Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Thomist Versus Objectivist Metaphysics.

Rate this topic


dark_unicorn

Recommended Posts

I am a former student of the Dominican order, as some here already know, and an advocate of a modified version of Thomism. Like Objectivism, this philosophical/theological viewpoint draws a good deal of inspiration from Aristotle, but there are some notable differences in most of the 5 branches of philosophy that are obviously noteworthy. As someone who has also studied Objectivism, particularly it's Epistemology and how it applies to education, I have also been a bit influenced by it though clearly the topic of debate here is one area where I do not agree with the philosophy.

The question up for discussion is "The existence of God" in the context of metaphysics and epistemology. Does God exist or not, and what are the proofs that we can reference? As this debate was prompted by an off-topic discussion in another forum, I will make my claim by answering the last post on that discussion by MisterSwig, whom may wish to engage in this debate, although I am interested in getting any and every view on this. His post reads:

You're operating upon the false assumption that the universe has a source.

1. "Universe" is merely a name for the imagined sum or collection of every individual thing that exists. It is not an actual thing in reality that has a source. It is a name for the collection of every thing that exists--stars, planets, comets, moons, animals, people, etc. These are the things which we lump together under the concept "existents" and collectively call "the universe." It's a difficult concept to grasp, but it is similar to the concept "society." Society is not something that exists in reality as an individual thing. It designates a collection of things--people. Likewise, universe designates a collection of things--every existent that exists.

2. Now, if you want to speak of the "source" of any actual existent, then go ahead and pick one and offer a theory about it. I'd love to hear a rational argument for why God is the source of the Earth or the Sun, which are things that actually exist.

1. I agree that this is an accurate description for the way one would categorize any potential phenomena existing beyond our current reference of study, absent an encounter visive the senses, the imagination is clearly active in the process. However, imagination has been proven to be a catalyst in advancing the process of knowledge and study, so the fact that the imagination is involved alone does not necessitate a disproof of a theoretical existent, it merely denotes that this particular entity "may or may not" exist.

I also agree that the existence of multiple dimensions is also an error that arises from thinking of the "universe" implies something other than the full extent of metaphysical existence. The issue comes up in the context of "Reality" versus "Universe", and I will now provide an arguement meant for any others wishing to enter the discussion, just so I can be clear to them as to where I stand.

These two words are not synonymous in terms of definitions in the dictionary, nor are they considered synonymous in any thesaurus that I have read in my lifetime. So I will now present their various defintions to save time going back and forth to Dictionary.com or any other similar site.

Universe

1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.

2. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things, the human race.

3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

Reality

1. The quality or state of being actual or true.

2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: “the weight of history and political realities” (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.).

3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.

4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality.

Many Christian apologists uphold that God exists both inside and outside the universe, which I personally think is an error. It is more a matter of "if God created what we now percieve as the universe, both in terms of speculation and actual categorization" then it must have existed before such a thing occurred. Technically if we assume heaven to be a real place, it would fall under the bounds of the universe and would exist in a non-material form.

Now to the issue of the universe, there is the issue not only of material objects and entities, but also of energy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. As this applies to the complete universe, the tendency of systems existing within is to move towards chaos, not order. This can be seen in all observable phenomena, including the life-span of a human being. If the universe is seen as eternal, then by this standard, it should be completely dead and all the universe should be a mess replete with unorganized inanimate objects and random energy. If this standard is incorrect, and the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics is at error, what is the correct explanation of order versus chaos in the universe?

(I apologize for any details that seem unneccesary to our particular discussion MisterSwig, I just wanted to be sure that my topic is understood by everyone reading it)

2. The theory of evolution states that all life on earth originated from inanimate matter, and thus proceeds to categorize nature based on observable material phenomena. There is no contradiction between this and my beliefs about the way science should be approached. Furthermore, man is described in Genesis as originating as dust, which is not in contradiction with the inanimate matter theory. The only difference between them is that Genesis does not contain the specific naturalistic explanation of what components of what is refered to as dust (ergo elements) and thus it is clearly not sufficient for scientific study, and in the field of science should be treated as an obsolete predecesor of evolution. The point of contention is the assertion that naturalistic categorizations which improve upon the more generalized reference that man originated from dust neccessitate that God does not exist or did not cause the process. It would, however, be accurate to describe anyone whom openly attacks evolution as being evil as irrational, and I share your sentiments on such Christians. Thus you could describe me as a proponent of Theistic Evolution.

As far as the Sun and the consequence of planet earth's formation goes, the " it happened on it's own" explanation to how or why the energy that makes up the Sun organizes itself in such a way as to allow for the conditions that makes Earth, or any other planet of similar make up that may exist, is not sufficient by virtue of the 2nd Law of Thermal Dynamics. If the tendency of a star is to burn out, why do new stars continue to form.

If the tendency of an object is to do something, and it does something else that would seem contrary to that tendency, the issue must clearly be addressed. The belief that God takes an active role in the organization of existents is a leap of faith, but I have seen no other explanation that sufficiently explains the following phenomena.

1. The organization of existents.

2. The re-organization and utilization of energy in spite of a tendency towards chaos.

3. The fact that human beings are capable of imagining things that either do not exist or have not been observed with the senses. (Note: this does not imply spontaneous thought independent of experience, but the ability to alter observed phenomena in one's mind to create new imaginary phenomena.)

4. The ability of man alone to philosophize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you proposing to debate any specific point that you've listed? What point? What style of debate do you want? Or is this your first entree into said debate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you proposing to debate any specific point that you've listed? What point? What style of debate do you want? Or is this your first entree into said debate?

My proposed debate was basically "does God exist", and the context of it is the two competing philosophies of Objectivism and Thomism, as I am not really as interested in dealing with the random arguements of proponents of Subjectivism or what I describe as Classic Mysticism/Creationism.

These opening comments, which I admit go into alot of related fields, were specifically for MisterSwig, and they are my arguements for the existence of God in the context of the post that he made, which I have quoted. I had thought that he would want to engage me in this debate, but if someone else wants to do it, the "Does God Exist" question would be the starting point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now to the issue of the universe, there is the issue not only of material objects and entities, but also of energy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. As this applies to the complete universe, the tendency of systems existing within is to move towards chaos, not order.

Actually, it's an open question whether the 2nd Law can be taken as applying to the universe as a whole. If I remember correctly, Landau and Lifshitz have a discussion of this point in one of their textbooks.

This can be seen in all observable phenomena, including the life-span of a human being. If the universe is seen as eternal, then by this standard, it should be completely dead and all the universe should be a mess replete with unorganized inanimate objects and random energy. If this standard is incorrect, and the Second Law of Thermal Dynamics is at error, what is the correct explanation of order versus chaos in the universe?

First, it's thermodynamics, not thermal dynamics. More to the point, just because the universe is eternal, that doesn't mean that it is unchanging on a gross level. If the standard model is correct, then about 15-18 billion years ago, all matter and energy were confined to a very small region from which they started expanding. What likely happened before then can't be said in our present state of knowledge, but in any case the evidence points to some very major change in the condition of the universe as a whole, even if everything has existed eternally in some form before that moment.

And in any case, let's take the statement you seem to be implying, that an entity usually named God is necessary to explain how the clock of thermodynamics started flowing. What does that actually explain? Nothing. How did God start everything going in the first place? What process was involved? What evidence can you point to for any of it? If there is none, then you don't actually know anything about the nature of this entity whose existence you imply to be necessary. There's no basis for your claim of knowledge, only a leap into the unknown (and presumably unknowable-by-human-reason) on the basis of utter ignorance. So there's a gap in our knowledge--what you're having recourse to is the old god in the gaps, in which any gap in our knowledge is taken as evidence of God...until the gap gets filled by naturalistic knowledge. Perhaps God does exist in one of those gaps--but how can you prove it? If you don't know why something is the way it is, then you can't, by that very fact, know enough to say that what lurks in that gap is unknowable by human reason rather than just currently unknown. In short, you're just pasting the name "God" over current ignorance; science recognizes the same ignorance but doesn't make the unsupportable claim that what's there is unknowable or transcendent. Perhaps it is, but we'll never actually really know that, will we? We'll just get closer and closer, but whether that last little passel of gaps can never be filled by the sustained exercise of human reason is not something we'd be able to say--and, more importantly, neither can the theologians, since being human, they have the same limitations as other humans.

As far as the Sun and the consequence of planet earth's formation goes, the " it happened on it's own" explanation to how or why the energy that makes up the Sun organizes itself in such a way as to allow for the conditions that makes Earth, or any other planet of similar make up that may exist, is not sufficient by virtue of the 2nd Law of Thermal Dynamics. If the tendency of a star is to burn out, why do new stars continue to form.

Because there's still a lot of uncollected gas and dust out there from the Big Bang (whatever its nature) that is all the time slowly condensing to produce stars.

The belief that God takes an active role in the organization of existents is a leap of faith, but I have seen no other explanation that sufficiently explains the following phenomena.

1. The organization of existents.

How does positing a god explain the organization of existents? Because God made them that way? Why? How? Well, He just did--that's how, that's why. That's not an explanation, it's just pasting a name to our ignorance.

3. The fact that human beings are capable of imagining things that either do not exist or have not been observed with the senses. (Note: this does not imply spontaneous thought independent of experience, but the ability to alter observed phenomena in one's mind to create new imaginary phenomena.)

Mental entities like concepts are distinct from what they refer to "out there," and being symbolic representations of some sort, they can be abstracted from or combined in other ways. ("Oh, what a beautiful horse! Imagine a horn on its head--my, is that not a beautiful thing!") By the same token, the resulting combinations do not imply the existence of any referent. In this respect, it's somewhat like taking modeling clay that's been molded into shapes of other things, then glomming them together, or shaving off clay from one in accordance with the shape of another of the lumps, or what-not. The original shapes can be taken as referring to other things, but after modification they need not. I doubt that's an earth-shattering analogy for you; the point is that while the nature of consciousness is not entirely understood, the basis of such creativity is probably the capacity for symbolic representation. That is, the capacity to associate a referent with an arbitrary mental unit, such as a string of sounds (or, rather, the mental units that encode the articulations of the vocal tract to produce those sounds and their corresponding acoustic features), and the capacity to manipulate the resulting mental unit as a unit--perhaps by arranging it in a hierarchical network of contrasts and associations, or by abstracting away certain of its qualities and manipulating the result, and so on. It's the fact that this association is arbitrary (in the sense that the mental unit as such needn't have any properties that are the same as those of the referent, but simply represents the referent) rather than iconic or indexical (to use the terms common in cognitive science) that makes creativity possible. (Which is why the analogy of modeling clay is ultimately too limited--the modeling clay would be a case of iconic representation, where the association between referent and representation is not arbitrary at all, but is instead one-to-one in the same property, extension. By the same token, you can't say that a symbolic representation is "composed of" symbolic representations of the parts that compose the referent and into which the representation of the whole can be broken down; instead, the referent's component parts would have their own distinct symbolic representations, if it is necessary to refer to them, that are associated mentally with the original symbolic representation.) --Well, I hope that wasn't too unclear. You might want to check out the first part of Terrence Deacon's The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain for a thought-provoking discussion of all that.

Edited by Adrian Hester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it's an open question whether the 2nd Law can be taken as applying to the universe as a whole. If I remember correctly, Landau and Lifshitz have a discussion of this point in one of their textbooks.

There's a relevent discussion of this question on the 4aynrandfans.net forum.

The 2nd law applies to open, closed and isolated systems, but in different ways. The reason why entropy makes no sense in regard to the universe is that there is no meaningful way to define the state of the universe, i.e., those properties that distinguish it from other systems, whether open, closed, or isolated. It is also interesting to note that Einstein demonstrated in special realtivity that entropy is relativistically invariant (On The Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn From It, A. Einstein, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivitat und Elektronik 4, pp. 411-462, 1907).

But, more generally, I am against the notion of entropy [...] which links the (proper) metaphysical aspect with probabilities. The problem is that it buys into an extremely insidious distortion of a proper physical principle that was perpetrated some more than fifty years ago. Entropy is a meaningful physical concept rooted in thermodynamics, and it was Claude E. Shannon who ushered in the double-edged sword of modern "information theory" in 1948 (A Mathematical Theory of Communication, C.E. Shannon, The Bell System Technical Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 379-423, pp. 623-656, July, October, 1948).

Shannon provided an almost inestimable benefit that has ensued from a great deal of his work, but Shannon was also the one who offically "probabilitized" entropy, sundering it from the physical context which gave it meaning. Shannon re-formulated entropy as a measure of uncertainty and tied it to the probabilites of abstract systems, giving rise to notions such as "conditional entropy," not a measure of a physical system but a measure of the uncertainty in what we know. The notion of order, of which Ken properly dispelled as a metaphysical concept, is just one of many ill-defined notions that can be traced back to this probabilistic formulation of Shannon. Shannon has a whole section on the "Entropy of a Continuous Distribution," which he distinguishes from his already existing formulation of entropy as a "discrete set of probabilities." (I once counted in Shannon's paper 152 uses of "entropy" where not a single one should have been properly defined.)

But, I am leaving out a huge amount of relevant technical issues in an attempt to get the main point across. Otherwise would require an inordinate amount of time to document and explain the full insidious nature of this destruction of the proper notion of entropy.

[edit: I didn't mean to butt in to the debate-- just thought I'd offer a refference point for those interested in this question. Carry on. : D]

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it's an open question whether the 2nd Law can be taken as applying to the universe as a whole. If I remember correctly, Landau and Lifshitz have a discussion of this point in one of their textbooks.
Very interesting, my studies of the laws of Thermodynamics are still an ongoing process and I will give this debate another look. Did they actually give a list of alternative senarios in which the law might possibly not apply?

First, it's thermodynamics, not thermal dynamics.

I apologize, I was typing in a hurry because I had to get back to work and I didn't have time to read over my post properly.

More to the point, just because the universe is eternal, that doesn't mean that it is unchanging on a gross level. If the standard model is correct, then about 15-18 billion years ago, all matter and energy were confined to a very small region from which they started expanding. What likely happened before then can't be said in our present state of knowledge, but in any case the evidence points to some very major change in the condition of the universe as a whole, even if everything has existed eternally in some form before that moment.
I agree with this assertion, I have still been at study on the metaphysics of Aristotle and a few others and I wasn't fully clear on what people theorized had preceded the Big Bang. This major change in condition is something that I've been trying to contemplate for a while. It is noteworthy that the behavior of stars, including such phenomena as sunspots, solar flares, and supernovas could be attributed to the Big Bang, if the actual center of the known universe at that time were of similar properties as current stars, though on a much larger scale obviously.

And in any case, let's take the statement you seem to be implying, that an entity usually named God is necessary to explain how the clock of thermodynamics started flowing. What does that actually explain? Nothing.

I was implying that this "could" be the case, but what I am asserting more pointedly is the fact that MisterSwig's explanation of the universe is not sufficient grounds for claiming that the speculation on the existence of God is an automatic error. In order to assert undeniably that God is neccesary to explain the clock of thermodynamics started flowing, I would have to know and be able to prove that this law applied to all the universe, and as you have pointed out this might not be the case.

As to what this would explain, provided that the second law of thermodynamics does apply to the whole universe, has more bearance on humanity itself. One of the characteristics of the Thomist view of God is that the entity in question is described as cause without potency, ergo one that exists and wills independent of matter and thus manipulates through contemplation. Such an uncovered truth would explain the origin of consciousness, and what one would describe as the soul, the means of retaining knowledge. I do not see any corelation between the explosion of a field of light and energy and the emerging of man's consciousness, if I missed something, then do explain it as I am still at study.

The ramifications of something that thinks and is in a state of eternal existence would also open up windows of possibility into the question of "when I die, then what". Granted, these ramifications are highly speculative and leave us with a similar mystery to the one that most scientists accept as preceding the Big Bang.

How did God start everything going in the first place? What process was involved? What evidence can you point to for any of it? If there is none, then you don't actually know anything about the nature of this entity whose existence you imply to be necessary. There's no basis for your claim of knowledge, only a leap into the unknown (and presumably unknowable-by-human-reason) on the basis of utter ignorance.
Being as I have stated earlier in this post that I do not claim to have these answers, I am not going to respond to this, other than to state that knowledge ends with the life of the individual. It is not ignorance that I am basing my arguement on, but the question of what man's final end is, as well as the knowledge that he gathers onto himself through his unique ability of analysis and abstraction.

I do not neccesarily believe that God is unknowable-by-human-reason, because our reason expands our field of knowledge. Reason was present at every corner that Aquinas turned when he discovered and defined the theology that I operate under. Even when I make the leap into belief that God exists, I realize that my conclusions might well be at error, just as making a similar leap and declaring that there is absolutely no way that such an entity could exist might be at error. The other option is the one that you are articulating, that such things are not knowable and thus can't be pursued. While this does clearly apply to current human knowledge, it does not neccessitate that it would always be the case.

So there's a gap in our knowledge--what you're having recourse to is the old god in the gaps, in which any gap in our knowledge is taken as evidence of God...until the gap gets filled by naturalistic knowledge. Perhaps God does exist in one of those gaps--but how can you prove it? If you don't know why something is the way it is, then you can't, by that very fact, know enough to say that what lurks in that gap is unknowable by human reason rather than just currently unknown.

I agree with this except in one respect, and I don't assume to speak for all Christians and theologians, but my motive is not to seek gaps in knowledge in order to make this assertion. This would indicate a hostility towards filling these gaps because I would need gaps in order to hold onto my viewpoint. Quite the contrary, the one thing I hold dearer than my own premises about God is the truth, and I am prepared to accept that God exists in none of these gaps and hense not at all.

I hope you don't misread my intentions but one of them in this particular debate is to gain an understanding about the criticisms against my chosen theological and philosophical persuation. In the process, I will offer my arguements for my chosen viewpoint, and scrutinize the arguements offered against it which I might not have considered. The Endgame of this debate, thus, is not neccesarily one where one of us concedes defeat (in religious debates, this very rarely happens) but one where I am satisfied that I have exhausted all avenues of discourse and can thus consider their ramifications.

In short, you're just pasting the name "God" over current ignorance; science recognizes the same ignorance but doesn't make the unsupportable claim that what's there is unknowable or transcendent. Perhaps it is, but we'll never actually really know that, will we? We'll just get closer and closer, but whether that last little passel of gaps can never be filled by the sustained exercise of human reason is not something we'd be able to say--and, more importantly, neither can the theologians, since being human, they have the same limitations as other humans.
God is not neccesarily unknowable, granted the Vatican does make this assertion but if it is to maintain it's status it must always concede the truth, even when it is not convenient for whomever may be in power at the time. Furthermore, although my primary scientific approach to this is one that relies solely on deducing from current knowns, my aim is not to slow down the journey closer to the solution, but to consider potential solutions to current problems.

Because there's still a lot of uncollected gas and dust out there from the Big Bang (whatever its nature) that is all the time slowly condensing to produce stars.

It would thus be assumed that contained in the nature of the given gas and dust is a process of re-collecting that would create a new star. My question would be, is the object of light that existed just before the big bang considered of a similar nature to current stars and cosmic phenomena? And if so, would it be sufficient to assert that the Big Bang was itself a massive star that resulted from all gas and dust recollecting at the centerpoint after a cycle current to our own. And if this be the case, would it be assumed that the empty space surrounding this center is finite in nature?

How does positing a god explain the organization of existents? Because God made them that way? Why? How? Well, He just did--that's how, that's why. That's not an explanation, it's just pasting a name to our ignorance.
The implementation of such an organization is obviously a mystery, and clearly we can deduce that there are laws of nature that are at work. What I am more trying to understand here is the hostility to the idea that scientific discourse can result in theism (and it does in many cases, though clearly not the majority of current scientists, most of whom are not Objectivists, but Logical Positivists). If coming to the conclusion, while adhering to reason, that God exists is so neutral, what is the neccessity for eliminating it from the equation. If it is possible, where's the beef?

But just to add perspective to my viewpoints for those reading this thread, I concur that what Martin Luther coined as "Sola Fida" or by faith alone is an irrational method of knowledge, one that paves the way towards tyranny and suffering. This was also the case with the Catholic Church before Aquinas, and also today in many quarters where there is hostility towards Thomism (we are not the only theolgians in the Catholic Church obviously). But many of the Enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire and Locke held views similar to mine (as well as Einstein), where is the error in their conclusions.

P.S. - I oppose the Intelligent Design Theory on the same grounds that Objectivists do, it is not an improvment on existing scientific theory, and it will only serve to contradict established truth about the nature of the scientific process. I do not worship a God that wishes his own creations to stagnate.

Mental entities like concepts are distinct from what they refer to "out there," and being symbolic representations of some sort, they can be abstracted from or combined in other ways. ("Oh, what a beautiful horse! Imagine a horn on its head--my, is that not a beautiful thing!")

In this respect, it's somewhat like taking modeling clay that's been molded into shapes of other things, then glomming them together, or shaving off clay from one in accordance with the shape of another of the lumps, or what-not. The original shapes can be taken as referring to other things, but after modification they need not. I doubt that's an earth-shattering analogy for you; the point is that while the nature of consciousness is not entirely understood, the basis of such creativity is probably the capacity for symbolic representation.
Hmmm. I will admit that I like the analogy of the unicorn better than that of the modeling clay, but I do see your point here. By the same token, would such innovations as the table and chairs come forth from some process of analyzing the current state of nature? It has been my view that man does these things through a process of altering objects such as a rock that happens to conveniently be the right height to support one's food, and other similar naturally occuring objects for one to sit upon, and then imagines them being made of something else within nature for purposes of practical manipulation and comfort.

That is, the capacity to associate a referent with an arbitrary mental unit, such as a string of sounds (or, rather, the mental units that encode the articulations of the vocal tract to produce those sounds and their corresponding acoustic features), and the capacity to manipulate the resulting mental unit as a unit--perhaps by arranging it in a hierarchical network of contrasts and associations, or by abstracting away certain of its qualities and manipulating the result, and so on. It's the fact that this association is arbitrary (in the sense that the mental unit as such needn't have any properties that are the same as those of the referent, but simply represents the referent) rather than iconic or indexical (to use the terms common in cognitive science) that makes creativity possible. (Which is why the analogy of modeling clay is ultimately too limited--the modeling clay would be a case of iconic representation, where the association between referent and representation is not arbitrary at all, but is instead one-to-one in the same property, extension. By the same token, you can't say that a symbolic representation is "composed of" symbolic representations of the parts that compose the referent and into which the representation of the whole can be broken down; instead, the referent's component parts would have their own distinct symbolic representations, if it is necessary to refer to them, that are associated mentally with the original symbolic representation.) --Well, I hope that wasn't too unclear. You might want to check out the first part of Terrence Deacon's The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain for a thought-provoking discussion of all that.

I will definately check out the source you've cited, I am always intrigued about the process of the evolution of thought. My only questions further in this regard is what part of the human brain allows this process to occur, and how did it develop in humans but not in other animals. It is clearly not an issue of the physical size of the brain, but of it's specific structure.

There's a relevent discussion of this question on the 4aynrandfans.net forum.

[edit: I didn't mean to butt in to the debate-- just thought I'd offer a refference point for those interested in this question. Carry on. : D]

I thank you for the added info Bold Standard, one of my purposes for starting this debate was gaining a better perspective on the nature of current scientific theory, as well as gaining a clearer knowledge of Objectivism's similarities and contrasts with my own philosophy. This will aid me in my pursuit. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The organization of existents.

If there has to be a source for the organization of existents then there has to be a source for God too and so on ad infinitum. Things are what they are. The first principle is that of existence. There is no cause for existence. To attempt to justify the cause of existence is an attempt to justify existence by means of non-existence which is impossible.

2. The re-organization and utilization of energy in spite of a tendency towards chaos.

There is no proof that the universe reorganizes itself. Infact the dynamics of the universe depend on a WHOLE lot of factors not the least of which is the correct theory of physics applicable in all contexts. We know very little of the universe currently and don't have a unified theory of physics. So I don't think that the law of entropy is an argument for God. And by the way, currently there are scientific theories which say that the universe oscillates through cycles of expansion and contraction though I can't say whether these are true or false.

Putting God as a cause of the continued existence of the universe is not rational.

3. The fact that human beings are capable of imagining things that either do not exist or have not been observed with the senses. (Note: this does not imply spontaneous thought independent of experience, but the ability to alter observed phenomena in one's mind to create new imaginary phenomena.)

4. The ability of man alone to philosophize.

The physical cause of free will is as yet unknown. If you want to show that God causes free will in human beings, you are free to do so but you must show HOW God causes it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one purports to operate on a rational epistemology I ask only one question to those who speak of "God."

What is God?

I don't know what god is. Literally. I know what one may say is god, but in the epsitemological sense, I don't know what it/he/she/that is.

So tell me, before one goes and speak of it as the creator of the universe, what is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the tendency of an object is to do something, and it does something else that would seem contrary to that tendency, the issue must clearly be addressed. The belief that God takes an active role in the organization of existents is a leap of faith, but I have seen no other explanation that sufficiently explains the following phenomena.

1. The organization of existents.

2. The re-organization and utilization of energy in spite of a tendency towards chaos.

3. The fact that human beings are capable of imagining things that either do not exist or have not been observed with the senses. (Note: this does not imply spontaneous thought independent of experience, but the ability to alter observed phenomena in one's mind to create new imaginary phenomena.)

4. The ability of man alone to philosophize.

Having no explanation for some aspect of reality is not an argument for the existence of God anymore than it is an argument for a super-race of invisible leprechauns who control and organize everything in the universe. If you don't understand something, then you need to do more observing, more thinking, more scientific research and more experimentation. Taking leaps of faith takes you nowhere but into the realm of ignorance.

Indeed, you are committing a logical fallacy: an appeal to ignorance. Basically you are saying that we don't know why some things happen, so why not have faith in God?

You claim that God is an "explanation" for the phenomena you point out. But this is a completely arbitrary, faith-based assertion. What evidence do you have for your assertion, other than your appeal to ignorance?

Aquinas at least designed his five "proofs" for God. Do you have any "proofs" that we can analyze? Do you agree with Aquinas' five "proofs?" If so, perhaps we should be debating those and not the specifics of the science of thermodynamics. (I basically agree, by the way, with the existing criticism of your view of thermodynamics and have nothing else to add on that issue.)

I'm not clear on what you mean when you say that you are a Thomist. I'm not well-studied on Thomism, but I know the basics. Perhaps you've answered this already (excuse me if you have), but could you note again for me what exactly makes you a Thomist on the issue of God's existence and the universe? I would be interested in any logical formulations you can present. I'm less interested in "old school" leaps of faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I am more trying to understand here is the hostility to the idea that scientific discourse can result in theism ... If coming to the conclusion, while adhering to reason, that God exists is so neutral, what is the neccessity for eliminating it from the equation. If it is possible, where's the beef?

The "hostility" is mainly directed at the assertion that there is scientific evidence that points toward theism. In fact you have absolutely no proof for the existence of God. This is why you must have faith in contradiction to the scientific evidence that you do have. If you believe the Bible to be historical fact, then you do so in contradiction to practically all that science has to tell us about the history and nature of the world and mankind. If you believe that God exists, then you do so in contradiction to every waking moment you have in which God is nowhere to be seen or heard or experienced in any way whatsoever.

The only problem I have in arguing against the existence of God is that those who assert this idea make a habit of not describing God's identity in concrete, manageable terms. Basically, theists tend to argue that God is something that can do anything. This is their "open" concept for God. It allows them to turn God into whatever someone will believe--usually it begins with God being the creator of the "universe."

But this "open" concept of God also aids in frustrating the rational opponent by hopelessly confusing him as to the question at hand. For, how can one answer the question "Does God exist?" if no proper definition of God has been established? Due to the theist's typical insistence on an "open" concept of God, it is generally the case that, in debates of this nature, the first half of the discussion is spent trying to milk a proper definition of God from the theist, and the second half is spent forgetting why you were milking him.

Theists rarely stray from the "open" concept of God, because whenever they attempt to give concrete examples, they begin to sound silly, end up taking giant leaps of faith, and ultimately lose the debate to an opponent who wields reason and science. The "open" concept of God is the theist's security blanket. If he lets go of it, his whole world will come crashing down.

My "hostility" is therefore also the expected result of having to deal with the "open" concept of God. It is damn frustrating, and generally a big waste of time to debate someone who hasn't much of a clue about the identity of his God. However, being a man of superior willpower, I try my best to remain civil when confronted with even the greatest champions of the invisible Magician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Argument Against God

There are theists who claim that God is supernatural—that he is above or beyond the natural realm. God, they say, made the universe, therefore he must be something greater than or separate or different from all of that which comprises his creation. I say that such a God is logically impossible. For he could never have created the natural realm. If God is actually supernatural, beyond nature, then with what sort of substance did he create all of nature? There was nothing with which he could have created the universe in the first place.

Theists, of course, try to slip out of this problem by arbitrarily asserting that God created the universe ex nihilo—out of nothing. But this, too, is impossible, for logic and science tell us that something cannot be created from nothing. Nothing is merely the absence of something. So if God had not yet created something, then of what was there nothing? If God had zero things to work with, then how in the world did he create the world? You cannot make a tree out of a hole in the ground.

To solve this problem, the myth-makers have dreamed up the fantasy of miracles.

So, you can see that in the end the basic idea of God comes down to this: God is something that can do anything. God is this thing beyond nature that we don’t know anything about, other than the fact that he can clearly do whatever he wants. And how do we know that he can do whatever he wants? Because it is impossible for him to have created the natural realm out of nothing. Therefore, he must be capable of doing the impossible.

In general, the theist’s absurd self-contradicting argument consists of this: God exists because it is impossible for him to exist. God must be a miracle-worker because it is impossible for him to create the natural realm from absolutely nothing. From this perspective, it might be said that I actually agree with the theist. And in fact I do agree that God is impossible. I simply disagree on God's existence. The theist has faith in the impossible. I say the impossible doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thank you for entering the debate MisterSwig, this is exactly what I was looking for, a debate on the facts attributed to the arguement.

There are theists who claim that God is supernatural—that he is above or beyond the natural realm. God, they say, made the universe, therefore he must be something greater than or separate or different from all of that which comprises his creation. I say that such a God is logically impossible. For he could never have created the natural realm. If God is actually supernatural, beyond nature, then with what sort of substance did he create all of nature? There was nothing with which he could have created the universe in the first place.
This seems to be a slightly different worded version of what is known as the "All of reality and God's existence" arguement. One of the fundamental errors made in this appeal is the tendency to denote the "natural universe" and "reality" as being synonymous, when both clearly are not so by definition. One refers to a metaphysical concrete, the other to the epistemological definition of it. If you are making a distinction between the two and you think my assumption to be at error, please say so as I will revise my comments accordingly. I shall now proceed to break this down logically and seek to scrutinize the logic at work here.

1. "Reality" is denotative of all of that which exists.

2. Entity X is postulated to exist outside of reality.

3. Statement 2 reduces to: entity X is postulated to exist outside of all that which exists.

4. Statement 3 is a logical contradiction (semantically) and hence cannot meaningfully correspond to anything.

5. Therefore, any entity attributed with such an "existence" cannot logically exist (since it is defined not to exist by placing it outside of reality).

Now from your arguement, I will make the assumption that you denote nature as being the concept of reality that denotes all that which exists. This is not an incorrect assertion in my view, for nature runs the entire measure of reality, but let us deal with the arguement.

In reference to Statement 2: This arguement is a logical fallacy because statement 2 contradicts statement 1. If God exists, then by the standard presented, he/she/it must be contained in that reality. Since this error is made by theists constantly (I do not deny it), they two are subject to the consequences of presenting a logical contradiction as an arguement, and that is to be ridiculed by people whom think rationally.

In reference to Statement 3: The premise here is correct. If it is a logical contradiction, then it is illogical. However, illogic is in the statement of the argument in premise two which contradicts premise one. When one merely states that premise 2 is as it is, does not mean that it is, especially when it contradicts the previous premise.

Ultimately the error lies with the theists you mention, I do not pretend to share their views as they are entirely indefensible. However, the error of the scientist does not negate the actual natural law, so by the same standard, under the assumption that something can possibly exist, the same standard applies. The primary problem is that many Christian theists do not have enough respect for reason, I do not share this problem myself.

Theists, of course, try to slip out of this problem by arbitrarily asserting that God created the universe ex nihilo—out of nothing. But this, too, is impossible, for logic and science tell us that something cannot be created from nothing. Nothing is merely the absence of something. So if God had not yet created something, then of what was there nothing? If God had zero things to work with, then how in the world did he create the world? You cannot make a tree out of a hole in the ground.

Indeed, and once again they can not get very far as they run into the problem of science stating the opposite. There are two primary errors with this mode of correcting a mistake by making another, and I will offer you my remedies.

1. God, regardless to what an irrational mystic asserts, is essentially something. If he exists, he has a metaphysical nature that functions as an existence, this much can be deduced from the nature of existence. By this standard, something existed (in this case, we treat God as something, and attributing of course his eternal existence, which is implied by his being infinite) so nothing was created ex nihilo.

2. Genesis does not state that "in the beginning there was nothing". The actual quote states "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." (Genesis, 1. 1) What existed preceding what is referred to as creation is not stated, but the implication states that God preceded the creation of the two places denoted as "heaven" and "earth". Now, to keep everything within context, heaven is only referred to as being separate from the earth in this quote, ergo it's distinction is that it is beyond the place where the subject of genesis (planet Earth) takes place. Furthermore, created does not imply "out of nothing" because the state of existence preceding genesis is not defined by scripture, so potentially creation could merely mean the distinction between the planet Earth and a separate place. This does not neccesarily mean that heaven subsumes every place beyond our atmosphere, nor that heaven and earth are the only places of reference in the universe.

There is nothing that necessitates an empty existence preceding God, although I will concede that many theists seem to think this to be the case. Now as to how God created anything, this is obviously an unknown, and I am not claiming that I have any provable theories on this. However, God is treated as being an entity that is essentially cause without potency, ergo there is no potential, there is either realized action or inaction based on a clearly present nature attributed to the entity in question. The means to the actions attributed to God are not known, but it is obvious that when someone states that God creates something ex nihilo, the statement is fallacious logically.

To solve this problem, the myth-makers have dreamed up the fantasy of miracles.
From the viewpoint of one functioning without the knowledge of the means of the entity that acts, the term miracle is an accurate way of denoting the given action from the point of view of the one making the assertion. However, this does not suggest that these acts are neccesarily without a rational basis, only that the nature of these acts is not within the scope of the observer. The discovery of fire was treated mythically by the Ancient Greeks before it's true nature was observed and a proper natural definition given.

So, you can see that in the end the basic idea of God comes down to this: God is something that can do anything. God is this thing beyond nature that we don’t know anything about, other than the fact that he can clearly do whatever he wants. And how do we know that he can do whatever he wants? Because it is impossible for him to have created the natural realm out of nothing. Therefore, he must be capable of doing the impossible.

This is not an accurate conclusion. There are many things that God can not do, and this becomes evident from the flawed, yet intriguing arguements that other atheists have brought to my attention and to those of other more logically based theologians. One obvious thing that God can not do is "not be God", in other words, God can not do things that contradict his own nature. To elaborate further, I will give you examples that I have come across on some forums where similar debates have occured.

Example 1: Can God create a rock so big that he can not pick it up?

Example 2: Can God contradict natural law (natural law is treated as part of God's nature, so to contradict natural law would necessitate violating his own nature), by such means as burning water into ash or by creating square circles?

These challenges to the assertion that God can not be omnipotent are two obviously unique paradoxes. The first suggests that God must violate his own nature in order to be God, the other suggests that God must create things that can not be observed in nature in order to prove his nature to someone bound by natural law. The problem with these challenges is that the one making these assertions has to suspend the natural law they claim to defend in order to do it, and this is a self-refuting method.

God's omnipotence is not something divorced from his/her/it's nature, it is a part of it, and thus means that God's nature is not hindered by potency (ergo the potential to be potent or impotent), ergo his nature is maximized to it's fullest extent. To coin an analogy, as a human being, I am capable of swimming. However, I can not outswim a shark, as it is not within my nature. Even if I maximized my potential and became as physically fit as possible, I can not by virtue that I am not endowed with such an ability by natural law.

In general, the theist’s absurd self-contradicting argument consists of this: God exists because it is impossible for him to exist. God must be a miracle-worker because it is impossible for him to create the natural realm from absolutely nothing. From this perspective, it might be said that I actually agree with the theist. And in fact I do agree that God is impossible. I simply disagree on God's existence. The theist has faith in the impossible. I say the impossible doesn't exist.

Given the nature of the theist's view, this is obviously the case, however this does not apply to me or to God, assuming that he exists of course. The error of the observer has no impact on the nature of the object observed, by the same standard, the speculator's error does not impact the potential existence of a yet undiscovered phenomena. I myself do not have faith in the impossible, because it is a contradiction, and I do not believe in such things.

P.S. - I apologize for not responding to your other posts at this time, when I have more time I will give them a proper response. I extend the same to anyone else whose posts I've not yet responded to, it is not my intention to ignore your statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I ask: "What is god?"

I don't understand what you are talking about but you seem to have a clear knowledge of this thing called "god." Please explain.

I'm being a bit sarcastic here but I think most of you understand the point I'm trying to make.

In all seriousness however, again, I would like dark unicorn to answer the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I ask: "What is god?"

I don't understand what you are talking about but you seem to have a clear knowledge of this thing called "god." Please explain.

I'm being a bit sarcastic here but I think most of you understand the point I'm trying to make.

In all seriousness however, again, I would like dark unicorn to answer the question.

Before I give my answer to your question, which by virtue of the tone of your post will probably not be sufficient for you, I will run through a rather lengthy yet neccesary set of points in order to pre-emptively answer the various questions that would surely follow a basic , concise answer.

The implied objection that I predict will come is the "If something can not be described, how can it exist?" arguement. I answer that the existence of God, like any other entity is not dependent upon anyone's ability to describe it. All existents (including God, bound by the logical laws implied in existence) exist independent of the point of view of any observer. Furthermore, the ability of someone to accurately describe it's existence does not limit it to existence. Certain phenomena such as rainbows, nebulla, arora borealis, et cetera are extremely difficult to describe verbally, paling in comparison to the obvious superiority of an eye witness account. The inability to attribute the words that would capture the experience does not impact the event itself, nor would the inability of a blind person to observe them diminish their nature.

As this applies to God, a perfectly accurate explanation of him is obviously beyond me, but deduction allows the discription of many traits attributable to such an entity. For example, if you accept the Bible's take that God created what we know of as ordered existence (out of whatever preceded the act) then obviously from the work of ordered existence we can tell that his nature, which is reflected in nature, is one of logical order and purpose. Since he is also treated as the beginning of things, it seems logical to conclude that such a being is eternal, and uncreated as the consequencial affect of infinite regression is an irreconcilable paradox where no beginning or end is discernable.

If God is treated as the originater of matter, then obviously such an entity possesses the ability to manipulate whatever matter is made up of, to endow it with the neccesary properties to perform their natural functions. Such a being would clearly possess intelligence and ability far surpassing what has ever been observed of metaphysical phenomena. Furthermore, as something percieved as infinite in nature, it stands to reason that his size/scope can only be measured in contrast to finite beings.

But if you must have it simply stated, God is goodness, the kind that is found in all well-ordered nature. God is goodness that is constant, always in accordance with it's own nature, the nature to endow life and order to things. God is the enforcer and originator of the natural laws, and thus is always present in every event and in the causes preceding it. The endowment of free will which stems from him makes him present in human choice, thought it does not neccesitate that he dictates the choices and determines the outcomes.

This would be my abridged description, I could post more, but I think I've tortured you enough for now. But just remember before you jump all over me and state that my finite response is not sufficient to describe something that is claimed to be infinite, remember that the inability of a perfect description does not negate the existant of phenomena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. If there has to be a source for the organization of existents then there has to be a source for God too and so on ad infinitum. Things are what they are. The first principle is that of existence. There is no cause for existence. To attempt to justify the cause of existence is an attempt to justify existence by means of non-existence which is impossible.

2. There is no proof that the universe reorganizes itself. Infact the dynamics of the universe depend on a WHOLE lot of factors not the least of which is the correct theory of physics applicable in all contexts. We know very little of the universe currently and don't have a unified theory of physics. So I don't think that the law of entropy is an argument for God. And by the way, currently there are scientific theories which say that the universe oscillates through cycles of expansion and contraction though I can't say whether these are true or false.

3. Putting God as a cause of the continued existence of the universe is not rational.

The physical cause of free will is as yet unknown. If you want to show that God causes free will in human beings, you are free to do so but you must show HOW God causes it.

1. If we follow how God is defined by Christian standards, God is what God is, which is an uncreated entity. The infinite regression senario only holds up if God is defined as a creator whose existence is dependent upon another creator. If God is treated in his hypothetical existence (I say this because I can't back this up with hard scientific fact) as carrying the definition attributed to him (which he would have to or else he would cease to be what he is) then to divorce his attributes from his existence would be a logical fallacy. Furthermore, the axiom of existence does not necessitate that certain entities to be disqualified from existence because they are not immediately definable nor observable, or because of the magnitude of their impact on existence. You will note that I did not divorce God from existence, nor did I state that he precedes existence, but what is clearly implied in my arguements is that the high probability that an entity not yet fully observed has his hand in this best of all possible worlds.

2. I would hope that the universe doesn't reorganize itself, because then we would be living in a Hegelian/Pantheistic universe, I'll take the Objectivist version of metaphysics over that any day of the week. But to stay on topic, the arguement about entropy is mostly a testament to the parallel nature between science and theism, until further data is uncovered, the arguement itself will obviously be insufficient as a hard proof. However, given that no examples have yet been uncovered where the Laws of Thermodynamics are contradicted, we have something to go on in the meantime. I'm curious to know a bit more about this theory of a universe that oscillates in cycles, can you give me any references to go after so I can read more about it?

3. If I would put God as the cause of mere existence (as in without order or a constant nature) then obviously not, but this is not the blank canvass that I am seeking to credit to God. I'm guessing that you'll all agree with me that there are no such things as accidents in existence, so if God truly does not exist, then something clearly accounts for our existence within existence. As stated before, truth is my primary goal here.

P.S. - As far as a physical cause of free will versus God endowing it, I'm not really sure I can get into it without quoting what are deemed to be works inspired by God (obviously books that are not regarded as scientific). But to add a wrinkle, the human mind seems to be the only known one that can consciously rob itself of the ability to comprehend it's own existence, this is most curious and obviously demands further study. It is a shame that many psychologists still think that innate ideas triumph over human choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To elaborate on Proverb's question, I have a couple of points to ask you about regarding your definition of God.

What is the distinction between "God" (in your view) and "the natural universe"? Can they be distinguished? Are they one and the same? Is God part of the natural universe, or the natural universe part of God? We know the natural universe exists-- why do we need this separate notion of "God," which seems to unite such disparate concepts?

Does God possess a "consciousness"? Is he, as some have alleged, "pure consciousness," contemplating only Himself? Isn't God just an elaborate anthropomorphism, ascribing human consciousness to the natural world?

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having no explanation for some aspect of reality is not an argument for the existence of God anymore than it is an argument for a super-race of invisible leprechauns who control and organize everything in the universe. If you don't understand something, then you need to do more observing, more thinking, more scientific research and more experimentation. Taking leaps of faith takes you nowhere but into the realm of ignorance.

I just wanted to respond to this rather witty portion of MisterSwig's first post because I think this warrants some exploration into some of the potential problems that can arise when utilizing analogy in a debate. Let us take a look at the two concepts under comparison here, God and the super-race of invisible lephrechauns.

1. The history of the Leprechaun goes back to olden days on the good old island of Ireland (where I trace most of my ancestry). They are described as a type of male elf, ergo a class of faerie folk, usually sporting a green suit and hat, and has a knack for hiding gold and shining shoes. They have a very rich history in folklore, some believe that they go all the way back to before the Celts came to that lonely little island just off western coast of Britain. Now as far as I can tell, there is no literature that endows them with the ability to control and organize the universe, although they have been known to occasionally play practical jokes on druken Irishmen wandering the streets at night (the intoxication of these supposed eye-witnesses of leprechaun sightings should obviously be taken into account). I've even heard that they can assume the form of a hare when in danger of being captured and grant 3 wishes if caught. But nothing about causing much to happen outside of the borders of Ireland and occasionally being the subject of some rather charming childrens books and Disney flicks like Darby O'Gill and the little people.

Now, most people nowadays admit that the leprechaun is obviously a myth and primarily invoke it for the sake of tradition on certain holidays and to tell rather amazing yet obviously fictional stories. Aside from those whom are either daft and still unfortunately running around without physical restraints, or a person being out of touch with reality, few people claim leprechauns to be truly in existence or somehow manipulating the material universe.

2. The origin of the monotheistic deity goes back quite a bit, but the Judeo-Christian God traces back to the time of Abraham and Exodus in the Old Testament (Torah). No one doubts that Abraham, Moses, Jesus, or any of the other people never actually existed, the primary criticism is that what happen to them was ornamented by prevailing mystical tendencies at the time. So the first obvious distinction is that while leprechauns are obviously fictional in every respect, we have pretty much alot of accurate and verifiable historical documents of people credited as being prophets of God (and the Messiah in the case of Jesus). Furthermore, many people (and I mean more than a few hundred) testify to having witnessed the allegedly fallacious miracles that are supposedly mythical. Now, all of these eyewitnesses might have been either delusional or complicit in some sort of historical fraud, but the odds of it are extremely low when you consider the testimony of historical opponents of Christianity whom knew these eyewitnesses. Now, the miracles are a bone of contention, but clearly something happened that was beyond the scope of understanding at the time, and that something obviously would demand some further study. In the case of leprechauns, I doubt that anyone would seriously suggest that we need to study that matter further.

Now, I do not disagree with MisterSwig that we need more research, more experiementation, more rational thought, and less mystical explanations of things that are obviously observable by scientific scrutiny. However, I still have not seen anything concrete that would suggest that I am robbed of any of these things because of my leap of faith on the macro-issue of God. The lack of a distinction made between my beliefs and those of the science-haters in this particular post puzzles me a bit.

Now to close off my response to this rather intriguing post: "A witty saying proves nothing" (Voltaire)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To elaborate on Proverb's question, I have a couple of points to ask you about regarding your definition of God.

What is the distinction between "God" (in your view) and "the natural universe"? Can they be distinguished? Are they one and the same? Is God part of the natural universe, or the natural universe part of God? We know the natural universe exists-- why do we need this separate notion of "God," which seems to unite such disparate concepts?

Does God possess a "consciousness"? Is he, as some have alleged, "pure consciousness," contemplating only Himself? Isn't God just an elaborate anthropomorphism, ascribing human consciousness to the natural world?

The primary distinction that would arise between the "natural universe" and God is that nature, in itself, does not seem to tend towards order. Granted, this is dependent on my reference to the theory of Entropy, and this may not account for the whole natural universe. The distinction would be that the beginning of what is known as life (plant/animal/human) is dependent upon a certain set of circumstance that is not found everywhere in the universe. The distinction would be similar to that of a city that is obviously a work of man and contains all of the marvelous creations of the human spirit (architecture, art, music, commerce, et cetera) and the seemingly random nature of an untamed forest. Essentially, if there is no distinction between God and the natural universe, God would then only function as an elaborate anthropomorphism.

Now, the "pure consciousness" senario is a bit of a mystery to me, because if God contemplates only himself, it would go against the idea of omniscience. Granted, that something is endowed with the ability to see all does not neccessitate that he would seek to always do so, since God is also seen as possessing a free will and being the first example of this particular attribute. I'm not really sold on Aristotle's idea of God, though it clearly accounts for the Deists of the Enlightenment, and far be it for me to criticize the views of a generation of philosophers who have given us so much.

Ultimately, what we tend to visualize God as could and might well be an abstraction of our own ideals, but this does not mean that the entity does not exist, though it would suggest that the revelations of Christianity are products of the imagination alone and that God's nature would be completely different from what is currently attributed to him. I can tell you what I think God is based on my research of the writings of Augustine, Aquinas, and many of the early fathers of the Catholic Church. Whether or not it is factual, I will probably not know until I die, which is one of the reasons why I actually strongly detest the act of proselytizing, because it arises when a person's zeal for a belief clouds their perspective on what that belief ought to imply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the first obvious distinction is that while leprechauns are obviously fictional in every respect, we have pretty much a lot of accurate and verifiable historical documents of people credited as being prophets of God (and the Messiah in the case of Jesus).

You're scrambling up the analogy a little bit. There is just as much evidence of Irish storytellers making up tales of leprechauns as there is of Hebrews making up stories about God and miracles. The analogy would be: "Leprechauns are to Irish folklore as God is to Christian mythology." Not: "Leprechauns are to Irish folklore as the religious Fathers are to world history."

"Furthermore, many people (and I mean more than a few hundred) testify to having witnessed the allegedly fallacious miracles that are supposedly mythical. Now, all of these eyewitnesses might have been either delusional or complicit in some sort of historical fraud, but the odds of it are extremely low when you consider the testimony of historical opponents of Christianity whom knew these eyewitnesses."

They're not so low at all when you consider every major religion has legions of followers professing to be witness to such miracles. To this day, there are Buddhists in Tibet swearing to have seen Monks levitating, and causing things to explode with their mind-powers and so forth. And, as someone who takes Christianity seriously, do you really think all the nutcases who drink rattlesnake venom and kooky evangelists who perform "healings" in front of huge auditoriums are the embodiment of God's power and presence on Earth? Are they even worth studying, beyond maybe a sociological or psychopathological interest? Someone might come away from a David Blaine show thinking they saw magic, but that doesn't mean a miracle actually occured. For many of the early "prophets" of religion, in the East and West, appearing to have super powers granted from God was part of their profession. And prior to science, the industrial revolution, and the printing press, it was (relatively) easy to dupe people into believing the impossible (even into believing in ghosts and leprechauns).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that you occasionally bring up the Bible in your arguments to give certain examples... However, if there is any book one would not want to use as a basis for a good argument then it's the Bible, so I am quite mystified at this. That book is full of internal contradictions, and therefore useless as a historical document.

One very interesting criticism of the Bible I've read a while ago is part 2 of Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason. I assume you might already know of this book, though.

In any case, could you explain why you consider the Bible to be of any worth whatsoever as a basis for (some of) your arguments?

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The primary distinction that would arise between the "natural universe" and God is that nature, in itself, does not seem to tend towards order. Granted, this is dependent on my reference to the theory of Entropy, and this may not account for the whole natural universe. The distinction would be that the beginning of what is known as life (plant/animal/human) is dependent upon a certain set of circumstance that is not found everywhere in the universe. The distinction would be similar to that of a city that is obviously a work of man and contains all of the marvelous creations of the human spirit (architecture, art, music, commerce, et cetera) and the seemingly random nature of an untamed forest. Essentially, if there is no distinction between God and the natural universe, God would then only function as an elaborate anthropomorphism.

So, your God operates as an agent within the natural universe? Is He like Plato's Demigod, who arrived in the Heraclitian disorderly universe, and attempted to bring order to the chaos, except a little more thorough in His work than Plato's was?

Now, the "pure consciousness" senario is a bit of a mystery to me, because if God contemplates only himself, it would go against the idea of omniscience. Granted, that something is endowed with the ability to see all does not necessitate that he would seek to always do so, since God is also seen as possessing a free will and being the first example of this particular attribute. I'm not really sold on Aristotle's idea of God, though it clearly accounts for the Deists of the Enlightenment, and far be it for me to criticize the views of a generation of philosophers who have given us so much.
It seems to me that your God's lack of potency or potentiality would be a limit on His omnipotence. But, since you limit your God's omnipotence to only doing what is in His nature, couldn't you just as easily limit His omniscience to knowing only Himself? I think the standard explanation is that, in knowing Himself, that type of God does know everything, because in him are all the complete, pure Forms of the universe, and the specific behavior of particulars can be deduced from these divine universal concepts, even though He doesn't observe them directly. In fact, as I understand it, that's how Aquinas' angels are able to interact with humans. They don't have sense organs to perceive us-- they actually look at God, and contemplate the relevant universals such as "Manness" and they deduce where they need to be and what they need to say in order to give us messages and so forth. That's one of the ideas that always fascinated me about Aquinas, and his detailed "angelology." If you know anything more about that, maybe we should start a new thread (because I think that idea has some relevance to Ayn Rand's epistemology, and I'd like to understand it better).

Ultimately, what we tend to visualize God as could and might well be an abstraction of our own ideals, but this does not mean that the entity does not exist, though it would suggest that the revelations of Christianity are products of the imagination alone and that God's nature would be completely different from what is currently attributed to him. I can tell you what I think God is based on my research of the writings of Augustine, Aquinas, and many of the early fathers of the Catholic Church. Whether or not it is factual, I will probably not know until I die, which is one of the reasons why I actually strongly detest the act of proselytizing, because it arises when a person's zeal for a belief clouds their perspective on what that belief ought to imply.

Well, even though my disagreements with Christianity and religion are severe, I do think they got this much right: there is such a thing as "the sacred." There is a "soul." There is a "highest good possible." It's just, I think in making this Good unreachable, and unfathomable, and introducing concepts such as original sin, and demonic dominion of the material realm, they commit blasphemy against that which is truly noble in their philosophy, which is-- preserving the sanctity of the efficacious individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I see that you occasionally bring up the Bible in your arguments to give certain examples... However, if there is any book one would not want to use as a basis for a good argument then it's the Bible, so I am quite mystified at this. That book is full of internal contradictions, and therefore useless as a historical document.

2. One very interesting criticism of the Bible I've read a while ago is part 2 of Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason. I assume you might already know of this book, though.

3. In any case, could you explain why you consider the Bible to be of any worth whatsoever as a basis for (some of) your arguments?

1. I didn't notice any internal contradictions myself, although there are some issues of interpreting passages within the spectrum of senses that exist within scripture. Thomas Aquinas mentioned there being an issue of the mutliplicity of senses contained within the Bible, and that the literal sense of the documents contained within was something to be sought out from the various derivative senses (historical, figurative, parabolic, et cetera). Every example of an internal contradiction that has been brought to my attention results from the context either being dropped, or by confounding the obvious application of one sense with another in which the given passage exists for the sake of a given arguement. Granted, the full extent of the literal sense of scripture is still a mystery, because we would need to fully know every aspect of the natural universe in order to measure the contained ramifications as being parallel with reality.

2. I am currently still at study on the various figures of the Enlightenment, I am aware of this book, but I am currently occupied with Voltaire's various satires and John Locke's Treatises of Government. All of my study in this subject has been done independently as I am not currently studying at a university. I will get back to you on this when I manage to get a copy of the book and have had ample time to peruse it's contents.

3. In regards to the Genesis quote that I gave, which was in the context of my debate with MisterSwig, he has brought up the fact that many theists (some of them are probably Catholic) argue that God creates Ex Nihilo. Since most Christians use the Bible as a reference for this (most Protestants use it alone, without considering either sacred tradition, or taking the time to consider the possibilities of erronius interpretation being exposed by reality) I was specifically referencing the contradiction between accepting only what the Bible states and this particular belief. Whether or not the Bible is an effective debating tool is obviously an issue, given that it is an extremely complex set of parables whose meanings are not immediately obvious. Furthermore, because of the very touchy nature of the subject of religion, tempers often fly when seemingly ambiguous quotes get thrown around from an ancient book for the sake of proving or disproving itself.

Simply and cavalierly throwing around Bible quotes for the sake of justifying an arguement is not the way a proper Catholic should try to make a point. My purpose in citing any passages in the Bible would focus mainly on the context of Christian religion, particularly errors in interpretation made by other Christian sects. which are utilized by a non-believer in a debate and then treated as though it also applies to me. The Bible may indeed not be a valid source of truth parallel to reality, but until someone can show the error of my particular beliefs on the matter, someone has to find an error in my interpretation as it applies to me and the school of theology that I belong to.

You're scrambling up the analogy a little bit. There is just as much evidence of Irish storytellers making up tales of leprechauns as there is of Hebrews making up stories about God and miracles. The analogy would be: "Leprechauns are to Irish folklore as God is to Christian mythology." Not: "Leprechauns are to Irish folklore as the religious Fathers are to world history."
I don't think there is anything scrambled about how I treated the analogy, I have not seen any concrete science to disprove the existence of God, an afterlife, or the given miracles mentioned (though this does not make them automatically true), and the obvious absurdity of attributing something to Leprechauns that even those Irish storytellers would laugh at makes this more a point of wittiness rather than factual arguement. It is not merely the obvious fact that leprechauns obviously do not exist, but also the fact that no one before MisterSwig has mentioned of such a thing as Super-Leprechauns who can miraculously cause the law of gravity.

It seems to me that your God's lack of potency or potentiality would be a limit on His omnipotence. But, since you limit your God's omnipotence to only doing what is in His nature, couldn't you just as easily limit His omniscience to knowing only Himself?

A distinction would have to be made between God's nature and the natural universe that would merit a dichotomy between the two. Ergo, nature would have to contain in it something contrary to God's nature in order for it not to be known to him. As far as I would argue, the primary distinction between the two is that the natural universe is finite, hense it is not one in the same with God's nature. Now granted, this distinction is based on metaphysical speculation, and I wouldn't argue this as proof positive of God's existence.

I think the standard explanation is that, in knowing Himself, that type of God does know everything, because in him are all the complete, pure Forms of the universe, and the specific behavior of particulars can be deduced from these divine universal concepts, even though He doesn't observe them directly. In fact, as I understand it, that's how Aquinas' angels are able to interact with humans.
Your assessment of Aquinas' explanation of interaction with angels is correct. However, the premise that God does not observe things directly brings up some noteworthy differences with my own conclusions. I treat God's work as something that is reflective of his nature (just as man's work is drawn from his nature to think), but the act itself is a product of volition. In other words, the parameters of the universe are set by God's nature, but his free will is the attribute that made the decision to utilize the act itself. In keeping with this, (Aquinas further elaborates that any description of God functions only as analogy), one would deduce that just as humans can observe their own creations (manipulations of nature), that God would possess the same ability. Only omniscience could account for the ability to percieve the natural universe as a whole, though granted that the actual concept itself is not within the scope of human nature.

They don't have sense organs to perceive us-- they actually look at God, and contemplate the relevant universals such as "Manness" and they deduce where they need to be and what they need to say in order to give us messages and so forth. That's one of the ideas that always fascinated me about Aquinas, and his detailed "angelology." If you know anything more about that, maybe we should start a new thread (because I think that idea has some relevance to Ayn Rand's epistemology, and I'd like to understand it better).

I am open to such a discussion, I've been paging through the section of Aquinas' Summa Theologica that relates to Angels and heavenly bodies and I think it does bring up many interesting possibilities. One of the points of theology that continues to demand my attention is the state of being after death, and the nature of angels would account for how the human soul, should it actually have existence beyond it's integration with matter on Earth. This would also mean that the reason for our lives would be to endow us with unique identities and individuality.

Well, even though my disagreements with Christianity and religion are severe, I do think they got this much right: there is such a thing as "the sacred." There is a "soul." There is a "highest good possible." It's just, I think in making this Good unreachable, and unfathomable, and introducing concepts such as original sin, and demonic dominion of the material realm, they commit blasphemy against that which is truly noble in their philosophy, which is-- preserving the sanctity of the efficacious individual.

You might find this odd but I essentially share your complaints about classical theism and traditional Christianity (particularly Platonic Christianity and the even greater confusion that existed before Augustine developed it). I've stated before that even for a Thomist I am a bit of a maverick and back in the days when Christianity held dominion over Euorpe, I might have been burned as a witch. Aquinas himself suffered some problems for his innovative way of viewing the relationship between theology and science. Most of his works were rejected and scorned by the main established universities, and the Dominican order was not free of enemies in the Church itself.

When you think about it, it is astonishing that Aquinas was able to write what he did and have it not be outrightly destroyed when you consider the paranoid nature of the time he lived in. Some of his beliefs are similar to that of Pelagius, who was excommunicated and threatened with execution had he not fled to Persia (Augustine had his hand in this of course). I don't neccesarily think that God is unreachable, I prefer the more humanistic side of Catholicism that followed Aquinas' accomplishments. I actually took his mentor, Saint Albertus Magnus, as my confirmation name.

One of the reasons why I came to this forum is because I am not greeted with the same hostility that I am often met with when discussing such things. Ayn Rand, my differences with her on theology non- widthstanding, has been a champion for many things that I hold dear such as the absolute nature of reason and the necessity of individual liberty, in a time when such things were becoming less fashionable. Kantians, despite the fact that many of them are Lutherans and thus fellow Christians, are very belligerent and inconsistent in their arguements and they often will resort to name-calling when backed into the corners that they create fore themselves. Many Protestant Christians have referred to me as being either a secularist under the guise of a theist or a blasphemer. And I'm not even going to get into the insanity that I encounter when I debate Existentialists, Hegelian Rationalists, or Nihilists.

Edited by dark_unicorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is anything scrambled about how I treated the analogy, I have not seen any concrete science to disprove the existence of God, an afterlife, or the given miracles mentioned (though this does not make them automatically true), and the obvious absurdity of attributing something to Leprechauns that even those Irish storytellers would laugh at makes this more a point of wittiness rather than factual arguement. It is not merely the obvious fact that leprechauns obviously do not exist, but also the fact that no one before MisterSwig has mentioned of such a thing as Super-Leprechauns who can miraculously cause the law of gravity.

I think that this is exactly the point MisterSwig was making: try and provide concrete scientific evidence to disprove invisible, alien leprechauns. The problem with doing so is that figments don't leave evidence of their not existing-- evidence is the product of things that do exist. As long as your concept is free of internal contradictions, the positing of its existence in the absence of evidence and the challenging of your opponent to prove that this nonexistent thing doesn't exist is something that can only properly be answered by an appeal to Aristotle's "onus of proof" principle. In fact, the Christians have historically cheated in this game all along. Every time a philosopher points out a glaring contradiction in the concept of God, a theologian comes up with a brand new concept, which in almost no respect resembles the old deity, and which lacks the old contradiction, but just as arbitrary as the old one, and he says the old God was just the result of a mistake in interpretation. But isn't it more likely that the old God was the result of an active imagination, as is the new one?

Furthurmore, the concept of God is not necessary. A unique, anomalous universe is just as plausible as an orderly universe designed by a unique, anomalous deity. Don't multiply entities beyond necessity-- that's just shifting the focus away from the issues at hand.

A distinction would have to be made between God's nature and the natural universe that would merit a dichotomy between the two. Ergo, nature would have to contain in it something contrary to God's nature in order for it not to be known to him. As far as I would argue, the primary distinction between the two is that the natural universe is finite, hense it is not one in the same with God's nature.
Oh, so you're advocating the opposite of what I thought at first. You're saying that the primary difference between the natural world and God is that God is infinite, so that means that the natural world is "in" God, not the other way around. But, then, I don't understand why you reject pantheism. Wouldn't that lead to the same type of pantheism expounded by Spinoza?

However, the premise that God does not observe things directly brings up some noteworthy differences with my own conclusions. I treat God's work as something that is reflective of his nature (just as man's work is drawn from his nature to think), but the act itself is a product of volition. In other words, the parameters of the universe are set by God's nature, but his free will is the attribute that made the decision to utilize the act itself. In keeping with this, (Aquinas further elaborates that any description of God functions only as analogy), one would deduce that just as humans can observe their own creations (manipulations of nature), that God would possess the same ability. Only omniscience could account for the ability to percieve the natural universe as a whole, though granted that the actual concept itself is not within the scope of human nature.

Do you propose that God has (analogous) sense organs with which to observe things?

You might find this odd but I essentially share your complaints about classical theism and traditional Christianity (particularly Platonic Christianity and the even greater confusion that existed before Augustine developed it). I've stated before that even for a Thomist I am a bit of a maverick and back in the days when Christianity held dominion over Euorpe, I might have been burned as a witch. Aquinas himself suffered some problems for his innovative way of viewing the relationship between theology and science. Most of his works were rejected and scorned by the main established universities, and the Dominican order was not free of enemies in the Church itself.
No, I don't find that odd. Aquinas was so much the opposite of Augustine or Tertulian on so many crucial points that I think an argument could be made that his theism is almost a superficial aspect of his overall philosophy by contrast, and that he was closer to being an Objectivist (therefore an atheist) than he was to being a pre-Thomistic Christian (in terms of essentials).

When you think about it, it is astonishing that Aquinas was able to write what he did and have it not be outrightly destroyed when you consider the paranoid nature of the time he lived in.

And, on behalf of Western Civilization, "thank God" he was. Few would argue that Aquinas was not the turning point which paved the road for science, the Renaissance, freedom, and atheism (he even explicitly defended atheism, in discussing his notion that "the erring reason binds").

Kantians, despite the fact that many of them are Lutherans and thus fellow Christians, are very belligerent and inconsistent in their arguements and they often will resort to name-calling when backed into the corners that they create fore themselves.

"Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees it must put out of sight, and wish to know nothing but the word of God." -Martin Luther

"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason" -Martin Luther

"[F]ie on you wherever you be, you damned Jews, who dare to clasp this earnest, glorious, consoling Word of God to your maggoty, mortal, miserly belly, and are not ashamed to display your greed so openly" -Martin Luther

Lutherins, belligerent? Lutherins, name-calling? Lutherins, irrational? How inconsistent! :fool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you guys might be interested to see this thread from the same forum I posted from above, in which Stephen Speicher argues against cosmologies which endorse expanding universe theory.

And an old Objectivism Online thread wherein Mr. Speicher criticizes the Big Bang theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Example 2: Can God contradict natural law (natural law is treated as part of God's nature, so to contradict natural law would necessitate violating his own nature), by such means as burning water into ash or by creating square circles?

If natural law is "part of" God's nature, then I have a few questions for you relating to the Creation:

1. How could God create the light of Day (day one) before he created the Sun (day four)?

2. How were there three days and nights before he created the Sun, the Moon, and the stars?

3. What are the "waters" above Heaven (the firmament)?

4. How did God grow grass and fruit trees if he hadn't created the Sun yet and hadn't caused it to rain yet? (Gen. 2:5)

It seems to me that if you believe the Bible, then God has no problem whatsoever with violating the laws of nature. And if in fact God intended to follow them, how is it that he has, in the first chapter of Genesis, already forgotten them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...