained you imply that there is an alternative. “nothing” yet as nothing cannot exist, there is actually no alternative.

existence is the only possibility, meaning it is not actually a possibility, but rather a necessity.

existence is necessary

here is your “ultimate” explanation.

 

[Spock]

Of course they are. Matter is directly dependent upon energy and the ability of energy to transmutate into a solid.

There is no separate “matter” and separate “energy”. This phraseology is just a leftover before the correct understanding occurred. There are many examples of such incorrectly presented dichotomies. Particle-wave comes to mind. Just like it is incorrect to speak of separate space and time. There is only space-time, one entity.

The red of “red clay” is absolutely dependent, and thus, completely not in and of itself underived or necessary.

Oh, please, not again. I was talking about the ball **made of **red clay, where the “redness” of the **ball **is sufficiently explained by the redness of the clay. It is different from contemplating of the redness of the clay itself. It cannot be too hard to see the difference. Or maybe it is, and if so, that is just too bad.

 

[Spock]

There are plenty of news articles that describe a small woman who lifts the end, or corner, of a 2,000 plus pound car so that a child might be removed from beneath it.

How wonderful. And of course she was just standing there, “willing” the car to move… was she a **Jedi **or something? Because even Superman used his muscles.

 

[wussup]

There is no separate “matter” and separate “energy”. This phraseology is just a leftover before the correct understanding occurred. There are many examples of such incorrectly presented dichotomies. Particle-wave comes to mind. Just like it is incorrect to speak of separate space and time. There is only space-time, one entity.

Oh, please, not again. I was talking about the ball **made of **red clay, where the “redness” of the **ball **is sufficiently explained by the redness of the clay. It is different from contemplating of the redness of the clay itself. It cannot be too hard to see the difference. Or maybe it is, and if so, that is just too bad.

“Spin” is another one.

 

[Spock]

the regression stops at pure existence, the maximal state of being.

The arbitrary, subjective and meaningless concept of “maximal” state of being explains nothing.

 

[Spock]

“Spin” is another one.

Yes, indeed. But not the “spin” of the “maximal” beings.

 

[wussup]

Yes, indeed. But not the “spin” of the “maximal” beings.

NOW THAT’S funny, I don’t care who you are…while you are reading this, I am still lmao!!!

 

[Spock]

NOW THAT’S funny, I don’t care who you are…while you are reading this, I am still lmao!!!

Thank you!!

 

[wussup]

Time, for Aquinas, was simply the measure of motion. What did he not understand? The world and the universe consists of mobile beings. It is sensible and necessary (if we are to understand them) to define both “motion” and “mobile being”. “Motion” is defined as the act of the potential precisely as potential. What else could it be and not beg the question? “Mobile being” is that which is and moves - in fact, all physical being is mobile being.
jd

1. Why do you think Aquinas thought of ‘time’ in this manner? I ask this in humility as I do not know much of Thomas besides readings of the Summa, I am very interested in Thomas’ philosophy and am interested in your source for this.
2. In the absence of an answer to ‘1’ above (which I anxiously await), I find it hard to imagine Thomas did not understand that world consists of mobile beings. I am sure he would have been familiar with Parmenides and Antiphon ideas that time was not the chronological construct we perceive but rather an illusion we live under. Aristotle himself had a very comprehensive vision of ‘time’ (physics book iv, 10-14). I won’t go into the details of this extremely difficult work (not only because it is outside of the scope of this thread, but because it is something I am personally not familiar enough with to do so intelligently), however, at a high level, and in terms of what Aquinas’ would be familiar with, I think it is relevant.

Aristotle explained part of Zenos’ paradox by the logical understanding that time was not moment to moment, but continuous. Aristotle hinted at the potential complex nature of time by suggesting, “Besides, if there were more heavens than one, the movement of any of them equally would be ‘time’, so that there would be many ‘times’ at the same time”. Ooooh, so close, yet so far. Certainly Aquinas would have known of this statement. I suspect he would have denied this particular nature of time because of the implication of multiple universes. While Aristotle states that time is a ‘measure of motion and being moved’, he later makes a fantastic jump to suggest “there would not be time unless there were soul, but only that of which time is an attribute, i.e. if movement can exist without soul, and the before and after are attributes of movement, and time is these qua numerable”. He also appears to perceive that heavenly bodies that are eternal live outside time.

I make these points to express my belief that Thomas Aquinas’ understanding of time was far more complex than you appear to make it.

Regarding your two definitions, one of “motion” and one of “mobile being”. Where do you get these definitions from? What else could ‘motion’ be without begging the question, how about the perceived change (in this reality) in position of one object (in this reality) relative to another object? And ‘physical being’ = ‘mobile being’, I don’t get your point. Sorry for being obtuse.

 

[wussup]

Time, for Aquinas, was simply the measure of motion. What did he not understand? The world and the universe consists of mobile beings. It is sensible and necessary (if we are to understand them) to define both “motion” and “mobile being”. “Motion” is defined as the act of the potential precisely as potential. What else could it be and not beg the question? “Mobile being” is that which is and moves - in fact, all physical being is mobile being.

I am guessing you got your definition of Aquinas’ “time is from nothing else but the measure of before and after in movement” (Summa, I.10.1). However, this is only part of the story, he also understood the closely related principle of ‘eternity’ as “interminable – that is, has no beginning nor end (that is, no term either way); secondly, because eternity has no succession, being simultaneously whole”.

I am still unsure of where you get your definitions. Motion can be defined as the movement of one body (in this reality) relative to the movement of another body (in this reality). This does not beg the question. Vector analysis can be used to determine both relative direction and relative velocity. I don’t get the ‘mobile being’ thing. Why is it important to the topic?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The arbitrary, subjective and meaningless concept of “maximal” state of being explains nothing.

yourdictionary.com/maximal

maxi·mal (mak′si məl)

adjective

highest or greatest possible; of or constituting a maximum

it is neither arbitrary, subjective or meaningless.

it is chosen to represent a modally acceptable term for entirety of pure existence, so its not arbitrary. its not subjective because maximal means the maximum amount possible. and its not meaningless because the dictionary has a definition and it is used all the time in modal arguments. however if you like we can use another term so that this one doesnt stand in the way of actual discussion of the arguments.

but this is the second time that you have essentially dodged answering the arguments in my posts. can you disprove any of the arguments i made?

 

[punkforchrist]

JDaniel, great job explaining Thomas’ prima via.

 

[TheWhim]

Just for the record: I recommended to Spock to read to following article by Dr. William Lane Craig:
reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5847

Well, I read it.

Well, nice. You didn’t, though. See below.

Here comes a short criticism.
There are three premises in the argument:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the
   necessity of its own nature or in an external cause).

1. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

1. The universe exists.
   This should be a joke. Premise 2) should read (if the author would be logically honest):
   2’. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is either that the Universe is self-sufficient or the explanation is some external factor.

To drag in God and put it into the premises is a serious logical error.

It only is a logical error if the premises are not proven. I quote from Craig:
*“Now this is a logically airtight argument. So if the atheist wants to deny the conclusion, he has to say that one of the three premises is false.

But which one will he reject? Premise 3 is undeniable for any sincere seeker after truth. So the atheist is going to have to deny either 1 or 2 if he wants to remain an atheist and be rational. So the whole question comes down to this: are premises 1 and 2 true, or are they false? Well, let’s look at them.”*

Now, the known physical principle is the conservation of matter-energy-momentum, which says that matter/energy/momentum cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore matter/energy/momentum exists in a non-creatable and non-destructible manner, which means that it cannot non-exist, therefore it necessarily exists. Therefore the universe necessarily exists.

First of all, everything that could have been otherwise could also not have existed at all and thus cannot exist necessarily. (You may ask now: how so? Ah, haven’t I guessed right? Well, the answer being that it wouldn’t be sufficiently explainable[PSR] why something that could also have been otherwise and thus is not necessary should exist necessarily.) Secondly, as shown below, “matter” could also have been otherwise. Therefore, the universe does not exist necessarily.

JDaniel, in his incredible patient way, has already showed the fallacy behind your assumption that STEM has the stamp of necessity to it. You would also have known as much if you would have cared to read Craig’s article. Since you won’t do so, I have to post one lenghty part of it here:
*“But, you might say, what about the matter out of which these things are made? Maybe the matter exists necessarily, and all these things are just different contingent configurations of matter. The problem with this suggestion is that, according to the standard model of subatomic physics, matter itself is composed of tiny particles called “quarks.” The universe is just the collection of all these quarks arranged in different ways. But now the question arises: couldn’t a different collection of quarks have existed instead of this one? Does each and every one of these quarks exist necessarily?

Notice what the atheist cannot say at this point. He cannot say that the quarks are just configurations of matter which could have been different, even though the matter of which the quarks are composed exists necessarily. He can’t say this because quarks aren’t composed of anything! They just are the basic units of matter. So if a quark doesn’t exist, the matter doesn’t exist.

Now it seems obvious that a different collection of quarks could have existed instead of the collection that does exist. But if that were the case, then a different universe would have existed. To see the point, think about your desk. Could your desk have been made of ice? Notice that I’m not asking if you could have had an ice desk in the place of your wooden desk that had the same size and structure. Rather I’m asking if your very desk, the one made of wood, if that desk could have been made of ice. The answer is obviously, no. The ice desk would be a different desk, not the same desk.

Similarly, a universe made up of different quarks, even if identically arranged as in this universe, would be a different universe. It follows, then, that the universe does not exist by a necessity of its own nature.”*

… continued…

 

[TheWhim]

What is the alternative? That the universe “might not exist”? That would be equivalent to say that “nothing” exists - which is nonsense.

No, indeed! If the universe did not exist God would still exist. This argument of yours reminds me of the following, by the way(taken from Craig’s article; and you would have seen the connection if you had actually read it):
*“Some atheists have tried to justify making the universe an exception to premise 1 by saying that it’s impossible for the universe to have an explanation of its existence. For the explanation of the universe would have to be some prior state of affairs in which the universe did not yet exist. But that would be nothingness, and nothingness cannot be the explanation of anything. So the universe must just exist inexplicably.

This line of reasoning is obviously fallacious. For it assumes that the universe is all there is, so that if there were no universe there would be nothing. In other words, the objection assumes that atheism is true! The atheist is thus begging the question, arguing in a circle. I agree that the explanation of the universe must be a prior state of affairs in which the universe did not exist. But I contend that that state of affairs is God and His will, not nothingness.”*
See also below.

The existence of the universe is a physical necessity - again following from the principle of conservation of matter/energy/momentum.

No, something that could also have been otherwise does not exist by necessity.

Arbitrary. Either the PSR is universal, and then applies to God, too, or the PSR is not universal, and then it is perfectly satisfactory that the matter/energy/momentum is the stopping point, where there is no need for further PSR - and the reason being again is the principle of conservation of matter/energy/momentum.

It is universal and it applies to God. Why, this very principle makes us arrive at God! Since the universe does not exist by necessity it could also have been otherwise or could not have been at all. Then why is it like it is and why does it exist at all? God, to the contrary, exists by necessity. God can’t be different and cannot not exist(in opposition to the physical). Hence he himself explains himself sufficiently, so to say. Let’s employ your argument from above, which ran: “What is the alternative? That the universe “might not exist”? That would be equivalent to say that “nothing” exists - which is nonsense.” As said, you got this one wrong. If the universe might not exist there is still one who exists – God. But now that we’ve arrived at God PSR holds water. Because obviously it’s nonsensical to ask: Why is there God instead of nothing? It’s nonsensical because(he-he) what is the alternative? That God “might not exist”? That would be equivalent to say that “nothing” exists - which is nonsense.

Quote:Originally Posted by TheWhim
The difference being that p-existence is not necessary, while x-existence is.

Nice assertion. Evidence or proof?

See above.

The philospher in the quotation made an error. (It happens). He should have answered that the universe necessarily exists, its existence is a physical necessity - stemming (again) from the conservation of matter/energy/momentum.

Um… sorry. But you made an error. (It happens). See above… universe physical necessity and all this mumbo-jumbo.

Quote:Originally Posted by TheWhim
In relation to, but not in itself. In yourself you’re not necessarily existent(well, I hope you’ll agree with that one). And thus the difference is not meaningless. You could also not be. You could be entirely different. Because you are contingent. Think of something that could not not be and that couldn’t be different. That’s what’s called a necessary being.

What do the elementary particles “depend on”? The atoms I am made of are not contingent on anything. By the way to say that the atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles is not dependency!

I took pains also to show my original words to which you reply, Spock. I have been talking about a necessary being respective entity(something that could not not be and that couldn’t be different) you go on musing about “dependency”, somehow assuming that the non-dependency of a physical object upon any other physical object equals necessity. But I have already explained how necessity is to be understood. I and some other dozen posters before me.

The phrase I used “must exist” which is equivalent to “necessarily exist”.

Well, happy so. And you also know(oh, I’m sure) that the following is not a tautology(as you thought fit to affirm, for whatever nebulous reason):
*something exists(contingently), therefore something exists necessarily. *
Of course, it would be a tautology if you would say that contingency is the same as necessity. But then you wouldn’t want to do so, would you?

Craig commits the fallacy of composition.

To cut matters short, I quote from warpspeedpeteys reply:
“the universe is nothing more than the sum of its parts, there is no whole “universe” apart from them, anymore than the huiman race is seperate from its members. -Copleston (not an exact qoute)”

 

[JDaniel]

I doubt if there will be an interaction with this statement, but here goes. Intellectually, eastern philosophy does not reject the western concepts of causality because it defines it illogical. It does not include within itself the concept of a First Cause because their logic followed the course that there is no ‘causation’ involved, but rather there is an ‘is’. All existence simply is, and we are part of it. The lack of a ‘first mover’ etc., is not a logical fault but a natural philosophy of its own. While I think this thread is interesting following the twists and turns of the logic, ultimately, is there really a ‘first mover’? To the western mind it is vital we establish a list of causalities because, like space, we observe causalities in this reality, and feel it is necessary to include that concept in our ontological arguments. I think we are missing the boat completely by addressing our existence, creating arguments for God, etc, in terms of what we observe in this reality. Again, just because we observe something does not mean our observation is correct.

-Wussup

Whose side are you on?

jd

 

[Spock]

It only is a logical error if the premises are not proven.

It is a logical error in every case. You cannot include your hoped-for result in the proposed premises. The hoped-for result belongs to the hypothesis, not the “supporting premises”. This is elementary. Why does it have to pointed out?

I quote from Craig:
First of all, everything that could have been otherwise could also not have existed at all and thus cannot exist necessarily. (You may ask now: how so? Ah, haven’t I guessed right? Well, the answer being that it wouldn’t be sufficiently explainable[PSR] why something that could also have been otherwise and thus is not necessary should exist necessarily.) Secondly, as shown below, “matter” could also have been otherwise. Therefore, the universe does not exist necessarily.

Nonsense. The existence of a ball of clay cannot be questioned just because the shape of the clay “could have been otherwise”. The correct definition of “necessary existence” is something that cannot non-exist. And STEM fulfills this criterion, by virtue of PoCoMEM.

“But, you might say, what about the matter out of which these things are made? Maybe the matter exists necessarily, and all these things are just different contingent configurations of matter. The problem with this suggestion is that, according to the standard model of subatomic physics, matter itself is composed of tiny particles called “quarks.” The universe is just the collection of all these quarks arranged in different ways. But now the question arises: couldn’t a different collection of quarks have existed instead of this one? Does each and every one of these quarks exist necessarily?

Notice what the atheist cannot say at this point. He cannot say that the quarks are just configurations of matter which could have been different, even though the matter of which the quarks are composed exists necessarily. He can’t say this because quarks aren’t composed of anything! They just are the basic units of matter. So if a quark doesn’t exist, the matter doesn’t exist.

Well, bully for Craig. The greatest minds in physics would not dare to say that “quarks aren’t composed of anything”. If matter is composed of “nothing”, then Mr. Craig can safely hit himself on the head with a heavy hammer, can’t he?

The whole argument starts with a logically unsound set of premises, and takes a nosedive from there. And to see that some people take such hacking seriously… that is what makes the whole situation so frightening.

“So if a quark doesn’t exist, the matter doesn’t exist.

Amazing. Let’s see how does Craig support this nonsense. Something that is the “basic” building block (presumably) which cannot be created or destroyed is assumed “possibly” not to exist. Is there no level of irrationality which he does not embrace?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Nonsense. The existence of a ball of clay cannot be questioned just because the shape of the clay “could have been otherwise”. The correct definition of “necessary existence” is something that cannot non-exist. And STEM fulfills this criterion, by virtue of PoCoMEM.

its not that the clay could have been a different shape, its that it need not be clay, it could as well be spirit, steel, or bubble gum. it need not be STEM, SEM, etc, it could have been anything. there need be nothing other than existence itself, no other beings at all. there need be no conservations, because those are simply laws of this particular universe, if symmetry had broken differently they could be much different. the conservation laws themselves are contingent on the universes existence exactly as it is. so the conservation laws dont support the idea that of necessary existence, in that they are contingent on the very thing that you say they necessitate. its a circular argument. to wit:

1. the universe is necessary because of the conservation laws
2. the conservation laws are dependent on this universe existing

 

[JDaniel]

This phraseology is just a leftover before the correct understanding occurred.

Science according to Spock -101. Assertion without proof. It’s what you accuse others of?

There are many examples of such incorrectly presented dichotomies. Just like it is incorrect to speak of separate space and time. There is only space-time, one entity.

Sorry, but, that is most absurd. And more Science according to Spock - 101. And, assertions without proof.

Oh, please, not again. I was talking about the ball **made of **red clay, where the “redness” of the **ball **is sufficiently explained by the redness of the clay. It is different from contemplating of the redness of the clay itself. It cannot be too hard to see the difference. Or maybe it is, and if so, that is just too bad.

But, that is not what you said. You said, “It is inherent to the red clay. The ball of clay is “necessarily” red.” (Underline mine.) So, you play with words (and truth) by mis-defining the word “necessarily” to mean something other than what punk, and areopagite, and warpspeed, several others and I, have defined it to be if not by direct inference then by the meaning inherent in its scholastic usage. I see you play with words a lot. If you can’t defend your position, or, refute another’s - change the meanings to one’s you assign.

Oh, and you’re not my father, or my mother, so do not dare to chastise me. You cannot intimidate me. I see through your charade easily.

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

the same thing that is presumed when they talk about the omnimax attributes. that they apply to something, G-d. your just raising yet another excuse not to do your research.

So, correct me if I’m wrong, but your argument appears to be as such: God must exist because he is necessary, as dictated by his possession of the maximal attributes, and the maximal attributes must exist because God exists. Do you know what a circular argument is?

there are huge holes in their ideas, such as what is evil that doesnt cause pain?

You misunderstand their ideas. They believe that pain is the only thing evil in itself. Other things that are evil are only said to be evil because they produce what is actually evil. The evil of pain-causing items is derived from the evil of pain itself.

can pain be mitigated by medecine and therefore lose its identity as evil?

We are talking about emotional or, as Epicurus might say, “spiritual” pain. If the bodily pain is blocked by medicine, it cannot be perceived, and thus it cannot manifest itself in the ‘victim’s’ mind.

what about masochists, they enjoy pain, are they then evil?

Here, you’re making two mistakes in one idea. Firstly, people who enjoy pain would not be evil, only pain is evil. Secondly, if someone enjoys pain, then it’s debatable that they are feeling much pain at all. Perhaps they feel bodily pain (it depends on what kind of masochist you are referring to), but the mental pleasure could very well make up for it. This argument, again, results due to a misunderstanding of what is meant by “pain.” Pain is nothing more than the dissatisfaction of preferences. If the masochist prefers to be harmed in some way, he is not experiencing pain in this sense of the word when he is harmed in this particular way.

and yes i am aware of other ethic systems, however metaphysics supersedes ethics in that once you know there is a G-d then you no longer have a choice of ethic systems. what does it matter if you choose an ethics system only to find out it was the wrong one? shouldnt one first know if there is a G-d and therefore an ethics system by which you are expected to behave? and no, there is nothing outside the Church, at least nothing that matters to me in the light of G-ds existence.

Alright then. Show me that God exists, and if you succeed, and you’re speaking the truth here, I’ll be compelled to change my ethical system. I still don’t see how God’s preferences could be objectively better than my own, even if he existed.

you just keep refering to subjective ethics as that has something to do with the omnimax qualities.

It is relevant because goodness is subjective, and so it can’t be considered an objective quality. Imagine that someone believes in a female deity and says that she is “omni-beautiful.” Would you or would you not say that beauty, in the sense of attractiveness, is subjective?

in the end G-d weights qualities. so no matter what people subjectively think, G-d has told us what qualities we are to weight.

Right, because when God determines what we should or should not do, he isn’t “subjectively thinking” (which is a redundant term, because only subjects can think). His preferences are somehow better than ours, or so the theists say.

sure, ill shortform it for you, even though you havent offered a geometrical or syllogistic argument apparently you expect one from me.

Wrong. I was only saying that if you make non-axiomatic assumptions in a proof, you must prove those assumptions later in the proof. Otherwise, the proof means squat.

oh, so now you dont want to deal with “indoctrination”, yeah…i didnt think so.

Huh?

so, its not an object, but its not “nothing” so whats this strange new mode of existence that you propose? oh wait your just chaning nouns now. same mistake you just made woith the word void
actually, i dont know this, youre now just replacing the word void with the words “empty space” thats the third time youve made the same error, dont feel bad, most people cant concieve of nothing, without making it something, it takes a while to grasp the idea that nothing literally cant be something. so its not a dodge its just you repeating the same mistake. btw, your refutation seems to be “…And despite what you say, voids are not objects.” thats not su much a refutation as a “nuh huh!”

No, there’s no way you could have said that. Surely not. I must be misreading what you wrote, somehow. Because the last time I checked the definition for “void” was:

NOUN:

a. An empty space.
b. A vacuum.

1. An open space or a break in continuity; a gap.

(from American Heritage dictionary)

In case you don’t know, it is generally considered acceptable to replace words with their synonyms, and the words/phrases “void” and “empty space” are synonymous. They’re the same…friggin’…THING! Do you burn dictionaries in your spare time?

by the way, why do tyou think your an “analytical cynic”? do you believe that all people are motivated by selfishness? i thought you were a skeptic, one who doubts things until shown otherwise? maybe your both?

I am skeptical, but I’m also a cynic. “Cynic” has two general definitions. The label can either refer to a person who is skeptical of the capacity for human virtue (modern definition), or to someone who sees little or no value in social conventions (classical definition). I would say that I’m more of the latter than the former.