tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post272896262946079046..comments2023-06-23T10:26:21.277+02:00Comments on Memoirs of an ex-Christian: The difference between reason and faith?Kevinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16752824290056143050noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-2134954473452179582010-06-02T15:20:19.558+02:002010-06-02T15:20:19.558+02:00Rather, it is the result of me being confident tha...<i>Rather, it is the result of me being confident that I do not find current evidence put forward for the existence of God convincing.</i><br /><br />"The <a href="http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2678" rel="nofollow">Catholic</a> Church ", says the Vatican Council, III, iv, "has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their object; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is <a href="http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11728" rel="nofollow">truth</a> attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine <a href="http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=7" rel="nofollow">revelation</a> ."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07940745178193985942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-20199857929371884482009-12-05T22:05:23.433+02:002009-12-05T22:05:23.433+02:00Kevin,
Welcome back, and I completely understand ...Kevin,<br /><br />Welcome back, and I completely understand about your busy schedule. Hope all is going well.<br /><br />Thanks for your very interesting thoughts on the argument. It's great to see how so many people I've interacted with approach this from a different angle.<br /><br />To briefly respond to your point, I believe the infinite regression principle only applies to physical things, and not to reasoning faculties of a thing which transcends physical environment. Since the necessary thing in question transcends (and even precedes) a space-time environment, I don't think we can rightly restrict the nature such a thing's thought processes to the manner in which our reasoning and decision-making functions in a space-time universe. Perhaps this is why the Bible tells us in Isaiah 55 that God's ways and thoughts are not our ways and thoughts, and that they are, in fact "higher than" our ways and thoughts. <br /><br />philPhilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-36603965544194231642009-12-05T21:10:32.784+02:002009-12-05T21:10:32.784+02:00@ Kevin
I liked your "divine thoughts" ...@ Kevin<br /><br />I liked your "divine thoughts" spin on the argument. Very creative.Sabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-55598614901624718112009-12-05T21:09:46.683+02:002009-12-05T21:09:46.683+02:00@ Kevin
Sorry, I lost track of the faith issue. I...@ Kevin<br />Sorry, I lost track of the faith issue. I guess we'll just leave it. I doubt we disagree. It is probably just language and emphasis.Sabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-6452211633045868722009-12-05T17:34:21.584+02:002009-12-05T17:34:21.584+02:00Sabio wrote:
But Kevin is CERTAIN ENOUGH to not go...<b>Sabio wrote:</b><br /><i>But Kevin is CERTAIN ENOUGH to not go to church</i><br /><br />You are right: I do possess some confidence that results in me not doing certain things, like not praying. But this confidence is not the result of me secretly being certain that God does not exist. Rather, it is the result of me being confident that I do not find current evidence put forward for the existence of God convincing. <br /><br />In other words, my confidence is based on the view that it is perfectly rational and fine to <b>not</b> invest money, time, or belief in a claim that is not supported by convincing evidence, even though it might turn out to be true later on. We all apply this standard to some degree to the many claims we come across in everyday life, from fortune tellers to car salesmen. This isn’t faith, it’s just common sense.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16752824290056143050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-29995438255414485762009-12-05T16:22:15.472+02:002009-12-05T16:22:15.472+02:00Hi Phil and Sabio
Sorry to come it at this late s...Hi Phil and Sabio<br /><br />Sorry to come it at this late stage – the last two weeks have been the busiest of the year for me, so I haven’t had a chance before now to read your discussion.<br /><br />I will admit up front that I don’t think I have sufficient skills to provide adequate responses to the more sophisticated versions of the cosmological argument. I think this partly due to the fact that I haven’t had any formal philosophical training, and partly because I battle to grasp abstract concepts in general.<br /><br />Be that as it may, I do have a comment about Corduan's excellent argument. Thank you Phil for summarizing it so well. <br /><br />I was thinking: is a sentient ‘necessary being’ totally free from contingent characteristics? Take thought for example. If a necessary being created the universe, then one would think that this being had reasons to make that decision. If this being had reasons, then one would expect that this being possessed some kind of thought process, of one thought leading to another thought, that led up to it making the decision to create the universe. If the being is infinite and unchanged, then it would have possessed an infinite regress of thoughts leading up to its decision to create the universe. If an infinite regress is impossible, then the being’s thought process – its very mind – would itself be a result of another ‘meta-first cause’, or ‘meta-necessary being’. In other words, I see a problem in holding the premise that an infinite regress is impossible, but at the same time positing an infinite being that has <b>any kind</b> of attributes.<br /><br />The problem is this: to make any sense of a possible ‘necessary being’ we are forced to apply contingent attributes onto it (as I have done with the words ‘decision’ and ‘thought’ above), because we, as humans, are completely limited in the sense that we have never, ever, experienced anything that is remotely ‘necessary’, and thus cannot find any non-contingent meaningful way in which to understand it. This is where I see the biggest problem with all philosophical arguments for and against cosmological discussion: we are all at a major disadvantage, in that we are using expressions, words, definitions, logic, argument, experience and concepts that all exist and have meaning within the confines of this universe. Is it not a mistake, for theist and atheist alike, to take all these things – that work well within this universe – and then uncritically apply them to the universe as a whole? We have no idea if these have any meaning ‘outside of the universe’, if an ‘outside’ does indeed exist. I agree with Sabio that there is a lot of baggage that underline cosmological arguments, but this isn’t religious baggage. It is simply the unavoidable baggage of being contingent beings, self contained and cognitively trapped within the confines of this universe. <br /><br />This is what I was thinking while reading your fascinating discussion. Hope it spurs some more thought.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16752824290056143050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-58033014741077370752009-12-03T15:35:23.050+02:002009-12-03T15:35:23.050+02:00I'm sorry you feel that way, Sabio, though I&#...I'm sorry you feel that way, Sabio, though I'm uncertain which question you feel I've avoided. I'll re-read our comments and try to see if I've missed something. I'll enjoy discussing with you again sometime if you ever feel like it. Thanks for you time!<br /><br />philPhilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-38423522771162018292009-12-03T04:14:02.523+02:002009-12-03T04:14:02.523+02:00Conversation is over Phil. You avoid my questions...Conversation is over Phil. You avoid my questions when they get tough and prefer diversion instead. Good luck getting others to engage you.Sabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-66509586507689508862009-12-03T04:09:39.160+02:002009-12-03T04:09:39.160+02:00Sabio,
You stated, "as far as I understand, ...Sabio,<br /><br />You stated, "as far as I understand, every THING I am aware of on a large scale is other-caused." Yes, and the argument has demonstrated that an infinite chain of such contingent things is logically irrational. You also stated, "I understand quantum theory to offer other models." Could you elaborate on what other models you are referring to, and how they mitigate the position on infinite regression established in the argument? You are making assertions here without any rationale evidence (not even faulty evidence). In addition to vague references to quantum mechanics, you need to demonstrate how your position is stronger or more probable than that which you are arguing against. <br /><br />You also stated, "An un-caused or self-causing thing does not have to be infinite, omnipresent, unchangeable..." I feel I have already sufficiently argued otherwise on this thread, and you have not effectively demonstrated how my argumentation is faulty. Instead you have made the same assertion repeatedly with no new evidence. I understand why you are tired of repeating yourself. <br /><br />I know a lot of books get recommended in discussions like these, and it's impossible to read everything that is suggested, but you are truly doing yourself an intellectual (and I believe, spiritual) disservice by willfully refusing to better understand Corduan's argument in his book (which, by the way, takes the discussion far beyond our current argument and into the particulars of the Christian faith). If you want to settle for me instead if Corduan, I'm fine with that.<br /><br />philPhilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-30237342654539408302009-12-03T00:16:07.958+02:002009-12-03T00:16:07.958+02:00Phil,
Sorry, it still does not seem logical to me...Phil,<br /><br />Sorry, it still does not seem logical to me.<br /><br />I can understand 3 sorts of THINGS in the world in terms of causation:<br /><br />a) other-caused<br />b) self-caused<br />c) un-caused<br /><br />Of course, as far as I understand, every THING I am aware of on a large scale is other-caused. But I understand quantum theory to offer other models.<br /><br />I see no reason that all THINGS that came into existence could not be caused by b) or c) or even a). <br /><br />So, the "causedness" of something, is key in this discussion.<br /><br />To add a new term call "necessity" seems unnecessary? (pun intended)<br /><br />Because "necessity" is a term carrying connotations the pollute the discussion because of the obvious temptation of equivocation fallacy. With "necessity" comes notions of all sorts of things as you can see in this your mentor's argument.<br /><br />An un-caused or self-causing thing does not have to be infinite, omnipresent, unchangeable (it could change after causing other things), nor would it have to be unlimited. All these are snuck into the argument. So I think it falls apart unless you can show us why "uncaused" necessitates such qualities. [see, let's use necessity in the normal way].<br /><br />I will not read Corduan's book, so you must produce the argument. And I must say, I need you to read carefully what I have written and respond directly to it. I have written this earlier and am tiring of repeating myself.<br /><br />Thank youSabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-56725912643256095422009-12-02T23:26:39.935+02:002009-12-02T23:26:39.935+02:00Sabio,
You are not fully understanding the argume...Sabio,<br /><br />You are not fully understanding the argument. An uncaused thing of necessity must possess limitless traits. Establishing that something is uncaused indicates that it transcends environment, conditions, or outside influence; it speaks of its inherent nature, not just its origin (or lack thereof). While it is true that this thing is uncaused, reason insists this is too narrow a definition at which to leave it. This is what I was trying to explain several comments ago; and again, Corduan develops this thought even more completely in the book. Therefore, the term "necessary thing" is employed to describe the thing in question. Many people would simply rather call it God, and I see no reason why this would be unacceptable either.<br /><br />philPhilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-43811327890696841622009-12-02T19:41:28.891+02:002009-12-02T19:41:28.891+02:00Ah, it is easy then, in #6 it seems he makes uncau...Ah, it is easy then, in #6 it seems he makes uncaused things equal to necessary things. His argument is begging the question.<br /><br />Done. (I think)Sabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-66716979337683055192009-12-02T19:33:03.739+02:002009-12-02T19:33:03.739+02:001. Something exists. Hopefully, we can all agree w...1. Something exists. Hopefully, we can all agree with that. Whether it's your computer screen, your best friend, microscopic bacteria, or the galaxy, hardly anyone would deny that existence is a reality (there are some eastern faiths that deny the existence of matter, but probably no one reading is in that camp. Besides, even their ideas about non-existence, in essence, "exist").<br /><br />2. Each thing that exists is either necessary or contingent. Contingent means "dependent on something else" while necessary means "totally independent of anything else." Each thing in existence must be either one or the other; it cannot be both. A contingent being is caused, sustained, and determined by outside forces. If a necessary being exists, it does so independently of any outside influence including time and space.<br /><br />3. If a necessary being exists, it would have to be God. Such a being would neither require nor be compelled or limited by any other beings or forces. Therefore, a necessary being, by definition, would be independent, infinite, eternal (unrestricted by time), omnipresent (unrestricted by space), unchangeable, and in possession of all its properties in an equally unlimited way (obviously, slime creatures from the planet Zerg would fall short of these characteristics). Regardless of what you call it, a necessary being would have all the properties normally associated with what is often called "God."<br /><br />4. The world cannot be a necessary being. To believe this is a pantheistic view, which is logically impossible (I'm not sure any pantheists are reading, but if so, we could have a separate discussion on that). In any event, every examinable phenomena in our world (regardless of how old the earth is) has a cause; the world itself is a contingent being.<br /><br />5. There can only be one necessary being. If two things are distinct from each other, they must differ in some respect. If they don't, they must be one in the same thing (this is called the principle of the identity of indiscernibles). Therefore, if God does exist, there is only one God (i.e., polytheism is impossible).<br /><br />6. Unless there is a necessary being, there cannot be any contingent beings. If I have a cup of coffee and you wanted to know where I got it, it would not satisfy you if I said I poured it into my cup from another cup. In fact, the coffee may have been poured from cup-to-cup a hundred times, but you'd know that somewhere in history past, there is a coffee maker somewhere that produced the coffee. The coffee could not have been poured from cup-to-cup for eternity past because the law of infinite regress is impossible (this is a well-attested assertion in science and philosophy). In the same way, the chain of contingent beings in our universe can go back in history for a long time, but ultimately, a necessary being is required to have begun the chain. An endless chain of contingent events is metaphysically impossible; you cannot give what you do not have.<br /><br />7. A necessary being exists. Since the existence of contingent beings (our universe) necessarily requires a necessary being, it can be concluded that such a being must exist.<br /><br />8. God exists. Since a necessary being would have to possess the attributes of what we'd normally call "God," (see step 3) and a necessary being exists, then God exists.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-18570073776657150522009-12-02T19:32:20.316+02:002009-12-02T19:32:20.316+02:00Hi again Sabio,
You stated, "there is no suc...Hi again Sabio,<br /><br />You stated, "there is no such thing as a primary definition." I disagree. Primary means "first" (either first in sequence, first in importance, or both), so by that phrase I am referring to the first definition listed in a dictionary for a given word (as I'm sure you know, the ordering of definitions in dictionaries is not arbitrary; they are usually listed in order of common usage or prevalance). Therefore, it is entirely warranted for me to make reference to a "primary definition" of a given term. You have yet to demonstrate how Corduan's usage of the word "being" consititues anything but a warranted and rational use of the term. This is why I'm saying (to borrow your phrase), "Well, I will go with you but I am right."<br /><br />To answer your second question, no, I do not believe we can substitute the word "uncaused" for "necessary" and the argument never attempts to do so. Being uncaused is merely one characteristic of a necessary thing.<br /><br />Regarding your final comment about re-posting the full argument, I did not do so because, as I said, I'd rather continue the discussion here than move it to another site. However, if you'd like to re-post it on your site anyway, I will post it again as a separate comment. Keep in mind this is only my attempted summary of Corduan's argument; you'd have to go to his book for the more developed version.<br /><br />philPhilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-39090263262123899512009-12-02T04:46:29.170+02:002009-12-02T04:46:29.170+02:00Even two of the three definitions you included abo...<b>Even two of the three definitions you included above list "existence" as the only essential trait for a "being" in their primary definitions.</b><br /><br />As I said earlier, there is no such thing as a "primary definition" -- that is not how words work. So my insistence on understanding the danger of the equivocation fallacy is crucial for us continuing. And your persistent repeating of "primary definition" shows you are not listening (which is why I am about to give up discussing -- I need you to listen and not be on a mission).<br /><br />I am unable to discern why you persist on saying "Well, I will go with you but I am right." I need you to see that my insistence is completely logical. If you don't, I don't think we can proceed. OR, of course, you can offer a substantial rebuttal. But "primary definition" is way off the mark and I need you to see that. I need you to truly understand the equivocation fallacy.<br /><br />So, if that is all settled we can move on to the next question:<br /><br />Can we substitute the word "uncaused" for "necessary"? Are they equivalent for you? Again, the word "necessary" carries too much baggage. I think half the problem with the Cosmological argument is the verbal baggage. So for me it is important to strip it down to its essential form.<br /><br />Mind you, even if the cosmological argument works, it is no where close to giving a god like yhwh. I am pretty sure you disagree. But we really need to go slow to get there. And most likely we will stall along the way. But I will try a little longer.<br /><br />So, do you understand my point on definitions and are you ready to stop trying to get the last word in on that?<br /><br />Then you can answer my second question about substituting "uncaused" for "unnecessary".<br /><br />Also, you never quoted so & so's Cosmological Argument for us as I requested.Sabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-803465574579847322009-12-02T04:11:05.463+02:002009-12-02T04:11:05.463+02:00Sabio,
I'm not sure what point you are trying...Sabio,<br /><br />I'm not sure what point you are trying to demonstrate here, since I have already conceded that we may substitute the word "thing" anywhere in the argument that you take issue with "being." Even two of the three definitions you included above list "existence" as the only essential trait for a "being" in their primary definitions. I acknowledge that other secondary definitions may suggest a living thing, but it is far from fallacious or underhanded of me to use that term without suggesting any reference to life. Ultimately, this is a tangent semantic issue not related to the cosmological argument, and one which I was willing to concede to and move beyond several comments ago, so I'm not sure why it remains your main point of contention. I look forward to any new light you can shed on your position, if you are willing.<br /><br />philPhilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-70567787109810961302009-12-02T01:45:00.122+02:002009-12-02T01:45:00.122+02:00Here is what I find frustrating discussing with yo...Here is what I find frustrating discussing with you. If you can't see clearly the fact that the Equivocation Fallacy is not a problem of, as you call it, "the primary definition" (which does not exist), but of all mixing of various existing definitions. Then I can't imagine when I discuss with you the limitations of the word "necessary" as compared to "uncaused" or the subtleties of quantum mechanics we will make any progress at all.<br /><br />Here are more examples for you showing that the MSN defintion is NOT a bit of an anomaly. I hope you can see my frustration with your style.<br /><br />_____________________<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/being" rel="nofollow"><b>Wiktionary</b>:</a><br /><br /> 1. a living creature.<br /> 2. the state or fact of existence, consciousness, or life, or something in such a state.<br /> 3. (philosophy) that which has actuality (materially or in concept).<br /> 4. (philosophy) one's basic nature, or the qualities thereof; essence or personality.<br /><br />____________________<br /><br /><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/being" rel="nofollow"><b>Dictionary.com</b></a><br />1. the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence).<br /><br />2. conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternal night.<br /><br />3. substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear.<br /><br />4. something that exists: inanimate beings.<br /><br />5. a living thing: strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea.<br /><br />6. a human being; person: the most beautiful being you could imagine.<br /><br />7. (initial capital letter) God.<br /><br />8. Philosophy.<br /> a. that which has actuality either materially or in idea.<br /> b. absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, lacking no essential characteristic; essence.<br /><br />__________________________________<br /><br /><a href="http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/being" rel="nofollow"><b>Webster's</b></a><br /><br />1. The state or fact of existing: "a point of view gradually coming into being"; "laws in existence for centuries".<br /><br />2. A living (or once living) entity that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently.Sabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-78015242434618225392009-12-01T22:59:01.920+02:002009-12-01T22:59:01.920+02:00Thanks for finding and posting that definition, Sa...Thanks for finding and posting that definition, Sabio. While the msn definition is a bit of an anomaly (compare it with most other online dictionaries) and does not reflect the usual primary formal definition of the term, your point is noted; though, as I said before, it changes none of the rationalistic principles at stake in the argument. <br /><br />I understand it takes some time and energy to continue this discussion, so I completely understand if you wish to discontinue.Philnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-25715252230913264242009-12-01T21:30:15.460+02:002009-12-01T21:30:15.460+02:00Source: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18615897...Source: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861589794/being.html<br /><br />Definition: <br /> <br />1. person: a human individual<br /><br />2. existence: the state of existing<br />the turbulent years during which the new nation came into being<br /> <br />3. essential nature: somebody's essential nature or character<br />loved the child with all her being<br /><br />4. living thing: a living thing, especially one conceived of as supernatural or not living on Earth<br /> <br />_______________________<br /><br />Phil,<br />I must say, after your last note, I may have lost my motivation to discuss with you.Sabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-61069308966676094562009-12-01T21:09:37.815+02:002009-12-01T21:09:37.815+02:00Sabio,
Thanks for your latest comments. Regardin...Sabio,<br /><br />Thanks for your latest comments. Regarding the "being" semantic debate, I do not think my usage of that term falls under the fallacy of equivocation as you have suggested. To borrow your phrase, the best way we can be "judicious and precise" is to use words according to their formally given definitions (such as those found in legitimate dictionaries), not by pandering to people's various misunderstandings about terms (if we did too much of that, vocabulary itself would become meaningless). I do not think the term "being" automatically carries with it the connotation of something living unless it accompanies an adjective, such as the phrase "human being" or "living being." The very existence of these phrases demonstrates that not all beings are necessarily alive. Therefore, I stand by my usage of the term and do not think it is misleading in the argument (though, as I said, I will try to refrain from using it for your sake).<br /><br />Also, you have asked, "Can't an uncaused thing cause something and then be vulnerable to change?" Again, we would then be talking about a contingent thing and not a necessary one. Anything that can be affected or altered by something else must also, of necessity, require some sort of conditioned environment to remain unaltered. Since the necessary thing in question would have existed before "environments" themselves existed, such a thing would have to transcend the need for environment and space-time via the unlimited characteristics previously discussed. If this still does not make sense to you, I recommend Corduan's book; he does a much more thorough job explaining it than I have time to do.<br /><br />I appreciate your invitation to move this discussion to another forum, but as long as Kevin is okay with it, I prefer to keep it here. I'm still hoping he'll chime in at some point.<br /><br />philPhilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-38270875523318942292009-12-01T12:20:16.556+02:002009-12-01T12:20:16.556+02:00Hey Phil,
(1) I think words are only tools. Ther...Hey Phil,<br /><br />(1) I think words are only tools. Therefore agreement on words is critical. I think "being" in common usage carries connotations of a living thing, thus I prefer "THING". You may find one definition that does not contain that and qualify by saying "technically ..." but you see, that is exactly where connotations sneak in and confuse the argument by inviting the Fallacy of Equivocation (In case you are not familiar, here are some links: <a href="http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/equiv.htm" rel="nofollow">Stephen's Guide</a>, <a href="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html" rel="nofollow">Fallacy Files</a> ). <br /><br />I just wanted to be sure you understood I was not trying to be capricious, but judicious and precise. So I thank you for your cooperation so we can progress.<br /><br />(2) I guess I am being a little dull here. I really don't see who an uncaused thing must be "completely unlimited" or "unrestricted". Can't an uncaused thing cause something and then be vulnerable to change. I see nothing in a THING that has no beginning and cause other things to exists as also needing to be unaffectable, unlimited or such.<br /><br />I'll tell you what: In your next comment, copy and past Corduan's Cosmological Argument and I will post it on my site and we can continue there. I don't want to hijack this thread any further.<br /><br />ThanxSabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-58367409470641199322009-12-01T05:30:17.817+02:002009-12-01T05:30:17.817+02:00Thanks for the great discussion, Sabio, and I apol...Thanks for the great discussion, Sabio, and I apologize for not addressing all of your questions in my previous response (I'm usually writing with a very limited time frame, and find it difficult to get everything in). I am also taking your advice by writing 'Phil' in the name section... I actually never bothered to look at that before, thanks.<br /><br />Regarding your point number 2 above, I need to clarify that I do not find it at all inappropriate to use the term "necessary being," rather than "necessary thing." What I stated earlier was that you could substitute the word "thing" if you like without affecting the argument. Webster defines the word "being" as "the quality or state of having existence." So, this word in its purest form does not suggest a conscious, personal individual as you have asserted, but merely indicates something that is. Technically, a computer or chair qualifies as a "being" as well. To honor your request, however, I will try to stick to using the word "thing" instead. Just please show me grace if I slip up; I'm used to saying "being" because that is what Corduan uses and I think it is appropriate. <br /><br />In your point 3 above, you stated, "I don't see why 'supreme' or 'completely unlimited' or 'unrestricted' [should apply to a necessary thing]... it does not have to be 'omnipresent' or 'infinite.' Actually, it has to be all those things, or else we are dealing with a contingent thing, not a necessary one. If something can be affected by outside forces or influences such as time, space, pressure, temperature, etc., it is by definition contingent. Remember, the definition of a necessary thing as stated in the original argument is "something totally independent of everything else." Something omnipresent would not be dependent on the influence of space-time, something omnipotent would not be suject or dependent upon any outside forces or conditions for its ongoing existence, etc. These traits are intrinsic to the defintion established at the onset of the argument. The idea you are suggesting--that of an uncaused thing that is subject to outside influence (i.e. contingent)-- is self-defeating, because this would suggest that other things/beings already existed from the onset to which the thing is question was subject to. This concept is not logically viable. Hopefully you are beginning to see why the definition for a necessary being is what it is; there is no logical alternative.<br /><br />philPhilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-70935486191741413802009-12-01T01:15:20.609+02:002009-12-01T01:15:20.609+02:00@ Phil (Anonymous with a bad memory)
BTW, I enjoy...@ Phil (Anonymous with a bad memory)<br /><br />BTW, I enjoy your pleasant writing style and it is easy to write back to you. This is kind of fun to see how far we can go on this.<br /><br />(1) You should write "Phil" in the name section when you add the comment.<br /><br />(2) You used the word "being" again. We must keep this clean. Smile ! So we agree not to use "God" or "Being" because both come with inappropriate connotations for what the argument is trying to prove, that is, "a thing". Let's put it in all caps to keep it special. I'm sure you are familar with the danger of connotations in debates -- especially in the Fallacy of Equivocation. So, can we please stick to "THING".<br /><br />(3) Further, I have not studied this, but I think you are over zealous in the attributes you want to ascribe to this THING. I think the thing only has to be uncaused. There are no other conditions. I am curious what qualities must accompany "uncaused". I don't see why "supreme" or "completely unlimited" or "unrestricted". And as I wrote earlier, but you never addressed, it does not have to be "omnipresent" or "infinite". All the THING had to do was start things something going which then kept going. No continual intervention needed. No omnipresence, no supremehoodness, no need to be completely unlimited etc. It seems the argument by some try to slip that in because it better approximates their god. Am I mistaken?<br />So, if the argument works, all it shows is a THING which starts things rolling which seems to be way less than you'd like.<br /><br />(4) Look, I told you I believe that this argument worked converting other folks. I am speculating, but it is immaterial to the discussion. Let's stick to the discussion.<br /><br />(5) Concerning the quantum mechanics thing. Let's just settle number 2 and 3 above first -- I think that would be a huge beginning.Sabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-32570519283007935172009-11-30T22:45:55.044+02:002009-11-30T22:45:55.044+02:00Sabio,
Thanks again for your insightful feedback....Sabio,<br /><br />Thanks again for your insightful feedback. By the way, you can call me Phil; I usually identify myself as such in my comments (although I see I forgot to do so in my comment above-- sorry about that). That being said, I'll respond to your latest remarks.<br /><br />You accused me of "using the word 'God'... to sneak in all sorts of other connotations," and suggested that the argument should be called the "Necessary Thing Argument." It doesn't matter what you call it; the point is that a necessary thing by definition would have to be a supreme entity, completely unlimited, unrestricted, and uncaused. Something that possesses these qualities would be called "God" by most people's definition; i.e., when people say they don't believe in God, they are usually saying they don't believe that a being with these qualities exists. I am comfortable with the term "God" in the argument because that's the most universally understood label for such a being. You may use whatever label makes you most comfortable.<br /><br />Concerning the many people who have placed faith in God via rationalistic arguments such as these, you stated, "the skeptic in me makes me think there was a lot more stuff already ripe in their heads with perhaps that argument making them intellectually comfortable." Your comment here is not only purely speculative since you indicated you've never met such persons, but is also ultimately unhelpful in determining the inherent merits of the argument at stake. It is a borderline ad hominem logical fallacy.<br /><br />Also, I believe you are overemphasizing the reliability of quantum mechanics, a discipline which is highly theoretical and and perhaps even more controversial, even within the established scientific community, and especially with those who specialize in scienctific philosophy. If you can provide some detail as to how this field has done anything concrete to mitigate the argument's position on infinite regression, that might be helpful. <br /><br />You also stated, "people have written books on this on both sides of the argument -- bright people." I agree with that, but can you recommend a book that effectively dismantles Corduan's argument? I haven't found one yet.<br /><br />Kevin, I am also still interested in your thoughts on this; I always value your perspective and input.<br /><br />philAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17732427.post-60653417751966253792009-11-30T04:52:46.966+02:002009-11-30T04:52:46.966+02:00@ Cosmo (AKA, "Anonymous", but until you...@ Cosmo (AKA, "Anonymous", but until you take a real name I will call you "Cosmo")<br /><br />(1) you set up "necessary" and "contingent" as categories. But both of those depend on some notion of causality. And as I said, causality, when it comes to creation of time-space itself is a huge question. Not to mention some of the oddities of quantum mechanics. So these may be false categories. <br /><br />(2) If you are not trying to support an existence of a YHWH type thing, then just call it the "Necessary Thing Argument" and otherwise, in a sly way, by using the word "God" you are trying to sneak in all sorts of other connotations.<br /><br />(3) That is interesting that you know people that became Christians simply by force of the "Necessary Thing Argument" --- but the skeptic in me makes me think there was a lot more stuff already ripe in their heads with perhaps that argument making them intellectually comfortable.<br /><br />(4) Also, we don't have any evidence to show that there can't be something like an infinite causal chain and thus no beginning or end. Counter-intuitive, of course, but quantum mechanics & relativity have proven to us the limit of our natural intuitions.<br /><br />(5) Also, I think the standard reply is why should we be intuitively comfortable (if you are playing the intuitive game) with a necessary thing -- since we have never seen one and it makes no sense since everything we see is contingent, then expecting infinite contingency seems rather "logical". For to expect some thing with no cause is equally unsatisfactory in intuitive terms.<br /><br />Again, people have written books on this on both sides of the argument -- bright people. Let's say that in the future someone shows it works, remember, it would only work for some necessary THING which does not have to care at all about humans. It doesn't have to interact with the world at all, it does not have to be omnipresent and all that other stuff.<br /><br />OK, bed time.Sabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.com