Jump to content

God. We have a problem, or do we?


crash_davis

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, sidis said:

This is the part where I remember that sidis and AOC/T/F are in the philosophical discussions on the plane of debating the nuance of how to roast the highly regional african and south american beans to temp points that maximize the palate, and I am just dumping a bag of low oil lavazza super crema into my re-branded saeco super automatic and calling it a day because the frothing adapter that my wife uses is easy to clean with tap water.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sbbruin said:

Well, if life rudimentary life exists in inummerable places, and life evolves and mutates to gain reproductive advantages, then it would seem that it is almost inconceivable when we are talking about 10 to the 25th power number of planets that life hasn't evolved to the sapient level somewhere.  Seems far more likely that it has happened many, many times over.  And the way we are going, not sure we've really evolved to the sapient level. 

Rudimentary life existing in innumerable places (that, of course, is unknown) doesn’t mean that evolution would take the same path as it did on Earth; that is, there’s no evidence to suggest that sapient-like intelligence is a goal of evolution, or even desirable for long-term survival.

Stephen Hawking addressed this very issue:

Quote

We are used to thinking of intelligent life, as an inevitable consequence of evolution. But the Anthropic Principle should warn us to be wary of such arguments. It is more likely that evolution is a random process, with intelligence as only one of a large number of possible outcomes. It is not clear that intelligence has any long-term survival value. Bacteria, and other single cell organisms, will live on, if all other life on Earth is wiped out by our actions. There is support for the view that intelligence, was an unlikely development for life on Earth, from the chronology of evolution.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

If that's the case, then it's not possible to violate anyone's rights.  Do you believe that human rights violations exist?  If so, what is being violated?  

 

Yes, the bold part.  I just quoted that post as a tag since it mentioned the ontological arguments.  As you said, it was a beacon for me.  Nothing in the post was intended as a counter point to your post.  My fault for diving in without any explanation.

So we got anastasis and sidis, now we just need cactus, F250, and formermav.

Blues Brothers Getting The Band Back Together GIFs | Tenor

I dunno man, I've been reading a lot of Star Wars fan fiction lately to understand the Obi Wan thread. Not sure if I am in that place.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I read for 45 minutes and my head hurts. Did it ever come to a conclusion as to what the answer to my unanswerable (not unique to me obviously, as was explained at length by dueling philosophers) question was? 

no, it does not because there is not one from an a posteriori perspective.  it is an ever-present origin question that none of us have the actual experience or ability to reason in a manner that leads one to any definitive answer.  if it did, then we wouldn't have to bother with concepts of religion, sacred texts, etc... that primarily drive our origin question experience.

however, i was providing the link primarily for you to familiarize yourself with one of the primary philosophical tools that is utilized and debated when engaging in the purely a priori logic and reason-driven philosophies surrounding theology...like axiom's favorite ontological arguments.  it is highly debatable in my opinion but most with axiom's position argue that the recursive properties of the infinite regress mechanism result in fallacy when proffering their arguments for a "first cause."

to put it more simply, i was providing the established philosophical debate that dealt specifically with what you were posing in your more direct rhetorical questions from your post stating:

Quote

Say you believe in the Big Bang. Ok, cool, how did that matter get in a ball to explode and form the universe in the first place. 
We have never observed (to my knowledge at least) something coming from nothing. God similarly doesn’t answer that question. How can he be in being outside of time and space and what was there before him?

and

Quote

because in all of our natural law and observations of the Universe something can’t come from nothing, yet every hypothesis and answer begs that question of where it came from originally.

but of course, your post is completely correct from an a posteriori perspective.  religion and faith are a mechanism for coping with that present status.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, sidis said:

no, it does not because there is not one from an a posteriori perspective.  it is an ever-present origin question that none of us have the actual experience or ability to reason in a manner that leads one to any definitive answer.  if it did, then we wouldn't have to bother with concepts of religion, sacred texts, etc... that primarily drive our origin question experience.

however, i was providing the link primarily for you to familiarize yourself with one of the primary philosophical tools that is utilized and debated when engaging in the purely a priori logic and reason-driven philosophies surrounding theology...like axiom's favorite ontological arguments.  it is highly debatable in my opinion but most with axiom's position argue that the recursive properties of the infinite regress mechanism result in fallacy when proffering their arguments for a "first cause."

to put it more simply, i was providing the established philosophical debate that dealt specifically with what you were posing in your more direct rhetorical questions from your post stating:

and

but of course, your post is completely correct from an a posteriori perspective.  religion and faith are a mechanism for coping with that present status.

Thanks for the explanation.  I read the first 4, maybe half way through 5 pretty carefully and it took a long ass time and was then more or less time to go to bed- and then skimmed to the end looking for a conclusion. I didn't see one, but wanted to make sure I didn't miss one b/c I tapped out at 75% completion.  

I'd love to sit in a a classroom for a couple weeks (semester?) while that got explained. I feel like it could be a semester class unto itself, especially if some of the denser stuff was being broken down into more accessible bites. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to read it and digest it in first setting, but I feel like extensive explanation with tons of examples would be helpful to really grasp the entirety of all the arguments.  My eyes glazed over a bit when discussing forms of X & F if I'm being honest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Thanks for the explanation.  I read the first 4, maybe half way through 5 pretty carefully and it took a long ass time and was then more or less time to go to bed- and then skimmed to the end looking for a conclusion. I didn't see one, but wanted to make sure I didn't miss one b/c I tapped out at 75% completion.  

I'd love to sit in a a classroom for a couple weeks (semester?) while that got explained. I feel like it could be a semester class unto itself, especially if some of the denser stuff was being broken down into more accessible bites. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to read it and digest it in first setting, but I feel like extensive explanation with tons of examples would be helpful to really grasp the entirety of all the arguments.  My eyes glazed over a bit when discussing forms of X & F if I'm being honest. 

The jargon in these discussions takes some getting used to.  I don’t like it when heavy jargon is used in explanatory overviews, but when having the discussions at length it becomes necessary.  For example, when having a back and forth with sidis I’m not going give long form exposition to every concept because he already knows them and there are succinct terms established to reference them.  I will just use those terms to succinctly and precisely state what I mean.  The same happens in all professions, and when you get around folks in a given profession they will talk a certain way to succinctly state what they mean and non professionals of the type will likely not catch all of it. 
 

That being said, I think initial overviews should contain limited jargon, and so the below is my attempt:

We live in a universe in which everything that we can observe has some prior cause. In other words, everything we observe is dependent or contingent upon something external to it.  Our entire universe seems to be the type of thing that is contingent.  So what caused or produced our universe?  What is our universe dependent upon for it’s existence?   There are a few categories we can consider.

1.  Something else did cause/produce our universe.  Within this view there are a few sub categories.  One is that whatever produced our universe is some other universe or system with similar properties.  We then ask the same question to that system and in turn the same answer is given, and so on.  Now we are in infinite regress.  Some folks are fine with this type of explanation, because each world in the infinite chain has a cause.   

Other folks are not fine with this type of explanation, because the entire chain, even if infinite in length, is still in need of a cause or explanation. Why does the entire infinite chain exist?  Why this chain and not some other?  These people will go to one of the other two categories. 
 

2.  Things ultimately need to be rooted or grounded in some eternal or necessarily existent source.   This group is known as metaphysical foundationalists, because they believe all things ultimately must have an eternal, necessarily existent foundation. Plato, Aristotle, Philiponus, the golden age Muslim philosophers, Anselm, Aquinas, and Leibniz fell into this category.  This is the orthodox theist and deist metaphysical position. So what are the types of things that exist necessarily?   Some folks think that numbers, geological shapes, and other universal properties do.  For example, the number 7 doesn’t need external cause, so they argue. It exists by necessity.  Ontological arguments attempt to establish that God is in the category of things that exist necessarily. 

There are some folks who argue that our universe or multiverse is an eternal or necessarily existent thing itself and is in no need for external cause.  Many pantheists are in this subcategory. 
 

Some folks are not persuaded by any of the above reasoning and fall into the third category.

3.  Some things just exist and don’t require a cause, reason, or explanation.  They just exist as a “brute fact.”   Our universe is such a thing.  Last I spoke with sidis I believe he was in this category.  
 

There is also fourth category of folks that do not know and maybe also don’t care about any of the above.  Conversations with them on the topic tend to be short.  

Edited by axiom of foundation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, F250 said:

I dunno man, I've been reading a lot of Star Wars fan fiction lately to understand the Obi Wan thread. Not sure if I am in that place.

 

image.gif.4161aeccb583144939c4074bf3ce8d01.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, axiom of foundation said:

The jargon in these discussions takes some getting used to.  I don’t like it when heavy jargon is used in explanatory overviews, but when having the discussions at length it becomes necessary.  For example, when having a back and forth with sidis I’m not going give long form exposition to every concept because he already knows them and there are succinct terms established to reference them.  I will just use those terms to succinctly and precisely state what I mean.  The same happens in all professions, and when you get around folks in a given profession they will talk a certain way to succinctly state what they mean and non professionals of the type will likely not catch all of it. 
 

That being said, I think initial overviews should contain limited jargon, and so the below is my attempt:

We live in a universe in which everything that we can observe has some prior cause. In other words, everything we observe is dependent or contingent upon something external to it.  Our entire universe seems to be the type of thing that is contingent.  So what caused or produced our universe?  What is our universe dependent upon for it’s existence?   There are a few categories we can consider.

1.  Something else did cause/produce our universe.  Within this view there are a few sub categories.  One is that whatever produced our universe is some other universe or system with similar properties.  We then ask the same question to that system and in turn the same answer is given, and so on.  Now we are in infinite regress.  Some folks are fine with this type of explanation, because each world in the infinite chain has a cause.   

Other folks are not fine with this type of explanation, because the entire chain, even if infinite in length, is still in need of a cause or explanation. Why does the entire infinite chain exist?  Why this chain and not some other?  These people will go to one of the other two categories. 
 

2.  Things ultimately need to be rooted or grounded in some eternal or necessarily existent source.   This group is known as metaphysical foundationalists, because they believe all things ultimately must have an eternal, necessarily existent foundation. Plato, Aristotle, Philiponus, the golden age Muslim philosophers, Anselm, Aquinas, and Leibniz fell into this category.  This is the orthodox theist and deist metaphysical position. So what are the types of things that exist necessarily?   Some folks think that numbers, geological shapes, and other universal properties do.  For example, the number 7 doesn’t need external cause, so they argue. It exists by necessity.  Ontological arguments attempt to establish that God is in the category of things that exist necessarily. 

There are some folks who argue that our universe or multiverse is an eternal or necessarily existent thing itself and is in no need for external cause.  Many pantheists are in this subcategory. 
 

Some folks are not persuaded by any of the above reasoning and fall into the third category.

3.  Some things just exist and don’t require a cause, reason, or explanation.  They just exist as a “brute fact.”   Our universe is such a thing.  Last I spoke with sidis I believe he was in this category.  
 

There is also fourth category of folks that do not know and maybe also don’t care about any of the above.  Conversations with them on the topic tend to be short.  

Really good stuff. Thanks. Then I get to the last paragraph and LOL. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
The jargon in these discussions takes some getting used to.  I don’t like it when heavy jargon is used in explanatory overviews, but when having the discussions at length it becomes necessary.  For example, when having a back and forth with sidis I’m not going give long form exposition to every concept because he already knows them and there are succinct terms established to reference them.  I will just use those terms to succinctly and precisely state what I mean.  The same happens in all professions, and when you get around folks in a given profession they will talk a certain way to succinctly state what they mean and non professionals of the type will likely not catch all of it. 
 
That being said, I think initial overviews should contain limited jargon, and so the below is my attempt:
We live in a universe in which everything that we can observe has some prior cause. In other words, everything we observe is dependent or contingent upon something external to it.  Our entire universe seems to be the type of thing that is contingent.  So what caused or produced our universe?  What is our universe dependent upon for it’s existence?   There are a few categories we can consider.
1.  Something else did cause/produce our universe.  Within this view there are a few sub categories.  One is that whatever produced our universe is some other universe or system with similar properties.  We then ask the same question to that system and in turn the same answer is given, and so on.  Now we are in infinite regress.  Some folks are fine with this type of explanation, because each world in the infinite chain has a cause.   
Other folks are not fine with this type of explanation, because the entire chain, even if infinite in length, is still in need of a cause or explanation. Why does the entire infinite chain exist?  Why this chain and not some other?  These people will go to one of the other two categories. 
 
2.  Things ultimately need to be rooted or grounded in some eternal or necessarily existent source.   This group is known as metaphysical foundationalists, because they believe all things ultimately must have an eternal, necessarily existent foundation. Plato, Aristotle, Philiponus, the golden age Muslim philosophers, Anselm, Aquinas, and Leibniz fell into this category.  This is the orthodox theist and deist metaphysical position. So what are the types of things that exist necessarily?   Some folks think that numbers, geological shapes, and other universal properties do.  For example, the number 7 doesn’t need external cause, so they argue. It exists by necessity.  Ontological arguments attempt to establish that God is in the category of things that exist necessarily. 

There are some folks who argue that our universe or multiverse is an eternal or necessarily existent thing itself and is in no need for external cause.  Many pantheists are in this subcategory. 
 
Some folks are not persuaded by any of the above reasoning and fall into the third category.
3.  Some things just exist and don’t require a cause, reason, or explanation.  They just exist as a “brute fact.”   Our universe is such a thing.  Last I spoke with sidis I believe he was in this category.  
 
There is also fourth category of folks that do not know and maybe also don’t care about any of the above.  Conversations with them on the topic tend to be short.  

fb63329f160ef01a910cb61a3c394e9b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2022 at 9:20 AM, axiom of foundation said:

There is a difference between the enforcement of rights and the existence of rights.  Injustice is the gap between natural rights and the enforcement of those rights.  If some of our rights are not being enforced, we say our rights are being denied.  

Is this axiom of choice posting under a new name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/28/2022 at 4:33 PM, Wulaw Horn said:

Really good stuff. Thanks. Then I get to the last paragraph and LOL. 

A bit more background on the history of beliefs in in metaphysical foundationalism:

The idea that reality must have some necessary foundation was common in various ancient schools of thought.  It was discussed in some of the earliest Greek philosophy:

“You will know the aether's nature…and the unseen works of the pure torch of the brilliant sun, and from whence they came to be, and you will learn the wandering works of the round-eyed moon and its nature, and you will know too the surrounding heaven, both whence it grew and how Necessity directing it bound it to furnish the limits of the stars.” – Parmenides, 5th century BC 

“When we find one thing changing another, and this in turn another, and so on,—of these things shall we ever find one that is the prime cause of change? How will a thing that is moved by another ever be itself the first of the things that cause change? It is impossible. But when a thing that has moved itself changes another thing, and that other a third, and the motion thus spreads progressively through thousands upon thousands of things, will the primary source of all their motions be anything else than the movement of that which has moved itself?”  Plato, Laws Book X

“But since there is something which moves while itself unmoved, existing actually, this can in no way be otherwise than as it is… The first mover, then, exists of necessity; and in so far as it exists by necessity, its mode of being is good, and it is in this sense a first principle… If, then, God is always in that good state in which we sometimes are, this compels our wonder; and if in a better this compels it yet more. And God is in a better state. And life also belongs to God; for the actuality of thought is life, and God is that actuality; and God's self-dependent actuality is life most good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God.” – Aristotle, Metaphysics Book XII, (4th century BC)

If not already, after Aristotle it could be argued that metaphysical foundationalism became the default view in the west.  Much of the discussion and debate centered on the type of properties the metaphysical foundation of reality must have, whether matter/the universe itself was eternal or whether it was created ex nihilo (out of nothing), on how the cosmos came to be in their present state, and so on.  

In the 5th century AD, John Philoponus argued that the universe must be finite in time. This went against prevailing thought that the universe was infinite in time and that creation of matter ex nihilo was not possible.  The arguments of Philoponus were based on logic and not on observation of the cosmos.  Muslim scholars during the Islamic golden age took the arguments of Philoponus and expounded upon them; these arguments are the basis of what are now called the the Kalam cosmological arguments, which argue against the possibility of “actual infinities” and thus the universe must be finite in time.    

Despite these efforts, the idea that the universe was infinite in time remained the default view in astronomy until the 20th century when the big bang theory was derived from applying Einstein’s general relativity to Hubble’s observations of the expanding universe.  There was and remains much discussion and debate after the establishment of fact that our observable universe is indeed finite in time.  Theistic philosophers saw this as confirmation of their centuries old argument that the universe was finite in time and created ex nihilo, while non-theistic philosophers argue that there are infinite systems beyond/outside our observable universe and/or that the universe does not require a cause and exists as a brute fact:

“I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all.” – Bertrand Russell, from radio debate in 1948

My personal position is metaphysical foundationalism.  That is the only view that makes any sense to me.  Though I don’t agree with the kalam arguments as I think that actual infinities are possible, I think there must be some necessarily existent source.  I don't believe brute facts are possible.       

   
 

Edited by axiom of foundation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...