What do you consider proof of God, if anything?

[MindOverMatter]

– Parmenides of Elea.

This is correct as far as i can tell.

 

[DavidHume]

How does this follow to be true? If something begins, then it is not necessary by definition of its beginning.

Why do you say that? Necessity and contingency aren’t related to temporality, they refer to what must be and what could possibly not be, respectively.

If one takes the position, as Parmenides does, that it is nonsense to talk of “what could possibly not be,” then everything is necessary.

This does not contradict what you said at all, but it does take the teeth away from an argument from contingency, as you can probably see.

 

[MindOverMatter]

If one takes the position, as Parmenides does, that it is nonsense to talk of “what could possibly not be,” then everything is necessary.

Well i do not admit that it is nonsense to talk of what possibly could not be. I’m speaking of necessity in terms of ultimate being.
I take the position that there must be a necessary being, that must exist out of its own nature as ultimate being. However; anything which begins to exist, is not necessary, for it is not ultimate being, but is instead dependent on the existence of being for its existence, since there can be no such thing as nothing or outside of existence. But there only need be necessity. Anything which begins to exist, is not necessary in so far as it is dependent on a necessary being; without which it would be nothing. But there will always be necessity. If there was only that which was necessary, then change would never occur; it would simply be of its own accord.

This does not contradict what you said at all, but it does take the teeth away from an argument from contingency, as you can probably see.

Only if you accept Parmenides fallacious reasoning as you presented it. My arguement is irrefutable.

 

[MindOverMatter]

If one takes the position, as Parmenides does, .

Please forgive, but obviously i did not read his writting properly, as i would not have agreed with it.

His first assumption, from which the rest of his arguement follows, is that everything that can be thought of, is necessarily existent.

I see no reason to agree with this.

 

[DavidHume]

Well i do not admit that it is nonsense to talk of what possibly could not be. I’m speaking of necessity in terms of ultimate being.
I take the position that there must be a necessary being, that must exist out of its own nature as ultimate being.

So does Parmenides and pretty much everyone who’s not a nihilist (and no one really is as far as I know).

However; anything which begins to exist, is not necessary, for it is not ultimate being, but is instead dependent on the existence of being for its existence, since there can be no such thing as nothing or outside of existence.

Here Parmenides and many other monists would part ways with you. To them there is no grounds for distinguishing “dependent” from “necessary” things – everything that exists is by definition necessary, and there is no such thing as something contingent, because it is meaningless to consider the nonexistence of something.

If there was only that which was necessary, then change would never occur; it would simply be of its own accord.

True. To most people that would accept a philosophy in the vein of the Eleatics, the concept of change is a way that humans conceptualize their experience of all-that-is. It’s not any more “real” than the number system or Newtonian mechanics.

There is something to that, I think, what with all of the unification of space and time in physical theories.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Why do you say that? Necessity and contingency aren’t related to temporality.

If a thing comes in to existence, it is because of the thing that brought it in to existence, and thus the thing that has a beginning has no nature of its own by which it exists by itself or comes in to being. Thus it did not have to exist according to its nature. In respect of being, a thing exists necessarily if it has no beginning nor end and exists because of its own nature which is necessarily existence.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Here Parmenides and many other monists would part ways with you. To them there is no grounds for distinguishing “dependent” from “necessary” things – everything that exists is by definition necessary, and there is no such thing as something contingent, because it is meaningless to consider the nonexistence of something.

Well, simply saying that somebody disagrees with me does not refute my arguement. Also, mere assertions have no warrant either. It is evident to reason that if something begins to exist, then by definition it is dependent on a necessary being for its existence.

True.

Yes its true.

To most people that would accept a philosophy in the vein of the Eleatics, the concept of change is a way that humans conceptualize their experience of all-that-is. It’s not any more “real” than the number system or Newtonian mechanics.

Change is evident to our experience. One does not do away with it by simply ignoring it. Its like saying consciousness is just an illusion. That might seem plausible to you, but a thinking person cannot tolerate it.

 

[DavidHume]

Well, simply saying that somebody disagrees with me does not refute my arguement. Also, mere assertions have no warrant either. It is evident to reason that if something begins to exist, then by definition it is dependent on a necessary being for its existence.

If you read Parmenides, he says there are no beginnings or endings. While that’s a bit crude for my tastes (like using a sledgehammer on a fly), the overall gist is still that the idea of a “dependent” thing – whether ontological (contingency) or cosmological (motion) – is nonsense.

One possible restatement of the “everything is necessary” position is: There is nothing in the universe that might not have been. There is no motion in the universe that might not have occurred.

I really don’t see how that is self-contradictory, nor how it conflicts with belief in the Christian God. I could be wrong, however.

And while saying that someone disagrees with you on your axioms does not refute your argument, it does refute your claim that your argument proceeds deductively from self-evident premises.

Change is evident to our experience. One does not do away with it by simply ignoring it.

Putting it into a different category is not the same as ignoring it.

A lot of retrospectively silly things are or were “evident to our experience” – for example, it’s obvious to even the simplest individual that the sun circles the earth once every day.

 

[MindOverMatter]

If you read Parmenides, he says there are no beginnings or endings. While that’s a bit crude for my tastes (like using a sledgehammer on a fly), the overall gist is still that the idea of a “dependent” thing – whether ontological (contingency) or cosmological (motion) – is nonsense.

Assertion number 1.

Heres my reply to that assertion.

Parmenides arguement is bogus and has no support in reason or experience.

“everything is necessary” position is: There is nothing in the universe that might not have been.

Assertion number 2.

There is no motion in the universe that might not have occurred.

Assertion number 3. Although, just because something is bound to occur does not necessarily mean that it is in fact a necessity of the nature of motion to exist. For example, i could choose to pick my nose in search of a juicy boggy, but that does not mean that i had to pick my nose or that it was in the nature of the boggy to be picked even if it was an eternal truth and thus destined to ocurr in relation to a first cause; further more, i did not have to put the boggy in my mouth. Secondly, nothing that changes is necessary by nature of being, for good reasons that i have already given and do not wish to give again.

I really don’t see how that is self-contradictory, nor how it conflicts with belief in the Christian God. I could be wrong, however.

It doesn’t just conflict with Christianity, it conflicts with logic, for reasons i have already given and do not wish to give again.

it does refute your claim that your argument proceeds deductively from self-evident premises.

Assertion number 4. My arguement follows necessarily from the premise of necessary existence. Anything which begins to exist, begins because there is such a thing as that which has always existed without, change, beginning or end. You have merely quoted some person and pointed out that he disagrees with me. It is not evident in anyway shape or form that my position has been refuted.

Putting it into a different category is not the same as ignoring it.

It is evident to the senses that there is change. You are claiming that there isn’t any such thing as change, or rather that it is a possibility, in order to support some theory. You are ignoring your experiences for a desired gain.

A lot of retrospectively silly things are or were “evident to our experience” – for example, it’s obvious to even the simplest individual that the sun circles the earth once every day.

That was due to a lack of information. But in order to gain new information, or to even have potentiality in philosophical thought, one needs “change”.

To make a mistake of what appears to be true is one thing. To deny that there is no change in spite of it being evident to our senses as being otherwise is a completely different kettle of fish; especially if there is no evidential or experiential support. To say that there is no time is like saying that there is no sun or earth and you do not really exist; you are just an idea in somebodies head. Change is evident to the senses, and it is ridiculous to claim otherwise. There is no justified reason to. You accept it as a possibility because it serves your purpose. I accept change because it is evident to my senses and is common to all senses that i know of. Perhaps its not common to yours.

 

[Leela]

Therefore, I guess, a triangle, all by itself, and not attached to, as a form, a physical being, is actually true?

This is a category error. Triangles aren’t the sort of things that are classified as true of false. Sentences are.

And how does a triangle become attached to a physical being?

IOW, it is not a triangular shaped mobile being, or, a drawing representing the shape, but rather, I should be able to walk out my front door and encounter a (living, breathing) triangle one day? How shall I greet him/her/it? Perhaps, “Hello, Mr./Miss/Mrs. Triangle.”

I would suggest the same sort of conversational tools you use with rocks and trees.

Ergo, one day, perhaps there will be a number standing at my front door. And, I shall have to address him/her/it, too? Perhaps, Mr. One (or Two, or Three, etc.) will need to use my phone, or restroom. I am looking forward to such an encounter.

What the heck are you talking about? More category errors. Numbers aren’t the sort of things that knock on doors.

“Real Numbers” are real ONLY if they can be predicated of, and existing in, a kind of conjoined status with real things, or beings. Numbers don’t have existence - EXCEPT as regards quantity predicated of actually existing things. They are concepts, pure and simple.

What are you saying? That numbers aren’t real? I guess I’ll have to find a new job.

Of course numbers are concepts. Are you saying that concepts don’t exist? Does this conversation even exist for you?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

You cannot attribute to the past, that which cannot be achieved in the future.

I don’t follow you. Lots of things can be attributed to the past that can no longer be achieved. For example, there will never be another first man on the moon. What does all this have to do with our conversation in this thread?
MindOverMatter;5264249:

I feel sorry for you Leela. You speak so confidently, yet you’re so horribly wrong about such a simple concept.

You really feel sorry for me? Is this honest to goodness Christian compassion? Or are you really just saying that you feel superior to me? I suspect it’s the latter. Where’s your Christian humility that you are so proud of? Does God love you more? Can you ever be wrong? I’ve been known to be wrong on occasion, and I could be wrong here. So I am in no position to feel sorry for anyone else who is wrong right now. Are you really in such a position? Really? Good for you. Now all you have to do is convince others that you are right.

Best,
Leela

 

[DavidHume]

Assertion number 3. Although, just because something is bound to occur does not necessarily mean that it is in fact a necessity of the nature of motion to exist.

I think the monists would say that it does.

For example, i could choose to pick my nose in search of a juicy boggy, but that does not mean that i had to pick my nose or that it was in the nature of the boggy to be picked even if it was an eternal truth and thus destined to ocurr in relation to a first cause; further more, i did not have to put the boggy in my mouth.

I think the monists would say that you did have to do all those things – how could it have been otherwise?

Secondly, nothing that changes is necessary by nature of being, for good reasons that i have already given and do not wish to give again.

The Eleatic argument is that change is just in human perception, not in the universe itself.

It doesn’t just conflict with Christianity, it conflicts with logic, for reasons i have already given and do not wish to give again.

It conflicts with your metaphysical presuppositions, yes. I don’t see how it is “conflicting with logic,” in that it doesn’t require you to believe two contradictory premises, nor does it inexorably lead to a logical contradiction.

I could be wrong, though.

My arguement follows necessarily from the premise of necessary existence. Anything which begins to exist, begins because there is such a thing as that which has always existed without, change, beginning or end. You have merely quoted some person and pointed out that he disagrees with me. It is not evident in anyway shape or form that my position has been refuted.

I’m not trying to refute your argument. I’m refuting your claim that your argument is self-evident.

It is evident to the senses that there is change.

Yes, but being evident to the senses is no guarantee of universal truth.

To say that there is no time is like saying that there is no sun or earth and you do not really exist; you are just an idea in somebodies head.

Fast forwarding to philosophers later than 475 B.C., the claim is not really that there is no time; the claim is that time is not an independent dimension along which the universe progresses, but rather is an aspect of the universe. It is folly, then, to apply temporal arguments to make claims about things that are not in the universe.

Change is evident to the senses, and it is ridiculous to claim otherwise. There is no justified reason to. You accept it as a possibility because it serves your purpose.

I accept change because it is evident to my senses and is common to all senses that i know of. Perhaps its not common to yours.

I certainly welcome the concept of change insofar as it helps me make sense of my experiences of the world. I am dubious that it has anything to offer in the way of making claims about things outside the world.

 

[JDaniel]

His classic lecture on this subject is The Will to Believe. The thing that I took away from it is his description of seeking knowledge as two maxims in tension: Find the truth! and Avoid error! Most philosophical methods favor the latter, all the way to the extent of Humean quasi-skepticism and beyond – but why must this be so? Why is this considered the principled way to seek knowledge?

That’s what I like about James, anyway – those are good questions and they have pushed me into thinking that people are completely justified in looking for alternatives to strict foundationalism.

Interesting. I’ll check it out.

jd

 

[atassina]

I’m curious what people consider as proof that there is a God, or if you even think proof is possible. Has anyone had what they would consider a miracle happen, seen an angel, seen a person healed by prayer, etc? I don’t believe because I have never seen any proof, so I am curious what others have seen or what they would even consider proof. My purpose is not to try and explain anything away, I’m actually just genuinely curious about other’s experiences and logic on this subject.

A beautiful woman, the sunrise on Haleakala, a bee on a flower, a rich sounding guitar, a child sleeping peacefully, delicious food, a mowed field of hay, a cool swim on a hot day-- beauty comes from somewhere, that somewhere is the ultimate source of beauty

 

[liquidpele]

A beautiful woman, the sunrise on Haleakala, a bee on a flower, a rich sounding guitar, a child sleeping peacefully, delicious food, a mowed field of hay, a cool swim on a hot day-- beauty comes from somewhere, that somewhere is the ultimate source of beauty

Hi there Atassina

I was wondering if you would answer a question about that. I’ve heard that argument before, and I always felt that it discounted all the things that are not beautiful… death, decay, tornadoes, sickness, etc. How do you see that working into the picture? Just curious.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Hi there Atassina

I was wondering if you would answer a question about that. I’ve heard that argument before, and I always felt that it discounted all the things that are not beautiful… death, decay, tornadoes, sickness, etc. How do you see that working into the picture? Just curious.

What does it matter?

 

[liquidpele]

What does it matter?

I was just curious what the response would be since I’ve never actually gotten a response so such a question. I’m curious what the viewpoint is regarding the negatives in life because the person specifically stated that they see the positives in life as proof of God. The answer only matters in that it will fulfill my curiosity.

 

[JDaniel]

I’ve never actually met anything that was contingent, either.

You are right; you have never met a contingent. (I fear that you are making a Humean point here!) Hume’s philosophy is bent on obliterating the majority of causalities from human perception. Hume says we cannot actually see (physically sense) cause, because, according to Hume, all we know is through our senses. Thus, we infer a “cause” upon multiple viewings of regular conjunctive sequence events. So, when a couple bears a child, it follows that there is some sort of sequential connection, and, after seeing a few couples with small children and upon learning that they were the parents of the children, one cannot help but posit the parents as a cause. But, it is not directly knowable. Only the habit of seeing one event followed by another, with regularity, permits us to believe that there is a more necessary connection between the two.

Well. I have a couple of questions for you. How many scientists were atomized by atomic explosions before enough conjunction-sequences were witnessed that would lead to the conclusion that if you released atoms too quickly from Uranium 235, or Plutonium, you would cause a catastrophic explosion that would wipe out all of the life forms for miles? I submit, only one. But, there would be no one left alive from that one conjunctive-sequence event and it would have to be done again and again and again; each time from scratch. Since there would be no conjunctive sequence held in the minds of anyone having anything to do with the first conjunctive sequence, as they would all be dead, each subsequent experiment would probably end with the same result - the unforeseen deaths of everyone associated with the experiment time and time again.

Further, I wonder, if one was to push a sled up a hill, for the first time in one’s life, would one not apprehend his effort as the cause of the sled moving to the top of that hill? I wonder, how many times must one hit his finger with a hammer, before he knows that that was the cause of the great pain he is now experiencing?

Moreover, there are many regular sequences not considered, or identified, by us, as causal ones. If Hume was correct in thinking that every regular sequence forced us to conclude, because of the proximity and close association of the two events, that the first exigency of the event caused the second, all regular successions in the universe would be interpreted by us as causal ones. Night follows day, therefore, after witnessing several occurrences of this event, we should conclude that night is caused by day. Or, perhaps it is the regularity of a particular rooster crowing that causes the morning, or the day. Or, is the second fan blade chasing the first, or the third blade chasing the second, that causes the fan to rotate?

Finally, I cannot imagine anything truer known to our intellects. Essentially, to admit that a thing can be moved without requiring the influence of a mover, is to say that all things can move themselves. If that were the case, our cosmos would not be the cosmos we know it to be. Everything would be self-sufficient, self-subsistent, and spontaneous. Everything could and would move anywhere, at any time, in any direction without rhyme or reason. The world would be pure chaos.

Thank God that that is not the case. We see secondary movers moving things that are incapable of their own motility based, usually, upon some reasonable (and, knowable) constraints, or directives. IOW, not being self-moved, they are dependent upon an outside agent to be moved, and, the outside agent is distinct from them. That, in the opinion of the vast majority of the people in the world, we define as causation.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

That’s why “potency-in-act” includes both potency and act, yet is a single word.

Sorry, but it appears that I did a poor job of describing what is meant by the words potency and act in scholastic philosophy, with regard to motion or causation. Potency = Privation; and, Act = Possession. You see, privation cannot coexist with possession in the same subject. Matter’s possession of form cannot be “in possession” and “not in possession” at the same time. That would be a huge contradiction, logically, and, it would be physically impossible.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

That’s why “potency-in-act” includes both potency and act, yet is a single word. I must admit I got this phrase from a Korean professor with a surfeit of education in classical languages, and don’t particularly care for it except that it is strange enough to be difficult to mistake for something else. Without the hyphens and the understanding that it is meant to be a single word, along the lines of those compound words that Germans make up for everything, it is definitely not correct.

Yes, and I always understood the idea of Aristotle’s motion to be that original potency becoming actual, not the realization of potency in something that is actual.

It is better to think of it this way: there are three First principles in the natural world, primary (and secondary) matter, and the contraries, privation and possession. The wood would be the underlying matter. Being not-ash, at the beginning, is the privation of the form, ash. Upon burning up the wood, the ash that results would be the possession of the form, ash. So, potency does nothing except be annihilated, so to speak, once the matter is in possession of the form of substantial change, which is ash.

jd