Author Topic: God Exists  (Read 2404 times)

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: God Exists
« Reply #50 on: December 21, 2021, 09:46:18 PM »
Quote
The crux of the argument here, which I imagine most people have missed, is that something is necessary to cause not only the beginning of causality, but something is necessary to support causality and existence right here and right now.  That is to say, that God would not just be a spark, but a pillar, that supports and maintains existence and causality throughout time. 

But why? It seems far more elegant to me that causality and existence are simply properties of space-time or the universe. I don't see why we should posit that there's something else providing these missing qualities. Then once you've suggested the "something else" I don't see how you avoid having turtles all the way down. If reality isn't self supporting why is this other thing self supporting? (Yes, I'm sure I could read Adler but I don't have the brain for a philosophy text right now.)

Also, JoshuaD hasn't yet explained how we go from "God as a turtle" to "God with interesting qualities." So I don't think it's fair to attack his conclusions on the existence of God by arguing that it would be a very boring God.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: God Exists
« Reply #51 on: December 22, 2021, 03:41:28 AM »
The next thing to look at is not whether this creator thing or particle or supernatural fart was necessary to create the universe, but whether the universe needs something supernatural to keep it in existence.
I can see why that might be a subsequent thing, but why on earth the next one?

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: God Exists
« Reply #52 on: December 22, 2021, 10:28:26 AM »

But why? It seems far more elegant to me that causality and existence are simply properties of space-time or the universe.

The answers to these questions are highly metaphysical in nature.  I don't have the materials right here in front of me and even if I did, I'll admit that the subject is difficult for me to wrap my head around.  But the basic premise is that all matter is composite in nature, not just materially or energetically, but metaphysically. It deals with what matter and energy are beyond just physical laws and deals with actuality and potentiality and then breaks down causality into component parts. 

Quote
Then once you've suggested the "something else" I don't see how you avoid having turtles all the way down. If reality isn't self supporting why is this other thing self supporting? (Yes, I'm sure I could read Adler but I don't have the brain for a philosophy text right now.)

I never understood the turtles counter argument because it seems to me that it actually supports the concept that eventually you have to have a magical flying turtle somewhere to support all the other turtles.  The answer seems to be that some aspects of reality such as matter and energy are subject to change, between potentiality and actuality, but somewhere whatever that is supporting it's existence, whether it is inherent or external, must not be subject to change.  There must be something eternal and unchanging that supports existence, and since matter and energy are temporal and subject to change, it cannot be matter or energy.  It's a deep subject and quite frankly is generally beyond me.  You have to sit down and think about these subjects for a long long time I think to begin to grasp it's meaning and argument. 

I don't think Adler really gets very deep into the subject.  He writes for lay persons which makes his writing easily accessible, but because of it I don't think he gets really deep into the metaphysical problems which are hard to wrap your head around.  Honestly I havn't read his book in 10+ years.  I think you'd have better luck reading Feser and the debates he gets into with other metaphysicist philosophers. 

Quote
Also, JoshuaD hasn't yet explained how we go from "God as a turtle" to "God with interesting qualities." So I don't think it's fair to attack his conclusions on the existence of God by arguing that it would be a very boring God.

Ehhh.  That's a whole other argument.  It gets back into Aristotelean and Scholastic metaphysics of causality.  The straight Scholastic answer is that the common definitions of "goodness" don't really apply when it comes to God, and the picture it paints is indeed something of a boring God, which is why many other denominations of Christians abandoned scholasticism in favor of a more personal God that more approaches Zeus sitting on a cloud.  This is why Craig sticks with the simple cosmological argument rather than the existential argument.  There are similarities but they are fundamentally different because of how you end up describing God and goodness.  Suffice to say you can debate these things for all eternity and Protestant Christians are just going to accuse you of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  This is why personal revelation has a much larger place within Protestant theology than Catholic theology. 



alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: God Exists
« Reply #53 on: December 22, 2021, 10:23:10 PM »
Our senses and minds are sufficient for us to be good and live good lives, and that is all we need.
Jury's at best still out on that.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: God Exists
« Reply #54 on: December 22, 2021, 10:51:54 PM »
He makes clear by God that he means the 'all powerful and all knowing' being as typical of the Christian view of God.
Yes, but that appears not as the Theistic Entity he claims to have demonstrated to necessarily exist by means of the cosmological argument.  That's not to this point allegedly necessitated by that to be the Christian god, or even (say) the Neoplatonists' The One.  It might just be the Deity -- I was tempted to say the Jeffersonian Deity, but that'd be a bluff-your-way-in-deism guess on my part, and one I might well be called on, so I'd better not.  The promised second lemma will presumably be intended to get us into that latter sort of area.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: God Exists
« Reply #55 on: December 31, 2021, 10:15:22 AM »
He makes clear by God that he means the 'all powerful and all knowing' being as typical of the Christian view of God.
Yes, but that appears not as the Theistic Entity he claims to have demonstrated to necessarily exist by means of the cosmological argument.  That's not to this point allegedly necessitated by that to be the Christian god, or even (say) the Neoplatonists' The One.  It might just be the Deity -- I was tempted to say the Jeffersonian Deity, but that'd be a bluff-your-way-in-deism guess on my part, and one I might well be called on, so I'd better not.  The promised second lemma will presumably be intended to get us into that latter sort of area.

You have to remember, JoshuaD believes and argues for Catholic Christian beliefs at every turn. To an outside observer, he is a Catholic Christian. He just won't admit it. He's one of those annoying, "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" people.

Take that into account and ignore his claims and everything he writes becomes a lot easier to understand.

alai

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: God Exists
« Reply #56 on: December 31, 2021, 11:32:19 AM »
You have to remember, JoshuaD believes and argues for Catholic Christian beliefs at every turn. To an outside observer, he is a Catholic Christian. He just won't admit it. He's one of those annoying, "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" people.

Take that into account and ignore his claims and everything he writes becomes a lot easier to understand.
I live in a country famously fairly packed with Catholics, so the belief system is pretty familiar to me, especially in terms of how it impinges on public life.  Archbishops based in the UK thundering across the border about how people should vote on referendums in the Republic, and so on.  But I was trying hard to bite my tongue on that in this thread, as it inevitably turns Bulveristic almost immediately, doubly so if one is arguing with someone about their own belefs.  But if I were to so indulge, the religious-politics come across as rather more US Evangelical Right to me.

To try to drag it back on topic, I suppose where I was going was, to expand on the "shrug and identification" thing, how does JoshuaD feel his version of this argument relate to other presentations of it?  Is he seeking to spline several together, to make them stronger or better according to some criteria?  Or indeed to jump it from a deist to a theist argument, specifically?  Cos thus far, I'm not seeing it.  It reads like "standard arguments mixed and matched to make less clear".  (Full disclosure, I'm not intimately familiar with the topic, so maybe I'm going by cliffs-notes simplifications, rather than the originals in their full opacity.)

Ephrem Moseley

  • Members
  • Pacifist Fascist
    • View Profile
Re: God Exists
« Reply #57 on: January 17, 2022, 11:36:54 PM »
distraction?

okay then

"No no no.

Simulation Argument plus optimism equals God.

simple as that

welcome to my Heaven, gentlemen"

Bueller?