What does Divine Omnipotence really mean?

[bridgeforsale]

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?

Aristotle did adhere to a form of realism (arguably he created realism). Aristotle ordered the concept of causation into four elements. They were material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause. Material cause is, using the example of a building, simply stated its materials (the wood, steel, concrete, etc.). Formal cause is the conception of the building (e.g. the exemplar of the idea existing in the mind of the builder). Efficient cause, is its agent(s), in the case of a building, its construction workers, architects, etc. And final cause is the sake of which the building is built (e.g. the price paid to the general contractor to physically build the structure). Apart from this very formal causative structure, Aristotle gives us the concept of a Supreme Cause. But before getting into his concept of god, it’s important to first understand how he viewed the physical world. For Aristotle an idea wasn’t an independent thing, which existed apart from the physical world (as Plato believed). For Aristotle, ideas are drawn from the physical world. In other words our concept of a river exists because rivers actually exist and we know they exist (and that knowledge forms the basis of our ideas concerning rivers). Contrast this with Plato who believed our concept of things is formed independent of our knowledge concerning the extrinsic world (and you can see how much Aristotle deviated from his teacher). We can also see how Aristotle provided the basis for later ideas like the empiricism of John Locke.

The obvious problems with these ideas (notwithstanding they make perfect sense from an intuitive standpoint) is science dispenses with their necessity. In other words science shows it’s perfectly possible a universe could have formed randomly; and they’ve shown (through experimentation) there are fluctuations in nature that occur randomly, which do not seem to logically require the contemplated action of a supreme mover. Science also shows that energy could (in theory) in of itself both exist infinitely, and produce our current universe randomly. We also know that intelligent life could have been formed randomly, with no conscious guidance or preexisting plan. Scientists have designed evolutionary algorithms that show us random natural selection can produce intelligent life without any need for a designer or any sort of celestial invisible hand. However, there’s an even greater fundamental problem with Aristotle’s reasoning. To encapsulate his approach, nothing can exist before it’s conceptualized, and nothing can be conceptualized without some basis for the concept. For instance if trees didn’t exist, and therefore wood couldn’t exist, we could not conceptualize building things using wood. It’s easy enough to see why this reasoning requires a first cause, who itself is not constricted by these logical limitations. In other words god, to Aristotle, must be able to conceptualize something without that thing ever previously existing, and furthermore without the materials that thing requires existing. Therefore, god must be able to both conceptualize and create without any limitations (and omnipotence is therefore a logical necessity). Nonetheless, science tells us Aristotle is probably wrong in this assumption (which highlights why I think science is more reliable than the fuzziness of metaphysics).

At its root Aristotle’s reasoning is arguably circular. Consciousness requires a foundational basis in the real world, but at the end of the causal chain, the existence of the real world must be predicated on a preexisting consciousness that itself didn’t require a basis in a real world (since of course the “real world” didn’t exist). These assumptions simply did not take into account the possibilities quantum physics today tells us are true.

If you still think I don’t understand Aristotle, please explain specifically why, and try to avoid (for the sake of polity) anymore bare assertions.

 

[Shike]

Aristotle did adhere to a form of realism (arguably he created realism). Aristotle ordered the concept**…**

First question: Did you copy and paste this from some website? Because it seems to me if you were aware of what you just said, you would not have wondered if Aquinas included omnipotence as a logical necessity. Anyways. Your recitation of Aristotle is acceptable but your “refutation” of the logically necessarily implications is silly…

• Science does dispense with the necessity of Aristotle’s framework. You bring in the all-mighty word “random” to suggest more than one possibility. Unless your definition of random means uncaused (ie. without a reason), then the logical necessity of Aristotle’s framework stands. Now, if you want to argue against the very principle upon which science is founded upon (PSR), go right ahead. Just don’t come crying to me when nothing makes sense.
• You can have infinite or finite energy, it does not eliminate the need for a reason logically outside itself if it undergoes change. (Or if you prefer a different route, either energy is necessary or contingent; if contingent, then keep looking for something that is necessary. If necessary, then is the necessity due to itself or something else. Hopefully you get the picture that an infinite or finite amount of energy doesn’t circumvent the problem).
• Your faith in science is outstanding. Actually, what you are doing is overstepping the bounds of what science proves and falling into the realm of ideology. For instance, taking your example of evolution algorithms. Think about this very carefully. Scientists… who happen to be rational agents… constructed algorithms… to show the randomness of evolution. Think about that very hard, specifically the part where the scientists construct the algorithm part.

What would you like to talk about now?

peace,
Michael

 

[bridgeforsale]

First question: Did you copy and paste this from some website? Because it seems to me if you were aware of what you just said, you would not have wondered if Aquinas included omnipotence as a logical necessity. Anyways. Your recitation of Aristotle is acceptable but your “refutation” of the logically necessarily implications is silly…

• Science does dispense with the necessity of Aristotle’s framework. You bring in the all-mighty word “random” to suggest more than one possibility. Unless your definition of random means uncaused (ie. without a reason), then the logical necessity of Aristotle’s framework stands. Now, if you want to argue against the very principle upon which science is founded upon (PSR), go right ahead. Just don’t come crying to me when nothing makes sense.

So now you’re saying the foundation of science lies on the principal that everything has a reason or purpose.

What dream world do you live in? You’re inventing stuff you wish were true, and trying to present it as fact; but oh yeah that pretty much describes religion in a nutshell doesn’t it

• You can have infinite or finite energy, it does not eliminate the need for a reason logically outside itself if it undergoes change. (Or if you prefer a different route, either energy is necessary or contingent; if contingent, then keep looking for something that is necessary. If necessary, then is the necessity due to itself or something else. Hopefully you get the picture that an infinite or finite amount of energy doesn’t circumvent the problem).

It might not eliminate the need for a reason in your mind, but of course that has no bearing on reality or quantum physics. You obviously have no grasp of the science involved here, namely phenomena like quantum fluctuations.

Your faith in science is outstanding.

No where near as amazing as faith in ancient horror stories.

Actually, what you are doing is overstepping the bounds of what science proves and falling into the realm of ideology. For instance, taking your example of evolution algorithms. Think about this very carefully. Scientists… who happen to be rational agents… constructed algorithms… to show the randomness of evolution. Think about that very hard, specifically the part where the scientists construct the algorithm part.

I’ve thought about it … and concluded you’re in way over your head.

 

[Shike]

So now you’re saying the foundation of science lies on the principal that everything has a reason or purpose.

What dream world do you live in? You’re inventing stuff you wish were true, and trying to present it as fact; but oh yeah that pretty much describes religion in a nutshell doesn’t it

It might not eliminate the need for a reason in your mind, but of course that has no bearing on reality or quantum physics. You obviously have no grasp of the science involved here, namely phenomena like quantum fluctuations.

No where near as amazing as faith in ancient horror stories.

I’ve thought about it … and concluded you’re in way over your head.

Fine, dodge my answers with pretty words.

Can someone tell me what Scientists are looking for when they conduct an experiment? Anyone now? Why do they posit a hypothesis? Anyone?’

And I’m sorry, I forgot to answer the allegation that Aristotle’s framework is “arguably circular”. I’m afraid circular doesn’t apply here. The statement you gave referenced different objects, namely human cognition and God. Therefore, no circularity is present or arguable within your statement, at least not without equivocation.

I just hope you’re willing to overlook pride and feelings and willing to engage in reasoned debate. But thanks for the ride so far.

peace,
Michael

 

[bridgeforsale]

Fine, dodge my answers with pretty words.

What answers? Let me explain this from my point of view. It’s a common tactic on this board (and other similar boards I’ve visited) for your side to try and find a small crack in the other sides argument, which usually isn’t a relevant (much less significant) point. The argument gets sidetracked, ad hominem remarks are exchanged, and ultimately it winds up as yet another unfortunate wasted opportunity.

All of our observations suggest that consciousness, whether human or celestial, is not a significant factor in nature. Indeed randomness is an observed phenomena, and we know energy can come into existence randomly and with no predicate causation. It is perfectly possible that a quantum fluctuation, similar to the ones we’ve observed in experiments, triggered the inflation that resulted in our universe. The basis of Aristotle’s logic is that creating the universe would have required consciousness; or another way of putting it is, before anything can be created it must be conceptualized. My very simple point has been; no longer does this idea represent a logical necessity (I’m not sure if it ever did in the first place, but now we have physical evidence to show it). Aristotle based this view on the way we (human beings) create things. Since we need to conceptualize things before we build them, then according to Aristotle this must be some sort of universal law (broadly applicable in nature). He never considered that something could pop into existence from nothing. He never considered that nature could builld itself without any conscious guidance whatsoever. He did understand physics, quantum mechanics, or thermodynamics. He didn’t understand that energy is an infinite resource, which can be neither created or destroyed.

We now know that natural selection (or adaptive evolution) is a competely random creative process of what is best described as trial and error (mostly error). Yes, that’s right, things can create themselves, without any guiding consciousness or celestial force whatsoever; and as a matter of fact they do, and we can prove it. Indeed, as far as we know, this is the only way anything has ever been created in nature. Therefore, the premise that Aristotle relied on, is demonstrably false. I don’t blame Aristotle for thinking the way he did. It wasn’t really until David Hume that these ideas began to be seriously questioned (and afterall Hume lived during enlightenment, after guys like Isaac Newton, and therefore had the advantage of a far greater understanding of the physical world than Aristotle did). Although Hume himself was an empiricist, he did highlight the limitations of inductive reasoning. The problem is the debate on this issue (theism, or lack thereof) often winds up sidetracked in stuff like the philosophy of Hume, when science is really far beyond that sort of thinking. I’d say Hume’s only real problem was one of perception rather than substance. On one hand he highlighted (built his philosophy on really) the inherent problems of inductive reasoning. Yet in his critque of miracles he completely relies on inductive reasoning to try and debunk them (I think Hume was right in many respects, but there were some flaws in his arguments, some substantive but for the most part they were cosmetic). Nonetheless, this approach simply isn’t relevant anymore. We can at least say we have physical evidence to show Aristotle’s metaphysical theories with regard to the necessity of a god are almost certainly wrong. Very simply stated, a conscious creator is not required, and we’re able to demonstrate why.

I just hope you’re willing to overlook pride and feelings and willing to engage in reasoned debate. But thanks for the ride so far.

peace,
Michael

Don’t you really mean you hope I’m willing to suspend rational thinking and believe in the reductio ad absurdum?

 

[tdgesq]

Shike,

I admire your tenacity in trying to get this particular poster to understand your position, and you have presented it eloquently. However, he will not hear your words or attempt to understand. For example, here is an unfortunate statement I received earlier in this thread:

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.

Of course the problem being that the lack of inductive evidence does not constitute evidence, and never has from the standpoint of the science that makes up probabilities - statistics. The poster’s belief (because that is all it is) is unscientific. How then can we abide it? We can’t. We must correct try to correct his error.

But here is where the real difficulties arise. For some strange and mystical reason, it has been determined by some men who study science that the laws of deductive reasoning no longer apply - that is - the laws of logic no longer apply to them. So that when they engage in what is a clear logical fallacy, it is of no matter. I mean, they are so certain of their personal observations of the world (they have no basis for this as their personal observations could be as flawed as all of the rest of us) that the basic laws of thought no longer apply. They will deduce things from their admittedly flawed observations to serve their own purposes. These are emotional and not scientific purposes.

This is just one reason why I oppose folks like these. There are many other reasons. You aren’t getting a response that is worthy of philosophy. I am sorry for that, but continue to do what you can here.

 

[bridgeforsale]

Of course the problem being that the lack of inductive evidence does not constitute evidence, and never has from the standpoint of the science that makes up probabilities - statistics. The poster’s belief (because that is all it is) is unscientific. How then can we abide it? We can’t. We must correct try to correct his error.

First of all, why not man up and speak to me directly. But secondly, I recognize the limitations of inductive reasoning, but I also note the fact that it’s the reasoning we guide our daily lives on. It’s why we don’t do things like put our hands on burning stoves.

But here is where the real difficulties arise. For some strange and mystical reason, it has been determined by some men who study science that the laws of deductive reasoning no longer apply - that is - the laws of logic no longer apply to them. So that when they engage in what is a clear logical fallacy, it is of no matter. I mean, they are so certain of their personal observations of the world (they have no basis for this as their personal observations could be as flawed as all of the rest of us) that the basic laws of thought no longer apply. They will deduce things from their admittedly flawed observations to serve their own purposes. These are emotional and not scientific purposes.

That’s barely penetrating skin deep. In trying to reach at some of the assumptions that have guided western religiosity for centuries, I think it’s safe to assume your ranting won’t provide much assistance. The idea that the universe requires a first cause who is not only sentient, but also omnipotent, is something I flatly reject, but not without good reason.

Today we know that biological life was created by random natural selection. Essentially a rudderless process of trail and error (and considering 99.9% of all species ever created are now extinct, I’d say mostly error). We’ve observed quantum fluctuations, which is essentially energy that pops in and out of existence with no predicate causation.

In other words, we know, we don’t just think; that the allegedly “necessary” laws of the universe as Aristotle would have it, are not necessary at all, and in fact they’re not even likely.

This is just one reason why I oppose folks like these. There are many other reasons. You aren’t getting a response that is worthy of philosophy. I am sorry for that, but continue to do what you can here.

Uhhh, whatever

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Today we know that biological life was created by random natural selection. Essentially a rudderless process of trail and error (and considering 99.9% of all species ever created are now extinct, I’d say mostly error). We’ve observed quantum fluctuations, which is essentially energy that pops in and out of existence with no predicate causation.

Begs the question. You’re conflating “no known cause” with “no cause.” We know, perhaps, that biological life was created by natural selection, but we are far from knowing that such selection was random. We are not even certain that the selection *used *random processes. The fact that something appears random does not entail that it is random.

In other words, we know, we don’t just think; that the allegedly “necessary” laws of the universe as Aristotle would have it, are not necessary at all, and in fact they’re not even likely.

Can you please explain to me how we can distinguish a world without such necessity from a world with such necessity?

 

[Shike]

What answers?

Come now. You put allegations towards Aristotle’s reasoning as circular. I gave a specific answer in response. Please go back and specifically answer it. Rinse and repeat for the others.

Let me explain this from my point of view. It’s a common tactic on this board (and other similar boards I’ve visited) for your side to try and find a small crack in the other sides argument, which usually isn’t a relevant (much less significant) point. The argument gets sidetracked, ad hominem remarks are exchanged, and ultimately it winds up as yet another unfortunate wasted opportunity.

Just because something has happened in the past does not mean it will happen in the future. Nor do I agree with your generalization. Just stay cool and stick to the words here.

All of our observations suggest that consciousness, whether human or celestial, is not a significant factor in nature. Indeed randomness is an observed phenomena, and we know energy can come into existence randomly and with no predicate causation. It is perfectly possible that a quantum fluctuation, similar to the ones we’ve observed in experiments, triggered the inflation that resulted in our universe.

All you need to do is define what you mean by randomness. As long as randomness has an explanation (ie. as long as quantum fluctuations have a reason why they do what they do, not necessarily a cause in the sense of cause/effect event), then Aristotle’s framework stands. Care to disprove this claim of mine?

The basis of Aristotle’s logic is that creating the universe would have required consciousness; or another way of putting it is, before anything can be created it must be conceptualized. My very simple point has been; no longer does this idea represent a logical necessity (I’m not sure if it ever did in the first place, but now we have physical evidence to show it). Aristotle based this view on the way we (human beings) create things. Since we need to conceptualize things before we build them, then according to Aristotle this must be some sort of universal law (broadly applicable in nature). He never considered that something could pop into existence from nothing. He never considered that nature could builld itself without any conscious guidance whatsoever. He did understand physics, quantum mechanics, or thermodynamics. He didn’t understand that energy is an infinite resource, which can be neither created or destroyed.

I think you’re being confused by words that are not univocal. I don’t think you can say that human conceptualization is the exact same kind that is God’s conceptualization. This is the point that got you into trouble saying that Aristotle was arguing in circles.

We now know that natural selection (or adaptive evolution) is a competely random creative process of what is best described as trial and error (mostly error). Yes, that’s right, things can create themselves, without any guiding consciousness or celestial force whatsoever; and as a matter of fact they do, and we can prove it.

Please listen carefully to what I’m about to say. Aristotle’s framework can take what you said into account very easily. Look at evolution more closely. Is it the case that things create themselves? Take a duck for instance. Does not the duck require natural selection and other such principles? Are these principles located within the duck? If your answer is no, then Aristotle’s framework still stands and nothing can be self-created. Think carefully about it–if you start with nothing there is nothing that can self-create itself. And quantum fluctuations would not be an instance of self-creation either for the same reason.
The reason that Aristotle’s basic framework here cannot be refuted is because it is based upon the very laws of logic. And anytime you try to explain something without those laws, no one can understand you (ie. it would be nonsense).

Indeed, as far as we know, this is the only way anything has ever been created in nature. Therefore, the premise that Aristotle relied on, is demonstrably false. I don’t blame Aristotle for thinking the way he did. It wasn’t really until David Hume that these ideas began to be seriously questioned (and afterall Hume lived during enlightenment, after guys like Isaac Newton, and therefore had the advantage of a far greater understanding of the physical world than Aristotle did).

How familiar are you with Medieval philosophy in general or particular? You know, it wasn’t all about angels dancing on the heads of pins. You owe it to yourself to look deeper.

We can at least say we have physical evidence to show Aristotle’s metaphysical theories with regard to the necessity of a god are almost certainly wrong. Very simply stated, a conscious creator is not required, and we’re able to demonstrate why.

You could only have physical evidence if such a physical entity was shown to defy the laws of logic (but good luck recognizing what was happening). No, it would seem that you would have to try to philosophically disprove his framework if you want to get anywhere.

Where do we go from here? I would hope you specifically (with a quote) reply to some of my answers.

peace,
Michael

 

[bridgeforsale]

Please listen carefully to what I’m about to say. Aristotle’s framework can take what you said into account very easily. Look at evolution more closely. Is it the case that things create themselves? Take a duck for instance. Does not the duck require natural selection and other such principles? Are these principles located within the duck? If your answer is no, then Aristotle’s framework still stands and nothing can be self-created. Think carefully about it–if you start with nothing there is nothing that can self-create itself. And quantum fluctuations would not be an instance of self-creation either for the same reason.
The reason that Aristotle’s basic framework here cannot be refuted is because it is based upon the very laws of logic. And anytime you try to explain something without those laws, no one can understand you (ie. it would be nonsense).

Aristotle proposes that the universe requires a super-being that can build something without first conceptualizing it; and doesn’t require any prior familiarity with the materials it will use to build it. This is necessary, in the view of Aristotle, because of his view of causation. In essence everything requires a builder, a builder must begin with a concept of what he wants to build, living things can only construct mental concepts from the information we have (whether learned from others, gained through our own observations of the physical world, etc); but since a first cause would have had nothing to base its conceptualization on, it must be able to conceive something without any predicate information from extrinsic sources, and it must be able to build whatever it conceives (therefore, it must be omnipotent).

To backtrack briefly, remember we’re examining the narrow question of omnipotence (not whether or not god exists), and this is where I believe Aristotle’s argument fails. Sure, you could say something like quantum fluctuations are based on the uncertainty principal, and call that a reason, but that would be wrong. What you’re saying is the laws of nature (as we know them) are prescriptive and not descriptive. Uncertainty is simply a label we’ve placed on a phenomenon observed in nature. That phenomenon existed before we observed it, and simply because we attach a word to something for identification purposes doesn’t imply causation (much less purpose).

This begs the question, why can’t energy be the “first cause”? Aristotle would say (although he wouldn’t have a problem thinking energy always existed, since he did believe the universe always existed) energy cannot build anything because it cannot conceptualize anything. It’s just a dumb property right? STOP right there! Conceptualization is NOT necessary to create, and we have physical proof. Energy doesn’t exist, quantum fluctuations don’t happen, because of the framework provided by physics; rather (maybe) physics exists because energy exists (and quantum fluctuations happen) – and we know that it’s at least possible spontaneous, random, and uncaused creation can occur.

As far as we know there is NO reason why energy exists, there’s certainly no necessary purpose for energy, and some of the available evidence suggests it always existed. Under these assumptions (and I don’t think these are assumptions Aristotle would necessarily dispute) Aristotle’s reasoning can only hold if conceptualization is necessary to create, and once again this assumption is demonstrably false.

I’d even go as far as to say if Aristotle were alive today, given the additional information we have, he would agree with me.

How familiar are you with Medieval philosophy in general or particular? You know, it wasn’t all about angels dancing on the heads of pins. You owe it to yourself to look deeper.

Look deeper at what exactly? The philosophy of men who wrote during an era where we believed the earth was flat? And here it is right here, the failure to acknowledge the relevance of new information. I’m not saying ancient philosophy is completely irrelevant (if you’re a PhD student in philosophy & really love college so much you want to stay there forever, you need to know this stuff). It’s even a good idea for us to have a cursory understanding of it, but I simply don’t think I “owe it to myself” to understand the finer points of medieval philosophy (most of it is rubbish).

You could only have physical evidence if such a physical entity was shown to defy the laws of logic (but good luck recognizing what was happening). No, it would seem that you would have to try to philosophically disprove his framework if you want to get anywhere.

When you use the term logic, you’re not referring to an objective thing. IMO the definition of logic you rely on reduces to semantics with no substantive value. I have a genuine interest in understanding things for what they are, whereas folks like you are biased partisans (solely interested in defending your belief system). I suppose you think I’m a partisan, but of course what would my incentive possibly be? Why would I not want to think I’ll be wisked away to a magical paradise when I die if it were reasonably likely to be true?

So right off the bat your predispositions are suspect (and even if you’re not aware of them, they could still exist subconsciously). Nonetheless, I think it’s pretty obvious this discussion won’t lead anywhere productive!

 

[Shike]

To backtrack briefly, remember we’re examining the narrow question of omnipotence (not whether or not god exists), and this is where I believe Aristotle’s argument fails. Sure, you could say something like quantum fluctuations are based on the uncertainty principal, and call that a reason, but that would be wrong. What you’re saying is the laws of nature (as we know them) are prescriptive and not descriptive. Uncertainty is simply a label we’ve placed on a phenomenon observed in nature.

I am not saying the laws of nature are prescriptive. Either way, if one attaches purpose or randomness to an observation, that doesn’t defeat the fact that there is some explanation behind the observation.

That phenomenon existed before we observed it, and simply because we attach a word to something for identification purposes doesn’t imply causation (much less purpose).

Correct, but it does imply an explanation. (However, notice also that what you say doesn’t imply “un-purpose” either)

This begs the question, why can’t energy be the “first cause”? Aristotle would say (although he wouldn’t have a problem thinking energy always existed, since he did believe the universe always existed) energy cannot build anything because it cannot conceptualize anything. It’s just a dumb property right? STOP right there! Conceptualization is NOT necessary to create, and we have physical proof. Energy doesn’t exist, quantum fluctuations don’t happen, because of the framework provided by physics; rather (maybe) physics exists because energy exists (and quantum fluctuations happen) – and we know that it’s at least possible spontaneous, random, and uncaused creation can occur.

Why would Aristotle necessarily say that? He might very well say that energy is an uncaused cause, the thing that’s omnipotent (he would be wrong, however). I agree that spontaneous, random, and uncaused creation can occur, but that does not remove the need for an explanation behind such occurrences.

As far as we know there is NO reason why energy exists

If there is absolutely no reason (explanation) why energy exists then it would not exist. Whether energy’s existence is necessary or not, it requires an explanation.

[with regards to energy] Aristotle’s reasoning can only hold if conceptualization is necessary to create, and once again this assumption is demonstrably false.

But which conceptualization are you talking about? The conceptualization that comes from the Uncaused Cause, or from creation? Those two words are not univocal.

Look deeper at what exactly? The philosophy of men who wrote during an era where we believed the earth was flat? [emphasis mine]

Who told you that? It is blatantly false. I can prove it too (consequently, if you read some Medieval philosophy you’d realize your error).

And here it is right here, the failure to acknowledge the relevance of new information. I’m not saying ancient philosophy is completely irrelevant (if you’re a PhD student in philosophy & really love college so much you want to stay there forever, you need to know this stuff).

Which basically means you think Medieval philosophy is irrelevant.

I don’t mind acknowledging the relevance of new information, but I’m not going to arbitrarily or misguidedly (whatever the case may be) throw away what’s true in their thought. It seems to me, however, that you are failing to acknowledge the relevance of old thinkers. More to boot, you have picked up some of that nasty Enlightenment propaganda (there is a shift in academia that is now starting to realize the profound importance of the Medieval Ages; the modern era did not arise out of a vacuum).

I have a genuine interest in understanding things for what they are, whereas folks like you are biased partisans (solely interested in defending your belief system). I suppose you think I’m a partisan, but of course what would my incentive possibly be? Why would I not want to think I’ll be wisked away to a magical paradise when I die if it were reasonably likely to be true?

Thanks for the kind words. I, like you supposedly, have also taken the truth oath to follow wherever it leads. I just find it annoying when people misunderstand the bounds of what science proves or disproves with regards to philosophy, especially metaphysics (which finds it’s foundation in experience nonetheless). And yes I’m saying your argument that modern scientific results disproves Aristotle’s framework is wrong, if you could not gather from what I said above.

So right off the bat your predispositions are suspect (and even if you’re not aware of them, they could still exist subconsciously).

Realize if you’re going to pull that card then yes, you too have biases, and perhaps they are even subconscious too! But come on, stop sidetracking and deal with the words in front of you.

So where do we go from here? It is obvious you have some fact checking and Enlightenment propaganda detox to go through.

peace,
Michael

 

[tdgesq]

First of all, why not man up and speak to me directly.

That is quite the sexist remark. It looks like I was a man from post 47 to 102. Then apparently I lost my manliness by addressing Shike. I trust I am a man again now.

But secondly, I recognize the limitations of inductive reasoning, but I also note the fact that it’s the reasoning we guide our daily lives on. It’s why we don’t do things like put our hands on burning stoves.

You do not recognize the limitations of induction. That is the problem. Person P observes that person X does not engage in activity A; therefore (according to you) this constitutes inductive evidence that X lacks the power to engage in A. The most that the scientist and statistician can infer from the mere observation that X does not engage in A is just that - that X doesn’t engage in A. You appeal to a special exception in the case of God creating ex nihilo, but can’t articulate a basis for that exception. Ultimately it comes down to the fallacy of false alternatives. There is more than one inference that can be drawn from failing to observe God create ex nihilo, like he doesn’t choose to even though he has the ability.

A simple thought experiment. Let’s conceive a world where every creative act is performed by God ex nihilo. I don’t bake bread. I simply ask God to create bread and He causes it to pop into existence. There is no use of existing matter - flour, water yeast, etc. Now this would certainly prove that God can create ex nihilo, but using your reasoning you could turn around and argue that God isn’t omnipotent because he doesn’t have the power to allow bread to be created from existing materials.

Well, maybe that problem could be solved if God created some things ex nihilo and allowed other things to be created from existing matter. But that wouldn’t be a satisfactory answer either. One could just claim that God isn’t omnipotent because he doesn’t have the power to create everything ex nihilo.

There is no set of circumstances under which you would accept God’s omnipotence. That accompanied with the fact that your inductive method is informally invalid makes it impossible to have a rational discussion about the matter.

That’s barely penetrating skin deep. In trying to reach at some of the assumptions that have guided western religiosity for centuries, I think it’s safe to assume your ranting won’t provide much assistance.

The fallacy of poisoning the well. We are not merely relying upon the history of western civilization, we are relying on literally every empirical experience that we’ve ever had that shows us an effect has a cause; that things that come to exist have a cause. Notwithstanding your erroneous assessment of what quantum mechanics reveals to us about causality. And I don’t consider my previous post a rant, but I do consider this a rant:

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).

We’ve observed quantum fluctuations, which is essentially energy that pops in and out of existence with no predicate causation.

As for deSitter space and the notion that quantum fluctuations “come into existence spontaneously” from the vacuum, this does not begin to suggest that they came into existence without a cause. There are certain necessary conditions that must be in place before there can be any such existence; spacetime and the vacuum, for instance. Indeterminacy is not the same thing as the absence of cause.

In other words, we know, we don’t just think; that the allegedly “necessary” laws of the universe as Aristotle would have it, are not necessary at all, and in fact they’re not even likely.

Astonishing. We take the relatively young science of quantum mechanics that by its very nature is limited to the observation of effects (we cannot see quantum particles) and is further limited by testing conditions (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle) and then conclude that because we are as yet unable to determine the entire sufficient cause of virtual particles, they come into existence without a cause. What we know is that space-time and a vacuum are necessary conditions (causes) for quantum fluctuations. What we also know is that every other observable phenomenon in the universe has a cause. What we also know is that science is in the very business of investigating causes, without which there would be no science. And if we truly believe in the power of science, we also believe that it will one day adequately explain the sufficient cause of certain quantum fluctuations as well.

Even if you were correct that virtual particles and the like simply pop into existence without a cause, where did spacetime and the vacuum come from? This is why we are theists. We don’t believe in fairy tales where things pop into existence without a cause.

 

[bridgeforsale]

That is quite the sexist remark. It looks like I was a man from post 47 to 102. Then apparently I lost my manliness by addressing Shike. I trust I am a man again now.

Yes, you’ve redeemed you’re manliness

You do not recognize the limitations of induction. That is the problem. Person P observes that person X does not engage in activity A; therefore (according to you) this constitutes inductive evidence that X lacks the power to engage in A. The most that the scientist and statistician can infer from the mere observation that X does not engage in A is just that - that X doesn’t engage in A. You appeal to a special exception in the case of God creating ex nihilo, but can’t articulate a basis for that exception. Ultimately it comes down to the fallacy of false alternatives. There is more than one inference that can be drawn from failing to observe God create ex nihilo, like he doesn’t choose to even though he has the ability.

What “you” are failing to realize is Aristotles reasoning was built on induction. Why do you think he believed nothing could be built without it first being conceptualized? HINT: what do WE do before we set out to build something?

A simple thought experiment. Let’s conceive a world where every creative act is performed by God ex nihilo. I don’t bake bread. I simply ask God to create bread and He causes it to pop into existence. There is no use of existing matter - flour, water yeast, etc. Now this would certainly prove that God can create ex nihilo, but using your reasoning you could turn around and argue that God isn’t omnipotent because he doesn’t have the power to allow bread to be created from existing materials.

I’m advocating two ideas:

1. Omnipotence is NOT logically necessary; and
2. Given the information we currently have – omnipotence doesn’t appear to be likely.

I’m not saying omnipotence is impossible (because I actually do realize, as a general rule, it’s fallacious to assert an absolute … which, btw is a rare quality among religious apologists). All I can do is show that it’s not a logically necessary assumption, point to the many inherent problems with the idea, tie together what we do know (about how god has done things), and try to discern what is the more reasonable assumption.

As for deSitter space and the notion that quantum fluctuations “come into existence spontaneously” from the vacuum, this does not begin to suggest that they came into existence without a cause. There are certain necessary conditions that must be in place before there can be any such existence; spacetime and the vacuum, for instance. Indeterminacy is not the same thing as the absence of cause.

You’re not understanding how narrow the scope of my proposition is (perhaps I haven’t explained it well). All science has to do is show it’s possible for things to be created without a requirement of predicate conceptualization, and predicate conceptualization is no longer a logical necessity. The burden isn’t very great here. When you assert something is absolutely necessity in every single case, proving it doesn’t have to be true in just one case debunks the entire idea … pure and simple.

Astonishing. We take the relatively young science of quantum mechanics that by its very nature is limited to the observation of effects (we cannot see quantum particles) and is further limited by testing conditions (Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle) and then conclude that because we are as yet unable to determine the entire sufficient cause of virtual particles, they come into existence without a cause. What we know is that space-time and a vacuum are necessary conditions (causes) for quantum fluctuations. What we also know is that every other observable phenomenon in the universe has a cause. What we also know is that science is in the very business of investigating causes, without which there would be no science. And if we truly believe in the power of science, we also believe that it will one day adequately explain the sufficient cause of certain quantum fluctuations as well.

It’s not just quantum mechanics, it’s also evolutionary science. Moreover, it doesn’t even matter that certain conditions had to exist to facilitate something like evolution. If it can be shown that conceptualization isn’t required in any single case (not only with regard to the first cause, but any step in the chain of causation thereafter) then Aristotle was wrong, and it’s as simple as that. We simply lack the ability to extrapolate back to the “first cause” … but we don’t have to. We know it’s possible that biological life, for instance, could have evolved by accident. We’ve built evolutionary algorithms that show intelligent life could have evolved through a random process of natural selection, which did not necessitate predicate conceptualization.

Aristotle’s argument is built on logical necessity. If it’s not necessarily true in every single case, then it’s no longer a logical necessity

Even if you were correct that virtual particles and the like simply pop into existence without a cause, where did spacetime and the vacuum come from? This is why we are theists. We don’t believe in fairy tales where things pop into existence without a cause.

They could have always existed (and the energy that our universe is composed of could have always existed). We simply don’t know at this point (and some of the early assumptions made soon after the big bang theory was developed, like it doesn’t make sense to imagine anything before the big bang, are no longer well accepted among modern theoretical physicists); but for the purposes of this discussion, we don’t need to know.

 

[Shike]

tdgesq, your last post was great. You articulated certain things a lot better than I was doing. Thanks.

If it can be shown that conceptualization isn’t required in any single case (not only with regard to the first cause, but any step in the chain of causation thereafter) then Aristotle was wrong, and it’s as simple as that.

One problem, that I keep bringing up, is that you are using two different meanings for the word conceptualization. The conceptualization of God isn’t univocal with human conceptualization. To illustrate, you said:

From a previous post of bridgeforsale:
To encapsulate his [Aristotle’s] approach, nothing can exist before it’s conceptualized, and nothing can be conceptualized without some basis for the concept. For instance if trees didn’t exist, and therefore wood couldn’t exist, we could not conceptualize building things using wood.

While I think I agree with your example I do not agree with your summary. I don’t think you could get Aristotle to admit that nothing exists before a human conceptualizes it. In fact, that is absurd and runs counter to how Aristotle viewed human conceptualization anyways.

The only possible option left to your summary is that God’s conceptualization is necessary. Tell me, what does God’s conceptualization look like, is it the same as human conceptualization? Admittedly by you, it is not. This shows that this summary of yours is not circular and that you are talking about two different things.

Moreover, your point is that if we can find something in nature that doesn’t need to prior-conceptualize then build but only build, then you have disproved the necessity of God’s omnipotence (at least in regard to Aristotle’s supposed argument). Since something doesn’t need prior conceptualization for causation and God doesn’t need prior conceptualization for causation (as do humans), then we can’t say for sure if God is omnipotent based solely on the principle of no prior conceptualization. This is because omnipotence can only be given to one, by definition, and who or what are we going to give it to if there are multiple candidates based on Aristotle’s supposed argument?

Now based on your argument, assuming it’s correct, you only need to have science show something happen without prior conceptualization. You thus bring in quantum fluctuations and other post-enlightenment science. Really, all you need to do is show that an ocean wave doesn’t conceptualize but yet it breaks a rock in two. Or you could show a brain-dead human twitching (not privy to the fact that someone just conceptualized and then ran him over). Randomness or non-randomness is not important to your argument. In fact, one could make the case that a person with a brain defect will randomly conceptualize different things and then act on them. Since Aristotle was privy to rocks and waves, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that he didn’t make the argument you’re attributing to him or at least not the assertion of God’s omnipotence based solely on conceptualization. It seems to me that, if indeed Aristotle said what you attribute to him (I would be very thankful for a reference to his work so I can look it up), that he already had the idea of a first mover or uncaused cause before he talked about conceptualization. In support of this, it’s not conclusive for science to claim that no conceptualization is involved until they have investigated the whole chain of causes (in the sense of explanation) just as in the example of the brain-dead person twitching, not knowing conceptualization (deliberate or not) was behind it. That is why I think Aristotle only talked about conceptualization after knowing there is a single source for all the causes.

With all of this out of the way, Aristotle’s framework can be properly used to prove an omnipotent God. One way is to use Aquinas’ 2nd way and reach the conclusion of an Uncaused Cause. An Uncaused Cause must be fully actual with no potentiality within it. You therefore have a Cause that is responsible for everything in existence and all that could possibly come into existence.

That sounds a lot like omnipotence to me.

We’ve built evolutionary algorithms that show intelligent life could have evolved through a random process of natural selection, which did not necessitate predicate conceptualization.

And it also didn’t necessitate the scientists to formulate rules and write the program either (sarcasm).

Aristotle’s argument is built on logical necessity.

From what I see now, I don’t think you are properly representing Aristotle’s argument. Please give me a reference to where Aristotle says what you attribute to him. But good job on formulating an intelligible argument (though your presentation could have been more straightforward). But please note that this is all besides the point because you have not refuted Aristotle’s framework, a framework that can be used to prove an omnipotent God.

I hope you follow what I am saying and will finally put to rest your argument and look for a better one.

peace,
Michael

 

[tdgesq]

Yes, you’ve redeemed you’re manliness :thumbsup
:

Whew! I was fairly worried for a moment.

What “you” are failing to realize is Aristotles reasoning was built on induction. Why do you think he believed nothing could be built without it first being conceptualized? HINT: what do WE do before we set out to build something?

Aquinas like Aristotle affirmed that all knowledge ultimately comes to us through the senses. Inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning are two different ways or methods by which we come to know things. Deduction has always been the more certain of the two methods, assuming that the premises involved are true. So I don’t agree with you that Aristotle’s reasoning is built upon induction. That being said, of course induction is vitally important for us to know things about the world. I never said otherwise. All I set out to demonstrate is that your inferences from inductive evidence are simply not valid. They violate the informal deductive principles (fallacy of false alternatives).

1. Omnipotence is NOT logically necessary; and

Not necessary for what? I’m guessing for creation of the universe. Maybe you are right, depending upon how you define “omnipotence.” But the fact is something had to create the conditions for the universe. Everything that exists has a cause. I suspect it is this latter proposition that you disagree with .

1. Given the information we currently have – omnipotence doesn’t appear to be likely.

Easy to conclude, but as we have seen, difficult for you to defend. It doesn’t matter from your perspective whether things are created ex nihilo or not. You would find limitations with God even if all creative acts were ex nihilo, because then quite obviously (from your standpoint) God would lack the ability to allow creative acts from existing matter and material. Again, I suspect that what you really object to is the proposition that everything that exists has a cause.

I’m not saying omnipotence is impossible (because I actually do realize, as a general rule, it’s fallacious to assert an absolute … which, btw is a rare quality among religious apologists).

It is not as a general rule fallacious to assert an absolute. Your very statement that “as a general rule, it’s fallacious to assert an absolute” is itself an affirmation of an absolute. Furthermore, although omnipotence (depending upon how it is defined) may not be a necessary assumption, the proposition that “everything that exists has a cause” is a necessary assumption from all empirical evidence at our disposal. You say “no,” but you are mistaken.

All science has to do is show it’s possible for things to be created without a requirement of predicate conceptualization, and predicate conceptualization is no longer a logical necessity.

Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument does not require any kind of prior conceptualization - entailing a person who is conceptualizing it all. That is an argument by design, which isn’t the argument at issue here even though Aquinas did profer an argument by design. The proposition is this: everything that exists has a cause.

The burden isn’t very great here. When you assert something is absolutely necessity in every single case, proving it doesn’t have to be true in just one case debunks the entire idea …

Yet there isn’t any such case. Just like there isn’t any case where the law of non-contradiction does not hold, or the law of identity, or the law of excluded middle. You can’t cite to one single example throughout all of observed history where these laws were violated. Please, let us stop pretending that we don’t all hold to absolutes, theist and non-theist alike.

It’s not just quantum mechanics, it’s also evolutionary science. Moreover, it doesn’t even matter that certain conditions had to exist to facilitate something like evolution.

Evolutionary science provides no evidence that causation is not required for existence or change. In fact, it proves the exact opposite. I am quite comfortable with the conclusions of most evolutionary theories.

If it can be shown that conceptualization isn’t required in any single case (not only with regard to the first cause, but any step in the chain of causation thereafter) then Aristotle was wrong, and it’s as simple as that. We simply lack the ability to extrapolate back to the “first cause” … but we don’t have to. We know it’s possible that biological life, for instance, could have evolved by accident. We’ve built evolutionary algorithms that show intelligent life could have evolved through a random process of natural selection, which did not necessitate predicate conceptualization.

You have conflated concepts. While Aquinas and Aristotle may have made teleological arguments for the existence of God, that is not the issue. The issue is whether something can come into existence without a cause. Both Aquinas and Aristotle said that a cause is required. Please give your one example.

They could have always existed (and the energy that our universe is composed of could have always existed). We simply don’t know at this point . . . .

Yes, we do know. According to mathematical set theory, an actual existing infinite is impossible. It is also highly improbable (and when I use that phrase, I mean practically impossible) from scientific observation that something has always existed without a preceding cause. I’m on the side of deductive and inductive reasoning. You are on the side of fairy tales.

 

[tdgesq]

tdgesq, your last post was great. You articulated certain things a lot better than I was doing.

Thanks bro! I meant what I said about your presentation. Very nice.

 

[Shike]

Yes, we do know. According to mathematical set theory, an actual existing infinite is impossible.

Do you mean to say an actual material infinite? I don’t understand, I thought God is infinite.

 

[tdgesq]

Do you mean to say an actual material infinite? I don’t understand, I thought God is infinite.

God is not material. As an immaterial being he is infinite, and Aquinas expressly states that He is. An actual material infinite is a mathematical impossibility. William Lane Craig, among others, sets forth in his Kalam variation of the Cosmological Argument why this the case.

I will give you a link shortly. The CAF search engine is acting up

 

[tdgesq]

Shike,

Here it is:

philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-kalam-cosmological-argument/maths-and-the-finitude-of-the-past/

 

[Shike]

God is not material. As an immaterial being he is infinite, and Aquinas expressly states that He is. An actual material infinite is a mathematical impossibility. William Lane Craig, among others, sets forth in his Kalam variation of the Cosmological Argument why this the case.

I will give you a link shortly. The CAF search engine is acting up

Thanks for the link. I think I just took issue with you saying “actual existing infinite”. It seemed like you were equating “existing” with “material”. God exists; see my problem?

peace,
Michael