D
doomhammer
Guest
- Status
D
doomhammer
Guest
Before arguing with our atheist friend (and in order to save time) you must know that long time ago he rejected God, Holy Scriptures, Sacred Tradition, Magisterium, the teachings of the greatest philosophers, the testimony of saints and martyrs, historical facts, common sense, reason, etc, etc, as “nonsense”.
A
adamlsp
Guest
Another thing it seems I may have not made clear is that we are not looking for the “greatest” being but the greatest possible being and this would require the all-knowing, all-powerful. etc.
I am trying to see how you are seeing this. I would disagree with what you say: “Evil is not the absense of good, just like good is not the absense of evil.” It can be seen that If good is the full glass of water it lacks empitness. Likewise if evil is emptiness it lacks the fullness that is good. Good and evil are mutually exclusive, one not allowing for the other. Just like a perfect vacuum implies the absence of matter, so too might a volume of space filled with matter be absent of a vacuum. I realize this is not a perfect analogy but I do hope you understand the point I’m trying to hit. This empty-full quality can easily be applied to the other characteristics mentioned to show that stupidiy is the absense of intellience and vice versa, etc.
And you have also said there are too many facets of intelligence and no one could master them all, but the greatest possible being would be able to. Again the greatest possible not the greatest actual. In my philosophy the greatest actual is the greatest possible, I only make the distiction because you do not hold this to be so.
Also the greatest possible being would be required to have all of these characteristics. Being is a wholeness in itself just as non-existance is an absense. So a being that is the greatest possible would be required to have all of the greatest possible aspects of being to their fullness. In any other case this being would not be the greatest possible just merely great.
Omnipresense is still difficult for you to understand. I’m sorry I’ve been unable to help with it so far. Maybe if you considered the universe to be omnipresent you could see that omnipresense does exist at least. I do not know many others who have had trouble understanding this idea so I feel unprepared in assisting you. If you still do not recognize omnipresense (of the universe at the very least) please explain to me the difficulty you feel is disabling it from becoming a conceivable notion in your mind.
Thanks,
Adam
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Hitetlen,
Please accept my apologies for being uncharitable. At times in my zeal for the love of truth I forget the truth about love.
Please accept my apologies for being uncharitable. At times in my zeal for the love of truth I forget the truth about love.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
itsjustdave1988 said:
My friend, you are most welcome. I can understand that the strength of our emotions take over even against our best intents. Let’s keep the fun going and even if we stay on the opposite side of the fence, that does not mean that we must be enemies. Respectful disagreement is quite a desirable outcome in such discussions.
It is quite possible that something I say does not properly mirror my thoughts and can be misunderstood. If so, I apologize. Don’t forget that English is not my mother tongue, and even though try to educate myself, sometimes I “fall short of the mark” - does that mean that I “sin”?
So let me extend a warm handshake to you, and let’s forget about the whole thing. Deal?
H
Hitetlen
Guest
I agree with you to a certain extent. I don’t think that the hypothetically “best” can always be realized. For example: the “perfect” medication would be the one, which can cure all the existing and possible diseases without any side effects. We can hypothesize the existence of such a medication, but it is not necessary that such a medication could be actualized. It would be nice if it were possible, of course.
I admit I never thought about this too deeply, and your analogy is interesting. I have to take exception to it, however. The word “omnipresent” implies the actual presence across time, not just in the “present”. And since the future does not actually exist as a reality, only as one possibility of the infinitely many outcomes, it makes no sense to assert that anything today actually exists in the future.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
john doran:
john doran:
But then again, the hypothetical existence of such a being in no way implies the actual existence of it. We can imagine, even make a drawing of objects and spaces which cannot be actualized, examples are those of M. C. Escher. I remember that I read once that God’s omnipotence does not mean that he can do everything, rather that he can do everyhing that can be drawn on a piece of paper.
I accept, but that does not mean that it encompasses “everything”.
john doran:
Well, does he not have to know that the false ones are actually false? And how about the propositions, which cannot have “true” or “false” value associated with them? As in the sentence: “This statement is false”. And these kinds of statements exist in every formal (axiomatic) system.
But then again, the hypothetical existence of such a being in no way implies the actual existence of it. We can imagine, even make a drawing of objects and spaces which cannot be actualized, examples are those of M. C. Escher. I remember that I read once that God’s omnipotence does not mean that he can do everything, rather that he can do everyhing that can be drawn on a piece of paper.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
To me this means: an unknown and unknowable being using incomprehensible ways and means made it somehow happen. This is not an explanation, it is the assertion that we can never understand it.
Many people died horrible deaths because they strongly believed in an ideal. Does that imply the correctness of their beliefs?
Yes, sometimes placebos do work, but no amount of placebos allow an amputee regrow his lost leg.
Maybe you don’t know enough about atheists. We do not live in despair, moreover we are frequently accused of “being our own God” and of excessive and “sinful pride”. Does this sound like “despair” to you?
I agree with this. Life has no intrinsic value, has no external purpose, if we strive to fill it with value, it will have value. As someone said: “the death of the atheists have no purpose”.
Evidence is subjective. What you accept as evidence is not sufficient to me. In our neighborhood I saw a sign in a garden: “If you sow and expect to reap the rewards, you believe in God”. For this person a very low level of “evidence” was enough. Not for me.
A
adamlsp
Guest
This though is a perfection of a type of thing and not of being itself. A perfect medication may do what you have said and more depending on what one defines as an illness. Is being deaf an illness? Many deaf would claim they are perfectly normal and that they are differently-abled not disabled. Likewise many people consider not being attractive, young, smart, etc. as being a form of illness. It seems the medication analogy may be relative to each person. But being is beyond individual taste and just is. Also because a medication is a type of being it is specifically defined. What is the definition of a medication? That witch cures from a particular disease. The perfect medication does not necessarily have to cure every disease for if there were multiple medications that could cure with out side effect they too would be perfect in their own right. Just as in Gaunilo’s disproof using an island, the perfect island need not have everything ever wanted for not everyone wants everything ever wanted nor would they ask for it. The perfect island also does not have to be all land surrounded by all water but merely a portion of land surrounded by a portion of water. The degrees of this are variable. And by the defintion of an island every islnad could be perfect in its own right. This is also to taste and not objective. Another thing is that the perfect being is not merely to taste. All perfections also cannot be listed as they are numerous. These perfections should be understood to be “fullnesses” as in the water glass analogy, with each having its own empty form. Being is quite different from a type of being. Sorry for being so long winded.
If the universe is inacceptable to you then consider time as being omnipresent. As it is present everywhere in some form or another.
Replies?
Adam
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
“If you understood him, it wouldn’t be God.” - St. Augustine
A
adamlsp
Guest
Oh, I’m sorry the middle paragraph in the quote above is my own. This was an error on my part.
Apologies,
Adam
Apologies,
Adam
H
Hitetlen
Guest
No trouble at all. I enjoy reading your posts, though I am no really sure what you mean by this paragraph. If you say that perfection is relative to someone’s needs or desires then I agree with you. There is no such thing as abstract “perfection”. A “perfect” weather for a cactus is very different from a perfect weather for an impatient. The perfect diet for a lion is different from a perfect diet for giraffe.
Yes, that is also a nice analogy, but time is not a being, it is a “feature” of the universe. The same would apply to “space”. These are all properties of the space-time-matter-energy composition of the universe.
I see a problem with this “omnimax” approach in general. Apart from the fact that those attributes have a lot to be desired as they are stated, the “maximization” of several properties at the same time only have a unique solution if the properties form a linear function. In linear programming (that is not computer programming, it is a brach of mathematics called operations research) there is one well defined optimum solution. However, when the objective function is non-linear, there is no “best” outcome. Sorry for the technicality, but the world is not a “linear” place, so even the definition of what is a “maximum” is ambiguous, much less finding a “maximum” solution.
H
Hitetlen
Guest
JSmitty2005 said:
Yes, this is a nice aphorism.
A
adamlsp
Guest
I don’t know if I can reason any further to get across the logicality of the defintion of this maximal being. Try reading into it if you want to know more. I only know that when philosophers have objections to this argument it doesn’t come from the definition of the maximal being. Only to its possibility and that only comes from what they consider possibility to mean. But you don’t seem to have trouble with the “he might exist” premise. Are you a hard atheist or more agnostic? I don’t think you answered me before.
But all of your examples against my argument do not apply to being but rather to a being. This can never logically disprove my argument since being is not limited to a type of being. Being is not a subjective quality it is true or false and is not ever partially true or false. If you were to go through the paragraph of my last post of which you were not sure what I was getting at, I was only trying to get this point across: that properties that are limited to a type of being do not describe being itself. The being does not have to exist in our argument as of yet just to be possible and these maxims of knowledge, power, goodness, and presence are possible and not self contradictory. If you find that they are please tell me specifically why. I know you may have already done so and I may have missed it but bare with me please.
Religion requires imagination because few people have concrete experiences with the supernatural. Imagine there is some force that fills the entirety of the universe and will never vanish. It is imaginable not provable. But because it is imaginable it is possible, probable or not.
The definition in premise 1 is not logically contradictory I assure you. I know my word means so much to you but if my arguments are not clicking in your mind that may be all I have.
Adam
But all of your examples against my argument do not apply to being but rather to a being. This can never logically disprove my argument since being is not limited to a type of being. Being is not a subjective quality it is true or false and is not ever partially true or false. If you were to go through the paragraph of my last post of which you were not sure what I was getting at, I was only trying to get this point across: that properties that are limited to a type of being do not describe being itself. The being does not have to exist in our argument as of yet just to be possible and these maxims of knowledge, power, goodness, and presence are possible and not self contradictory. If you find that they are please tell me specifically why. I know you may have already done so and I may have missed it but bare with me please.
Religion requires imagination because few people have concrete experiences with the supernatural. Imagine there is some force that fills the entirety of the universe and will never vanish. It is imaginable not provable. But because it is imaginable it is possible, probable or not.
The definition in premise 1 is not logically contradictory I assure you. I know my word means so much to you but if my arguments are not clicking in your mind that may be all I have.
Adam
A
adamlsp
Guest
Perfection is relative in some cases but not in the case of being. There are many kinds of beings and each being may be the greatest whatever it may be. The greatest giraffe, greatest pencil, greatest computer, etc. Some of these are of course relative but others may be said to be the greatest if they best represent what we are trying to describe. The greatest lion for instance may be the lion that best represents in essense what a lion is. Similarly, the greatest being would would be the being that best represents what it is to be. This is probably a larger issue than what we want to get into here. But the being that is the most full of being can be said to be the best. Just as the greatest mystery can be said to be that which is the most full of mystery. We amp this one up when we turn from saying the greatest being to the greatest possible being, but this does not change any previous information for this argument and only adds to it.
I have not studied linear programming nor do I plan to as of this moment. The omni-properties are linear and converge upon the greatest possible being. Just as several properties converge on many other beings including ourselves, these properties converge on this being as these properties all pertain to being. Omnibenevolence in particlar includes a vast array of properties pertaining to goodness. Using Aristotle’s definition, I say something is good when it does what it is supposed to do, its purpose, its meaning. A good pencil is on that writes well, has a nice grip, etc. What is the meaning of being? Whatever it may be it is contained within this aspect of omnibenevolence and give the being with this property the great possible existence, since it after all does what it is supposed to do the best possible way.
Another quick question. Do you believe in purpose, meaning, and direction in this world? I know this is a broad question but please answer it and not with a “I cannot answer that.”
Adam
A
adamlsp
Guest
I see you are a logician much more than you are an ethicist. What subject did you teach? This is just for my own curiosity.
Adam
Adam
D
doomhammer
Guest
What an excellent chance to quickly understand the putrefied state and final fall of the Western Civilization!
This putrid atmosphere is what we breathe every day….
H
Hitetlen
Guest
Let me answer this part first and then make a proposal.
For us, humans: “purpose, meaning and direction” most definitely exist, at least in the conceptual sense. Of course some people “mess up” their life, waste it on drugs (for example), but we may say that their purpose was “getting high”.
For animals and plants (living beings) these concepts are not so well defined. Animals and plants have their own purpose: to stay alive and propagate their species.
If you ask if there is a “meaning to life”, and by that you mean an external “goal”, then my answer is no: life’s meaning is whatever we make of it. “Direction” can be understood in several fashions: I suspect you mean “how we change and get ahead as life progresses”. But maybe I am mistaken. So I would like to ask for clarification.
For inanimate objects these concepts do not apply. One cannot say that the avalanche has a purpose (it simply grows), when a pebble is polished nice and round by the tide or a glacier, it does not care, etc. Inanimate objects simply exist.
Is this answer sufficient?
Now a proposal. The more I think about your Plantinga post, the more I am convinced that we have not even scratched the surface of the problem, and that it is worthy of a thread of its own. So, if you are so inclined, please start it and I will focus my attention on it. This thread is pretty much winding down anyhow.
What I ask is to repeat the proposition, and also please give the definition of the “omnimax” attributes, so I can know what exactly you mean by them.
Mathematics, calculus, theory of probability, linear and non-linear programming and game theory, etc. Researched cellular automata (that is part of computer science). That ended 25 years ago. I majored in mathematics and economics. Since we came over to the US, I switched profession and became a computer programmer. (The list of computer languages I learned is pretty long, no need to enumerate them here.)
H
Hitetlen
Guest
Well, you can always pray to “Scotty” to beam you up from here.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Says you. I think you are oversimplying. And I never said that I had all the answers. I have just found some answers to some questions. The rest is mystery. The difference between you and me is that I believe mystery for us is darkness surrounded by light. Meaning that there are answers, we are just not capable of knowing all things. It would all be a guessing game if we did not have divine revelation. But luckily, God has come to man and revealed parts of Himself. I am not asking you to agree with me about this, I am just explaining where I am coming from here.
It could. At the very least it CAN provide strong evidence in their favor. Now, to die for a certain philosophy or religion is one thing. But to die for a supposed “myth” that they claim to have been eyewitnesses to is a little different.
Sorry. Maybe I’m dense, but I don’t get your point here. Please elaborate.
Why yes, it does! Because we I am all alone, and I realize that my perspective of life leads me on an endless chase of materialism and earthly things that can never satisfy me, I must ask myself the horrible question: What is the purpose of life? With no God there is only one answer to this question: There is no purpose. That is why it is easy to live as an atheist (albeit, inconsistently) but very hard to die as one.
I agree with this. Life has no intrinsic value, has no external purpose, if we strive to fill it with value, it will have value. As someone said: “the death of the atheists have no purpose”.
BTW, as I noted earlier, I was agnostic for a period of time. I have experienced the complete loss of hope for anything by taking the philosophy of “There is no God” to it’s consistent and natural end. Have you? Seriously! Think about the implications that it really leads to. I’m not saying this proves my side, but my point about despair is absolutely true for any consistent atheist. That’s why some of the “great” existential and secular philosophers are so depressed in their philosophy.
No, evidence is objective. You make the common mistake that other atheists due by equating perception with reality. Just because you don’t accept certain “evidence” does not make it any less objective. This is an attempt to relativize the discussion, at which point we can get nowhere. I think what this really shows is that you want to rationalize your beliefs. That’s cool and all, but why do you come here looking for a pat on the back for it? Do you need our approval? Evidence only works for people who are open to receiving it. Some people could have Jesus Christ standing right in front of them and they would not believe. That doesn’t mean the evidence isn’t there. It means that person wasn’t open to receiving it. Thus, our responsiblity is to constantly remain open to the evidence. Not to be cynics. Cynicism is easy and cowardly.
- Status