T
- Status
T
tdgesq
Guest
Your agreement or disagreement with me on the subject is not required. My only purpose is to demonstrate that your argument doesn’t make sense. This is an objective standard, not a subjective personal standard.Sorry you don’t see the nexus between my assertion that god lacks the capacity to do certain things (create ex nihilo, heal certain diseases, etc.) and omnipotence; or that you fail to recognize that absence of evidence can be evidence, particularly where it forms a pattern that is consistent in “every case” (and is supported by physical evidence, providing an illustration of how god affirmatively performs certain acts; which is again consistent in every case). If you don’t believe these are probative and relevant facts, I simply must respectfully disagree (and we’ll probably have to agree to disagree)
(1) You’ve never shown up at my house to watch American Idol;
(2) Therefore, you do not have the power to show up at my house to watch American Idol.
See. It doesn’t make sense. Here’s another one.
(1) No one has ever observed God perform on the flying trapeze;
(2) Therefore, God lacks the power to perform on the flying trapeze.
You can replace “on the flying trapeze” with “heals amputees.” It is the same result. A lack of evidence is just that - lack of evidence. To turn around and say it is evidence of something is a contradiction.
Perhaps you should deal with what Catholic theologians (and most other theists for that matter) actually claim about God’s omnipotence; that God could heal amputees if he wished, but he chooses not to. Just like he chooses not to perform on the flying trapeze, ride on the back of a hippopotamus, or play the bass clarinet.
Now you could argue that if God is all good (as most theists claim) he would heal amputees. Well, maybe God isn’t all good. Or maybe he has a sufficient moral reason not to heal amputees. Either way, this isn’t an issue of God’s omnipotence, at least from the standpoint of Catholics. That is presumably who you are addressing.
Yeah, I get it. What you are doing is presenting the problem of evil from the standpoint of God’s omnipotence. But let’s make it clear that is what you are doing. Sure you can solve the alleged problem of evil by by limiting God’s omnipotence ie. he lacks power to stop evil. Of course Catholics and theists generally find no need to assert this since it is evident that there are sufficient moral reasons for Him to allow evil to exist in the world.
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
The way you’re analogizing this is a serious misrepresentation of my position, not to mention the violence it does to logic generally speaking. I’m not talking about god on a flying trapeze, I’m examining how god created the world. For instance, when we examine a structure from any particular era, we can understand quite a bit about the capacity of its builders and architects. We can make assumptions about the technology available to those individuals when they built the structure. We can have a fairly robust understanding of how well they understood the physics involved with construction engineering; and so on. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t look at what we understand about the development of our universe, evolutionary science, etc. and examine god along these same lines.
You mean it’s not an omnipotence issue to you. Unless you’re the Pope I won’t presume you speak for all Catholics. Moreover, your arguments sound remarkably similar to the blitherings of protestant apologists. Little catch phrases that sound absurd (like god on a “flying trapeze”) but are nothing more than red herrings.
It’s not just lack of evidence. It’s observations of how god affirmatively does things, which taken in totality forms a pattern. Yes we can draw negative implications from affirmative conduct (and in this context “lack of evidence” is evidence). For instance, if every time we observed an individual attempt to read, they were unable to read, we can fairly assume they lack the ability to read.
The worse thing is you really don’t understand the totality of my argument. All you’ve done is taken a few facts, looked at them in isolation, and made irrational assumptions based on a misapplication of those facts
Anyway, Happy New Year
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
There is a significant disanalogy here. When we do archaeology, we assume that we know the physical/mental capacities and (to some degree) motives of the architects. But – if we say that God is not almighty – then we have no idea what His capacities are, nor His motives.
T
tdgesq
Guest
Precisely what is it you’ve examined about God creating the world that would make your position probable? So far you’ve cited what you haven’t observed as the basis of your inferences that God lacks certain abilities. If you have some affirmative evidence then let’s see it. Otherwise the analogies I’ve given are perfectly valid. There are all kinds of reasons one might decide not to act in a certain way. You can say that you observe that God does not heal amputees, for instance, but you are just speculating as to why he doesn’t. What makes your inference that God can’t heal amputees more valid than an inference that God chooses not to heal amputees?
I don’t disagree with you. It would be helpful though if you could explicate what you observe about the structure of the universe that would lead someone to believe the limitations you think should be placed upon God’s omnipotence. That you don’t observe something, like creation ex nihilo for instance, doesn’t lend anymore probability to your conclusions. That is particularly true where we have observed that everything in existence has a cause. We have observed this fact billions of times. The universe came from somewhere. It was caused by something. And an infinite regression of causes is a mathematical impossibility. There was a First Cause.
I’m not the Pope, but I know the dogma of the Catholic Church on this issue. There are approved miracles of the healing of amputees by the Church. Jesus healed the man with the withered hand and raised Lazarus from the dead. The first sentence of the Nicene Creed is “[W]e believe in one God, the Father the almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.” Jesus was raised from the dead. These are de fide statements of the Church to which all Catholics are required to give intellectual assent.
Really? I didn’t realize that there was a “Protestant way of analogizing” that differed from other Christians. My analogies would only be red herrings if they didn’t bear on the validity of your arguments from lack of evidence. Since they do bear them, they are not red herrings.
And this is where you are demonstrably incorrect. You have never observed God attempt to heal an amputee or attempt create the beginning of the universe. All you have observed is that God has not created anything ex nihilo or healed an amputee. Whether your observations are correct or not, they tell us nothing about why you haven’t observed God do these things. They lend no more probability to your conclusion that he can’t do these things than it does to the conclusion that he chooses not to do these things.
So far it looks like the totality of your argument is that because you haven’t observed God do certain acts, He lacks the power to do them. If there is more to the explanation, then I would like to hear it. Otherwise it looks just as likely that God simply chooses not perform those acts.The worse thing is you really don’t understand the totality of my argument. All you’ve done is taken a few facts, looked at them in isolation, and made irrational assumptions based on a misapplication of those facts
Happy New Year to you as well.Anyway, Happy New Year
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
Let me repeat my previous example. If we observe someone attempting to read, and each time we observe this they cannot read, it’s fair to assume they lack the ability to read. It doesn’t preclude the remote possibility that under different conditions, or if they really wanted to, they can in fact read – it just means it’s highly unlikely (at least according to inductive reasoning). If we then observe that same person having difficulty reading a ruler, we’ll not only think it’s likley they lack the ability to read a ruler, but we’re far more inclined to believe this because we already suspect they cannot read.
You may be right on this point. My reasoning does require that one remain open to the possibility that the bible is not a completely reliable source of truth. I would hope that the Catholic scholastic tradition is liberal enough to allow for this type of contemplation, but perhaps it’s not?
You’ll have to excuse the pun, I’m still trying to stop myself from spinning, and laughing after reading the arguments of Dr. William Craig (a very popular modern protestant apologist).
And this gets to the heart of modern apologetics; the demand that we suspend our inductive reasoning to accomodate religion (which is a special pleading). However, in my case I’m willing to assume god exists, but I will not suspend rational thinking in order to sustain this belief. Therefore, I do assume inductive reasoning is a valid means to examine things, and I do believe our observations provide an imporant point of reference (obviously not only our personal observations, but more importantly our collective observations, and all the information we’ve been able to gather pertaining to the physical world). You’re essentially saying we cannot know anything about a cause by observing its effect; and I reject that reasoning in the strongest terms.
I think it’s more accurate to say I’m looking at how god HAS done certain things; and looking for patterns in his affirmative conduct. We can, after all, form a frequency statistic based on this information. We can say in 100% of all cases in the known universe (and science has good reasons to believe this is true throughout the entire universe) god used randomness and creative destruction to create. Modern apologists like to use Bayes Theorem to ponder the possibility that god exists, that the resurrection actually happened, and so on. The problem is I’ve never seen an objective application of this model in theistic apologetics. Bayes theorem is actually a good model, if used properly. But you need reliable (name removed by moderator)uts, which in cases where the model is typically used are taken from frequency statistics. It’s hard to imagine you can build a case for a strong probability that god is omnipotent when the number you’re starting with is zero or one (depending how the question is framed).
S
Shike
Guest
Suspending inductive reasoning would be a mistake!!! And I don’t think modern apologetics in general does that, at least not the stuff that I’ve read (but how are we to define the scope?)
I’ll just talk about the amputee thing since that seems to be one of the “new” waves of excitement in the atheist realm. Yes, the amputee data (if correct) would tell you something about God. It would tell you that God doesn’t heal amputees. But is such data correct in the first place? Now, I think to myself, would I go and report to the doctor or my local newspaper if my arm was healed due to God answering my prayer? They would say, “that’s nice, now go run along and play”. I probably would not due to a general distaste for anything religious by the media.
But anyways, the implied argument is just a hip way to talk about the problem of evil and suffering. Which is not a good argument for the non-existence, nor probable non-existence of God. The conclusion does not logically follow, and there are too many possible answers to gain very much from such data.
Now I’m sure you’re familiar with The God Delusion. Do yourself a favor and find a good translation of Aquinas’ 5 ways and then look at what Dawkins said they were. Two possible explanations (since we know Dawkins is smart): he deliberately misrepresented the arguments for his own designs, or he had a ghost writer do the work for him. I am assuming the predicate ‘smart’ excludes taking some other person’s comments on Aquinas at face value and treating them as Gospel.
peace,
Michael
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
I think we can safely assume no one has ever spontaneously regrown a limb (or other missing organ).
I disagree on two counts. First, I don’t think this merely goes to the problem of evil and suffering (although it’s related, and reasonable people can certainly disagree on this count), and secondly I’m not using it to argue in favor of non-existence.
My contention is it most properly relates to the issue of omnipotence (or it’s at least probative evidence to help us examine the issue of omnipotence).
I’ve never read the God Delusion (nor do I plan to); and since Dawkins is a biologist I wouldn’t view his critique of a philosopher (particularly of Aquinas’ stature) as having too much scholarly weight.
S
Shike
Guest
Doh, my mistake. The words you used just sounded right from something out of his book.
Why assume? And what do you mean by spontaneously? If you mean without cause, then I agree.
I never said it merely goes to the problem of evil. It’s just a popular formulation of the problem of evil.
Okay.
Most properly? Don’t you realize that the “issue of omnipotence” is wrapped up with the problem of evil. The problem of evil is another way to talk about the omni dilemmas, omnipotence being one such omni.
I say allow it (if the data is true) and see what it tells you about God based on his effects. Not a whole lot. I can think of many possible explanations of why God wouldn’t heal amputees. “Doesn’t” does not mean “Can’t” unless viewed from the eyes of eternity.
The problem of evil has too many explanations to give us much to sink our teeth into.
peace,
Michael
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
I simply disagree. I think looking at effects is relevant (and indeed much more reliable than unsubstantiated ancient documents, which have various problems from a historicity standpoint). It’s not just a single effect (in which case I might agree, it wouldn’t be enough information to make an informed hypothesis). In every case where there has been divine activity (which we must assume is every case of everything that exists) there is a very clear pattern of doing things a certain way, and certain limitations.
Just because theologians can imagine different reasons (other than limitations on omnipotence) why god might behave the way he does – it doesn’t mean those alternative explanations are plausible (I simply don’t think they are). Not only does the idea of limited omnipotence correlate with the actual physical evidence we do have, but it’s also philosophically consistent. Every logical argument used to support the idea that god exists, while persuasive with regard to the isolated question of whether there must be a creator, are immensely inconsistent with our classical idea of god.
S
Shike
Guest
You don’t substantiate your claim very well when you do this. It is like saying, “I know I stole the cookie but there are people who rob banks.” Not saying I agree with your statement, however.
Then by all means, let’s take all the evidence in instead of playing around with this trifling amputee stuff. But before you go any further, what evidence would change your mind to there being an omnipotent God? If the only answer is if you saw an actual infinity in nature (something not limited by number), then you better rethink your position. A creation with limits is just the name of the game; it’s part and parcel of any creation.
So you’re making a judgment before you hear out the different reasons that theologians might have (And is this in response to say, the problem of evil or what?)?
What are you going to use to try and prove such a logical inconsistency? The problem of evil? I have not yet met an argument that can hold water that proves omnipotence is inconsistent with God. Omnipotence goes with the territory of being the Uncaused Cause that is outside of time. I think you are drastically underestimating the logical consistency of the Judeo/Christian conception of God. Are you familiar with any medieval philosophy?
peace,
Michael
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
I’m not sure what you’re expecting here? Certitude is not something that we can find in nature or philosophy very often (and certainly not with regard to this sort of question). The best we can do is find an approximation, what god might be like, what the evidence we have tells us in terms of what’s more likely. We exist in a universe where creative destruction and randomness is perhaps the best description of its creative process. We evolved through a system of natural selection, also guided by randomness, where 99.9% of all species that ever existed are now existinct.
If certitude is the demand, then fairy tales are probably the only place answers can be found. If we want to look at this rationally, then we have to be willing to settle for much less than certitude.
I’m not sure why I need to imagine what evidence would change my mind? When a religion makes claims like a god-man rose from the dead (which sounds similar, at least in some respects, to a bunch of other fantastic ancient myths) it seems to me the burden is on the claimant to prove it. An ancient book, which is no more than copies upon copies of yet more copies (and frankly we don’t really know how many copies of copies of more copies of yet even more copies what we have today represents), of bizarre stories few in the religious community can even agree on. Yet you expect me to take on faith that this is the handiwork of an omnipotent god, who can do anything he wants (except apparently relay a simple books worth of information effectively between generations).
I can go on all night with this stuff. The bible is perhaps the biggest bunch of inconsistencies between the covers of the same book ever written in history. Most archeologists today believe the Exodus could not have ever happened; and I thank the god that I really do believe does exist – it didn’t happen. I’m relieved to know that god isn’t a mass murderer, who likes to kill infants and young children. Genesis has been out the window for decades now. We can look at comparative mythology and pretty much see where most of this stuff probably came from. Sure, Jesus probably was a real guy, who probably was unfortunately executed by the Romans (or Jews, who knows); but he stayed dead. Who knows how the myths surrounding his life were invented, or why they became popular (there’s plenty of good theories, but I just don’t care enough about it anymore to waste time speculating).
I think we attach to much significance to ideas like “outside of time.” Before anything existed there was god, therefore the only things that exist are god and whatever he created. We have no compass to guide our understanding of god, what else he might have created, what his perception of time might be, what he is exactly, etc. besides what we can observe in nature. For all we know it’s just as likely god was a quite spirit who existed in a vacuum, who triggered a quantum fluctuation that resulted in our inflationary universe. There’s nothing to base an idea like omnipotence on, absolutely zero.
If you want to tell me god is an all powerful spirit who invented this universe with the eventual intention of coming to earth on a suicide mission, and exacts vengence and compells obedience by sometimes slaughtering infants, I’ll say I don’t believe you … pure and simple. These are claims that I believe reduce to the absurd. And oh by the way, isn’t it always convenient that the various “churches” of this god, always put those who don’t submit to them roasting in an eternal hell. I just don’t believe these churches who are so obviously self-interested, but I’m still willing to believe a god exists (to spite the terrible reputation religion has given him).
S
Shike
Guest
Says who? This seems like a pretty unsubstantiated assumption. Did you not say yourself that we should be able to figure out some things about God based on His effects?
Okay, I agree as long as you don’t say the randomness goes all the way up, so-to-speak.
I think you’re using the word certitude in the sense of a deductive proof. By definition, then, any other method is uncertain. What about inductive methods or a combination of induction and deduction? Why can’t we be certain of such methods like this? Such methods seem to be good enough for scientists.
Because if nothing will convince you of the possibility that God is omnipotent, then it really saves me a lot of time arguing with you. You can’t argue with someone if they refuse to open to what you’re going to argue for. As far as I’m concerned, so far you have shown that you’re right, end of story… and are now on this forum to spread your gospel.
We can talk about these things if you’d like, but it would seem that you’d have less problems if you saw that God must be omnipotent.
Yes, please spare us from your selective, narrow, and word-twisting Biblical exegesis (PM me if you want a quick refutation of everything you just said… seriously).
So you know that God isn’t a mass murderer? That sounds pretty certain. But how can you be so sure, I mean, look at the evidence. As far as I know every person who has stepped foot onto this planet has died… and is not God responsible for creation? Looks like you are arbitrarily selective in your inductive method.
So are you denying that God’s outside time? It’s either true or false, is it not?
How about this (in summary): Based on induction we know that there exists necessarily an Uncaused Cause. The short of it is that an Uncaused Cause must be purely actual, and therefore by definition omnipotent. Many of the other qualities found in the traditional conception of the Judeo/Christian God can be reasoned out. Now, using your definition of certain, we can’t prove that this is the Judeo/Christian God. But if it quacks like a duck, smells like a duck…
I find it deeply arogant to make such a negative claim. Sure, it might be that you have not found anything yet to base the idea of omnipotence on, but do not speak for the rest of us.
Dude, I totally agree. Who would believe that?
I’m sure glad the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that (yes, I know what I’m talking about). You seem very misinformed; where did you learn all this? Just a heads up that a lot of the stuff isn’t the case; what you are giving are straw men that have been constructed by those who have a chip on their shoulder against the Church. It is not a calm, nor honest appraisal of the situation; moreover, it is intellectually dishonest.
Do remember that to some extent the Catholic Church is made up of human individuals with all their flaws and “humanness”. So be aware of exactly what you’re expecting to find.
But I think the original question of this thread has been answered, don’t you think? Christians have told you what omnipotence means, namely, the ability to do anything.
peace,
Michael
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
Yes, but ruling things out, is different than defining affirmative attributes (moreover, even where we may rule things out, we can only say it’s highly likely god creates using a certain process, we can’t be absolutely certain he has no other methods available to him, as I’m sure you’re glad to point out).
I’m simply noting that, in an area like this one, probability is all we have (certitude is not possible).
No I don’t (in fact one of the few reasons why I think a god is even plausible is because the conditions necessary for life involve numerous coincidences that seem to create a reasonable likelihood of purpose). This doesn’t mean intelligent design (or anything close).
There are limits to inductive reasoning, although ironically it’s usually theists who are first to point these out
Frequency statistics essentially relies on inductive reasoning (or at least it inferentially relies on it). It’s a very good measure of probability, but can we say simply because we’ve never observed something happen, it can never happen (or at least cannot happen naturally)? Obviously we can say it’s highly unlikely, virtually impossible, etc., but we can never say impossible. For instance, physicists have traditionally thought that nothing could travel faster than light, yet in recent experiments involving quantum tunneling, particles have been observed traveling faster than light. It’s an anomaly, but it happens. We always thought that something can’t come into existence from nothing, but we’ve recently observed electrons popping in and out of existence in a vacuum, and we’re discovered quantum fluctuations occur constantly in nature.
So there are obvious limits on inductive reasoning. It’s only as good as our ability to examine whatever it is we’re trying to understand, and our overall knowledge of the physical universe.
Continued …
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
Whatever my inclinations may be, I’m willing to consider alternate views if I see one with merit that deserves serious consideration.
Well, why MUST god be omnipotent?
I don’t think I would classify my commentary as “exegesis” (I’m not a theologian after all, and frankly I have little respect for theologians, I think they’re some of the most disingenuous people in academia).
I look at raw facts; and draw conclusions. There are very few imaginable contexts where the mass murder of infants coud be justified. Let’s say all infants are infected with a deadly disease, and only by killing them can society be spared. That’s the sort of thing where … OK maybe. But within the context of the events, as described in the Exodus, it frankly insults my intelligence for anyone to expect me to believe it was the handiwork of an all loving, much less all powerful god.
Because it doesn’t make sense in light of everything else. It makes much more sense to think god cannot be omnipotent. Why would god have put in motion a self-perfecting process of fine tuning, evolution, which has allowed us to become progressively more intelligent, live exceedingly longer lives, etc. (with some unfortunate exceptions). There’s a general direction the “arrow” of history is traveling, and that direction suggests a god who is interested in the progress of his creation.
Funny you would infer the law of the excluded middle applies here, but when I say god either murdered thousands of infants or he didn’t … there’s an elaborate sophistic explanation telling me why killing babies is really OK
How can I possibly confirm or deny a claim (that seems to have no real substantive value anyway) like god exists outside of time? If you assert this with any degree of certitude then you must know what exists “outside of time”? For all you know (without knowing that fact) god may have formerly existed outside of time, but now there is no outside of time (becaue wherever god existed formerly may for whatever reason not exist any longer). Maybe the universe is the only game in town, and as it expands god expands … who the heck knows (if you have some proof regarding this issue, then I’m all ears).
I’m always in favor of a cognizant summary of an idea, but I need a little more than this. Please elaborate?
There is nothing “objective” to base the idea of omnipotence on. There’s plenty of subjective stuff out there, sure, and plenty of philosophical gibberish … but nothing I would define as objective, verifiable, proof.
Yet the bible says Jesus came to earth with the prior intention of dying does it not? OK sure maybe suicide mission is an improper characterization (designed to make it sound more ridiculous than it already is; and I shouldn’t restort to hyperbole). However, with regard to the Exodus, I have no problem standing firm on my charges. It would have been a horrible act by god if it were true.
You want a dichotomy, well, as I said before, you either think the mass murder of innocent infants to compel the actions of a single political leader is a good and loving thing to do, or you don’t
S
Shike
Guest
Well you say this, but further down you talk about philosophical gibberish. I hope you have a narrow scope and leave room for philosophy (which should be defined as just trying to figure out what’s true).
But don’t you see, you **are **interpreting the Bible based upon your own set of presuppositions. I’m not ready to claim the Exodus didn’t happen, but can’t you give room for the possibility that the human author of the book of Exodus had an agenda… oh say for instance, showing that God is faithful to His people? Frankly, I do not know how we got into this. But like I said, if you want to continue this, start a new thread or PM me.
So therefore you must be right?
So says you. If you were familiar with Aquinas’ 5 ways and say the first 10 questions of his Summa, it would make a lot more sense to you.
Look around you. Maybe you don’t see the intellectual and moral confusion that exists nowadays. Yes we can make bombs but we’ve forgotten a lot of wisdom, how to live life. How is that progress? Yes, we inhabit a special position within creation… but please don’t think it’s all about us. Or even that all we have to do is sit back and enjoy the ride and we will all (the rest of humanity) be gods some day. Though I don’t doubt that God is interested in our progress, mainly our moral progress.
The plain and simple answer is that He didn’t (but you don’t like this explanation because it doesn’t conform with your own presuppositions about how the Bible is to be interpreted ect.). Moving on.
This shows that you do not understand what “outside of time” means. It is not a place but a logical relation. What you say would only make sense if God ceased to exist, which of course doesn’t make sense.
Check out a good translation of the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas (not some straw man pin-up, I reccommend the Basic Writings by Anton C. Pegis) and go through about the first 10 questions (a lot of work to get through say 100 pages or so, I’m sorry to inform). You will find that he starts with induction and finds necessary conclusions based upon the very fact of our existence. Basically one comes to the conclusion that there must be a purely actual being in order for the rest of creation to be here (subsequently if God is not that purely actual being then you have not found God and must continue in search). This Uncaused Cause, if you will, necessitates omnipotence.
Side note: When I predicate omnipotence of God it can only be used in an analogous way. But realize that any analogy isn’t just as good as any other. One could have wrong analogies. So while we can’t know the full content of what omnipotence entails with regard to God, we do know something (ie. not a probability).
Do you think that philosophy can reach truth (If not, then you’re in a lot of trouble)? If the answer is yes, then you have some good reading to look into, namely what I reccommended.
Ah the Bible again. I don’t know who told you that Catholics are like Protestant Fundamentalists, but they were wrong. Faith and Reason, you need both.
And to answer your dichotomy, I don’t. See, that was easy.You want a dichotomy, well, as I said before, you either think the mass murder of innocent infants to compel the actions of a single political leader is a good and loving thing to do, or you don’t
I hope you learned something of worth through this convo, at the very least that Catholics are not Fundamentalists.
peace,
Michael
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
Obviously assuming the Exodus is figurative and not historical would change the tenor of this discussion considerably, but I just can’t imagine what value the book would have under that sort of assumption (but I’m certainly open to allowing it, if for nothing else arguendo sake)? But OK great, god is faithful (I suppose ancient man couldn’t comprehend the idea without a horrific story of murdering a bunch of infants, but maybe that truly is what was required to get through to ancient man, who knows).
I simply think, at the end of the day, either the bible is true or it isn’t. I understand Catholics reject biblical literalism, but they replace it with what basically amounts to make it up as you go along theology, which IMO doesn’t pass the smell test. If every time a book or passage shocks the sensibilities of ordinary people, or becomes too absurd to believe, or impossible given new scientific information, the religious simply abandon the passage or chapter at issue and call it figurative, eventually there will be nothing left
You have to remember, it’s only really been during the last century that we’ve learned so many new things. Sure, maybe reaching back to the Newton or Kepler era the foundations were being laid, but today vast amounts of immensely complex scientific information is right at our finger tips. The average person can find a concise summary of relativity and quantum physics that’s comprehensible with a five minute Google search. He can learn about evolutionary science and the piles of evidence we have in these areas.
We can see how this knowledge impacts religiosity in western society (and the prospects for religion aren’t good in the west). We seen it in the enlightenment, when they were only beginning to acquire the knowledge we have today.
I’ve read Aquinas, and I just re-reviewed this material for good measure, where exactly does he advocate the idea that omnipotence is logically necessary? I’m unaware of any philosopher (save maybe Swineburne) who advocates this idea (in philosophy, omnipotence presents a paradox, and it’s believed to be logically impossible). I suggest a paper by Wes Morriston, Omnipotence and necessary moral perfection: are they compatible, which presents an excellent argument, showing why they’re incompatible.
How much worse are we today than when the inquisitors and witch hunters were when they were burning men alive, or when human beings were bought and sold as chattel? The world today certainly has its share of problems, but I suggest far from being the moral cesspool the religious are in the habit of claiming it is, we’re actually far more moral than any other point in history, at least in the western world.
Continued …
B
bridgeforsale
Guest
It’s not rocket science. If time began at the creation of our universe, and god existed before the universe, then obviously god exists independent of time. But what does that tell us? I don’t really think it tells us much of anything (it’s certainly not relevant to the issue of omnipotence). Moreover, like I said before (although I understand you’re alluding to the metaphysical application of this concept) there is a practical way we can think about this; which tells us god’s perception of time, what the concept “outside of time” might mean, etc. are things that are simply unknowable (at least at this point in time).
Once again I’m not sure Aquinas ever says or infers this. I understand Aquinas believed god was omnipotent, but I don’t think it was part of his metaphysical argument (I could be wrong, but like I said I’ve read this stuff in the past)? BTW although I like some of Aquinas’ arguments, I think his argument from motion e.g. the first way (which I think you’re referring to here) is flawed. The idea that only actual motion can convert potential motion, seems to be disproven by quantum mechanics (although we still have a lot to learn and the jury’s obviously still out). Moreover, the idea that motion cannot extend backwards infinitely, is not something that’s ever been demonstrated empirically. Moreover, the whole thing suffers from a real pickle of a problem. First, take Zeno’s paradox, and its example of the arrow moving through the air. If reality is infinitely divisible, then reaching zero is impossible (and therefore infinite regression is possible). However, we know if we shoot an arrow at something, it will hit it, and therefore the actual distance between the arrow and the object will be zero (which seems to debunk Zeno’s paradox). However, the regress argument states that any proposition requires a justification, and any proposition can be endlessly (infinitely) questioned.
Anyway, like questioning a proposition, philosophical speculation can go on forever it seems!
Of course I don’t propose all knowledge is reducible to mere probability (although in some respects it is, but that’s another issue). What I was referring to was the conclusions we’re drawing here can only be expressed as a probability (for instance, the keyboard I’m typing on right now is built with plastic, which is an absolute fact, but with regard to the attributes of god, all we can do is speculate using the evidence available to us. We don’t have enough evidence to make claims with any reasonable degree of certitude, like I do with regard to the composition of my keyboard).
I think science is more reliable. For instance, quantum mechanics tells us random events with no apparent causation do happen in nature, and in fact they occur constantly. Certainly we should continue searching for causation, but at a very minimum causation can no longer be strictly viewed as subject to locality requirements, as once required by the assumptions of realism that’s been around ever since Socrates.
I understand Catholics are not fanatical fundamentalists (if you were I strongly doubt we could have this sort of conversation).
S
Shike
Guest
Looks like you answered your question, can we now move on?
Did you think about what you said before you wrote it down. The NT is very explicit about the Incarnation of Christ and the Resurrection. How are these things not scandalous? Moving on, please.
“We know many important and new things” isn’t an argument. Plus, I’m more concerned about what you know than the ominous and murky “they”. Moving on.
You won’t find it in the 5 Ways but you will find it within the first 10 questions of his Summa as a logical implication thereof (also known as a necessity). And thanks for the article reference, though I don’t imagine it covering anything more than what I’ve already said regarding the problem of evil.
Have you given any thought about abortion?
How many people do you think were burned by the Spanish Inquisition anyways? While anyone being burned alive is wrong, putting a number on it gives it some perspective. The Catholic Church isn’t perfect, but put more emphasis on the message. Evaluate the message. But as to this particular question of morality I do not have a definite stance.
Wow, you seem so sure. Well then you will learn something from Aquinas by seeing the dots connect one after another.
Yes, you are wrong. Continued in next post.
S
Shike
Guest
What do you think he means when he talks about motion? Your view illustrates that one needs to be familiar with the basics of Aristotelian terminology to get a grasp on what Aquinas was saying. In this case when he says motion he means change, not just local motion. I think you’re missing the force of his argument. Science would seem to be able to only invalidate his initial assumption, but good luck with that (ie. we experience some things in the world that undergo change).
Aquinas is very clear in that any body that undergoes change requires that the reason for the change exist logically outside that body. He is not saying that every proposition requires a justification (though he might agree that everything must have a reason, aka PSR). Further, if I understand your last conjecture properly, you don’t need to actually question something infinitely to realize that it needs a reason no matter how many intermediary steps exist. So no pickle of a problem, not by a long shot; where did you get this info from?
My advice to you is to take another look at the arguments from Aquinas, and look at both sympathetic and non-sympathetic sources (especially since some of the non-sympathetic sources are laughable in their treatment, ie. Dawkins).
Then you didn’t read what I said nor did you comment about it. How much evidence do you need to back up an argument that proves a conclusion by logical principles (obviously no counter-evidence should be present)?
Heck, anyone who believes in God could tell you that causation isn’t entirely local (but then we move into a wider view of causality as explanation rather than the narrow cause/effect event as the word implies today, something which Aristotelians were aware of)
So what’s the state of the state? I think from this conversation we can gather 1) there are many ways to interpret the Bible, don’t just jump to conclusions or assume your presuppositions are correct, 2) make room for the importance of philosophy, Science (capital S) isn’t the sole source nor method of discovering truth (and might I add not the absolute most reliable as a philosophical argument can be), 3) you need to reevaluate your knowledge of Aquinas and delve deeper into his systematic philosophy, and reevaluate your sources.
Where do you want the conversation to go from here?
- Status