tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.comments2023-09-02T07:14:49.753-04:00Atheism And The CityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger913125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-49263710861354123402021-04-25T14:06:00.505-04:002021-04-25T14:06:00.505-04:00Your quotation of my blog post seems very---how sh...Your quotation of my blog post seems very---how shall I put this?---selective. If you had included even a few more words, it would become clear that this is not at all what I was trying to say. The rest of the paragraph reads:<br /><br />"By faith! The skeptic may scoff here, and say that faith is belief without evidence, but that is not the definition used in the passage above. It says that faith is confidence about what we hope for, but do not see. Unless we identify sight (conceived broadly as anything which can be directly experienced in terms of our 5+ senses) with evidence (things which allow us to conclude something about the world)--an identification which would incidentally also make Science impossible--the passage does not say that the ancients were commended for believing without evidence. But the example of the biblical heroes does give some pointers about what type of evidence was relevant to them."<br /><br />In this paragraph I quite explicitly <i>denied</i> that faith means belief without evidence. Rather, it is belief without "sight". For example, nobody has ever directly seen a neutrino (since they are invisible) but we still have good evidence of their existence, coming from events in particle accelerators. That is why I said that Science also involves belief in things we cannot see.<br /><br />As for the sentence "It says that faith is confidence about what we hope for, but do not see", I can understand grammatically why you might have misinterpreted the phrase about hope, but to clarify: I did not mean: "It's okay to believe whatever you like, as long as you wish it is true." Rather, I meant: "There is good reason to think that certain theological propositions [which, as it happens, Christians put their hope in] are true, even though they are not directly visible". In other words, I wasn't saying that our emotion of hope is <i>itself</i> the justification for the belief. Rather, the hope is a response to whatever evidence a given individual has (whether historical or personal) that God exists and is reliable.<br /><br />Even if you don't agree with me that the objective historical evidence for the Resurrection is compelling (as is your right, since each person has to decide this for themselves) you can at least acknowledge that <i>I</i> think it is. And---speaking as the most credible authority for what I personally think----I don't at all agree with the fideistic proposition that you have attributed to me. So I think a retraction is called for. Thanks!Aron Wallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10552077344304954390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-33385144231337745872021-01-30T14:29:23.406-05:002021-01-30T14:29:23.406-05:00Im a NDEr
as have millions of others.
You should t...Im a NDEr<br />as have millions of others.<br />You should try it.<br />Get in an accident.<br />Not.<br />GBY-blessed b9, Catalyst4Christhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13650964620664544661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-29938019824870148782014-02-08T18:00:12.624-05:002014-02-08T18:00:12.624-05:00Exactly right, thank you. How can one be free to c...Exactly right, thank you. How can one be free to choose if there is only one possible outcome? If God were omniscient, there could only be one outcome, that which he foresaw. The only answer is that, whatever god is, it can't be omniscient. Chiefyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02857188784335241513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-16215469650977576522014-02-08T01:08:24.374-05:002014-02-08T01:08:24.374-05:00One must keep in mind Arthur C. Clark's third ...One must keep in mind Arthur C. Clark's third law which states that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-83833818978768604962014-02-07T23:25:52.772-05:002014-02-07T23:25:52.772-05:00I've asked "what would change your mind&q...I've asked "what would change your mind" as an interview question to many atheists and, to be fair, some gave Ham's answer. They say that even seemingly compelling evidence for God in the form of a miracle or even Jesus' return, would be more likely committed by an alien prankster with advance technology. It's hard to gauge the probabilities of such things. :-)Grundyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07339125862340793733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-44957018053762164252014-02-05T09:44:41.720-05:002014-02-05T09:44:41.720-05:00There's already been a great "schism"...There's already been a great "schism" where some SA membes have gone off to create their own thing because they disagreed with the SA program.The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-28542760957145054792014-02-04T12:46:46.866-05:002014-02-04T12:46:46.866-05:00Interesting. I wonder whether there is a variety b...Interesting. I wonder whether there is a variety between assemblies, too.Jonathan MS Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14281228447185474180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-53306845554812260792014-02-03T23:01:22.822-05:002014-02-03T23:01:22.822-05:00lol I love this
"I do find myself talking a...lol I love this <br /><br />"I do find myself talking about religion and god more often than a lot of people who actually believe in god. "<br /><br />As an NRT it seems to me that most atheists seem to spend far more time thinking and talking about what they don't believe rather than they do bruxerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02835000509167892663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-40553841918619559832014-02-02T10:53:55.625-05:002014-02-02T10:53:55.625-05:00I don't disagree with you on some parts. Thoug...I don't disagree with you on some parts. Though I think agnostics technically are atheists because they do not actively believe in god. Agnosticism is an epistemic position, you are right on that, and I included that in my scale. How would a scale look if you made it?The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-59837984328487121422014-02-02T02:16:22.300-05:002014-02-02T02:16:22.300-05:00I do not believe your "scale of belief" ...I do not believe your "scale of belief" is an accurate illustration of agnosticism; frankly, placing agnosticism so close to atheism betrays a severe misunderstanding of what agnosticism even is. Agnosticism makes a claim regarding knowledge - that one cannot have the knowledge of God's existence or God's non-existence. Both atheism and theism are not based off of knowledge but rather are equally leaps of faith; they are beliefs. Whether one's worldview is shaped by fundamentalist mysticism or scientific fanaticism, they both require presuppositions in order to really hold any water. That is why different worldviews clash in the first place - they each have certain notions that they rely on. The reason why agnosticism is of its own category (and why it should not be so easily paired with atheism) is because it does not hold any presuppositions at all. The brand of New Atheism that has become so popular wields science just as Christians hold God; just as Christians hold the presupposition that God exists and created all of existence, atheists hold the presuppositions that one can rely on one's own perception in gathering information about reality and that the laws of physics will continue to work tomorrow. The presuppositions of science are simple, and don't get me wrong, I love and trust science. When it comes to comparing philosophies and worldviews though, one cannot deny that ultimately, every worldview is in the same predicament. In this post, you implied that atheism is the default worldview (particularly in that you mentioned everyone who does not truly believe in God must be an atheist) - frankly, this simply isn't true. I would wager that agnosticism is the default view; accepting that we cannot truly know and understand our existence and reality seems much more logical to me than claiming belief in anything. With that said, beliefs are not totally incompatible with an agnostic position. One can be an agnostic theist just as much as one can be an agnostic atheist because agnosticism only makes claims about knowledge, not belief. Any Christian or atheist that accepts that one cannot truly have knowledge of God's existence or non-existence essentially is an agnostic.<br /><br />Regarding beliefs in general, fanaticism is a bad thing. I have seen among the New Atheists a type of fundamentalism that is just as bad as the religious fundamentalists. Stay away from this mindset; while beliefs can be used to justify the worst in humanity, it can also bring out the best because ultimately, what we believe reflects who we are. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00706920929516948220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-49431695658113786402014-01-26T17:26:24.324-05:002014-01-26T17:26:24.324-05:00When apologists refer to truth, I find that they m...When apologists refer to truth, I find that they mean objective and absolute truth--which find is impossible to ascertain. Even something like math is objective, but relative. Grundyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07339125862340793733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-66219288899912578932014-01-25T21:19:47.506-05:002014-01-25T21:19:47.506-05:00Good call.Good call.The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-38103371868544648642014-01-25T17:52:13.465-05:002014-01-25T17:52:13.465-05:00"Losing"= not winning. "Loosing&qu..."Losing"= not winning. "Loosing"= setting something loose.Red Monkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04055930626260584449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-29198453594430034102014-01-25T12:50:36.708-05:002014-01-25T12:50:36.708-05:00Suffering in the world is important as to whether ...Suffering in the world is important as to whether or not god exists because all the excuses theists have to explain why there exists suffering have been shown to be fallacious. The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-54787078900424913522014-01-25T11:11:50.357-05:002014-01-25T11:11:50.357-05:00But the christian god is being sold as generous, l...But the christian god is being sold as generous, loving and almighty. Suffering in the world says nothing about as to whether or not your god exists, but it certainly means that is has been wrongfully advertised.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13694554173631725791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-76081145558938509322014-01-25T06:46:35.043-05:002014-01-25T06:46:35.043-05:00The difference between a Religion & a Cult??? ...The difference between a Religion & a Cult??? Easy, the size of the bank account!Zarathustrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18304963843720567083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-72482969707708870592014-01-23T23:00:15.218-05:002014-01-23T23:00:15.218-05:00He has knowledge just as a human mind does.
A da...<i>He has knowledge just as a human mind does.<br /></i><br /><br />A database is not a mind. <br /><br /><i>If you build a house you are not bound to the house. You could enter and leave the house at will. By creating the space-time continuum God is no more bound by it than you are by a house.</i><br /><br />But if I build a house I become a house builder, I achieve something and thus I gain something. I also cannot leave or enter without being in time. <br /><br /><i>Martin and I hold that God timelessly created the universe.</i><br /><br />Timelessly created is about as logical as a square circle. <br /><br /><i>The act of creation would be an extrinsic change for God as opposed to an intrinsic change. God would be complete in the sense that he does not undergo intrinsic change.</i><br /><br />But this doesn't answer my question. A being who never creates cannot be a creator. A being who could become a creator gains something, and it also forces the being into time, since there will be the state of the being as a potential creator, and then after as the creator. This intrinsically changes the nature of the being because it must be temporal. <br /><br /><i>It would be the logical equivalent of saying you are The Thinker before you have a son and The Thinker after you have a son.</i><br /><br />That's another example of wordplay. After I have a son I become a father and I gain something. I am changed forever. Sure I am still human with or without a son, but there is difference between a father and a non-father. <br /><br /><i>The essence of a triangle is something like: three distinct points on a 2D plane connected by straight lines. Suppose I draw one triangle by hand (T1) and I draw a second triangle using computer software (T2). Most likely T2 will better conform to the essence of a triangle (triangularity) than will T1 (e.g., the lines of T2 will the straighter than the lines of T1).</i><br /><br />Ok, so we can all imagine that a perfect circle, square or triangle is better than a crudely drawn one by hand. We agree so far. But abstract objects have definite shapes and clearly defined characteristics. To then say that god conforms to his essence by being perfect begs many questions that neither you, nor Martin ever answered. 1. What is god's essence and 2. how do you objectively determine it? Until you can give solid answers to these two questions, you're assumption is baseless. 3. How can a perfect being gain anything? 4. If a perfectly drawn triangle is better than a crudely drawn one, then shouldn't that mean that the god of the bible is the crudely drawn triangle? I see no reason to think that idea of god is anything close to perfection. The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-18483762054874683842014-01-23T19:43:00.082-05:002014-01-23T19:43:00.082-05:00If god is timeless as you believe, then he is in n...<i>If god is timeless as you believe, then he is in no sense like a human mind.</i><br /><br />He has knowledge just as a human mind does.<br /><br /><i>If the universe is the effect of god, how can god and the universe not be bound in the relationship of cause and effect?</i><br /><br />When I used the word "bound" I meant it in the sense of being under the dominion of the effect. If you build a house you are not bound to the house. You could enter and leave the house at will. By creating the space-time continuum God is no more bound by it than you are by a house.<br /><br /><i>And how is it logically possible for a being who has never created to be a creator?</i><br /><br />Martin and I hold that God timelessly created the universe. For the sake of argument I granted that you could still run an argument without holding that belief. The act of creation would be an extrinsic change for God as opposed to an intrinsic change. God would be complete in the sense that he does not undergo intrinsic change.<br /><br /><i>That's the logical equivalent of me saying I'm a father "before" I have a son, and a father "after" I have a son because I "perfectly conform to my essence".</i><br /><br />It would be the logical equivalent of saying you are The Thinker before you have a son and The Thinker after you have a son.<br /><br /><i>This is where that wordplay I was talking about comes in, where you just assert something that has no logical basis.</i><br /><br />It seems like wordplay to you because you don't grasp conformance to an essence. I can try once again to explain it with a simple geometric example. The essence of a triangle is something like: three distinct points on a 2D plane connected by straight lines. Suppose I draw one triangle by hand (T1) and I draw a second triangle using computer software (T2). Most likely T2 will better conform to the essence of a triangle (triangularity) than will T1 (e.g., the lines of T2 will the straighter than the lines of T1).Jaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-72102795570862005652014-01-23T18:50:37.006-05:002014-01-23T18:50:37.006-05:00To be fair to Martin, I don't think his series...<i>To be fair to Martin, I don't think his series was supposed to be definitive. It's an outline (nothing more) of the metaphysics needed to do science and how those metaphysics entail classical theism.</i><br /><br />OK, fair enough. However, I've debated some of Aquinas' Five Ways arguments on other venues before and I know they don't hold up.<br /><br /><i>We're using analogical language, not an analogy. We've explained in what sense God is like a human mind and in what sense he is not.</i><br /><br />If god is timeless as you believe, then he is in no sense like a human mind. <br /><br /><i>The Incarnation means Jesus was both God and man. As I stated before, the universe is an effect of God. That does not mean the cause (God) is bound by the effect (universe).<br /></i><br /><br />If the universe is the effect of god, how can god and the universe not be bound in the relationship of cause and effect? And how is it logically possible for a being who has never created to be a creator? <br /><br /><i>You're conflating God's nature with his actions. God would be Pure Act "before" creation and he would be Pure Act "after" creation.<br /></i><br /><br />That's the logical equivalent of me saying I'm a father "before" I have a son, and a father "after" I have a son because I "perfectly conform to my essence". This is where that wordplay I was talking about comes in, where you just assert something that has no logical basis.<br /><br /><i>I would point you to the first three ways of Aquinas in context. First you should understand his metaphysics. Then see how he derives additional attributes of God from the conclusion of the Five Ways. Refer to secondary literature written by modern-day Thomists to get into Thomas' world.<br /></i><br /><br />I have done that a bit, but not so heavily that I can be anything close to an expert Thomist. If I have time I might write a post responding to Aquinas' arguments. Let me just say for now that if Aquinas' arguments presuppose his metaphysics and his metaphysics is wrong, then Aquinas' arguments are wrong. From my research into Aquinas, that has been the case.<br />The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-29531199428503060782014-01-23T15:13:01.996-05:002014-01-23T15:13:01.996-05:00I don't think Martin is crazy, I just think hi...<i>I don't think Martin is crazy, I just think his arguments for god using Aquinas' theology adds up to nothing but wordplay. There is little substance in them.</i><br /><br />To be fair to Martin, I don't think his series was supposed to be definitive. It's an outline (nothing more) of the metaphysics needed to do science and how those metaphysics entail classical theism.<br /><br /><i>It basically comes down to the form of the ontological argument that uses existence as a property of god to show god's necessary existence.</i><br /><br />The Fourth Way could be taken as a kind of ontological argument. I understand Martin to be sketching out the First Way (up to point #8), which I consider a kind of cosmological argument.<br /><br /><i>A mind that does not think in time is not a mind. Period. You can call god something else if you want, but don't call it a mind because that is misleading. You cannot use an analogy that results in a logical contradiction.</i><br /><br />We're using analogical language, not an analogy. We've explained in what sense God is like a human mind and in what sense he is not.<br /><br /><i>If god is not bound by time then how can he come to earth in the form of a human being and acquire all the physical and temporal attributes we associate with human beings?</i><br /><br />The Incarnation means Jesus was both God and man. As I stated before, the universe is an effect of God. That does not mean the cause (God) is bound by the effect (universe).<br /><br /><i>Pure Act is pure nonsense. A being who has not created is not a creator, it is a potential creator. Thus any being always has more potential to gain and lose. Nothing is complete.</i><br /><br />You're conflating God's nature with his actions. God would be Pure Act "before" creation and he would be Pure Act "after" creation.<br /><br /><i>Suppose a skeptic is not convince god is perfect. Make your best argument to prove that god is perfect. I want to see it.</i><br /><br />I would point you to the first three ways of Aquinas <i>in context</i>. First you should understand his metaphysics. Then see how he derives additional attributes of God from the conclusion of the Five Ways. Refer to secondary literature written by modern-day Thomists to get into Thomas' world.Jaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-77025635621325924062014-01-23T13:35:47.211-05:002014-01-23T13:35:47.211-05:00I don't think Martin is crazy, I just think hi...I don't think Martin is crazy, I just think his arguments for god using Aquinas' theology adds up to nothing but wordplay. There is little substance in them. It basically comes down to the form of the ontological argument that uses existence as a property of god to show god's necessary existence. This form of the OA has been strongly criticized by many philosophers, even Christian philosophers. <br /><br />A mind that does not think in time is not a mind. Period. You can call god something else if you want, but don't call it a mind because that is misleading. You cannot use an analogy that results in a logical contradiction. Also, many Christians disagree with this view of god and I would agree with the criticisms of god being intrinsically timeless. <br /><br />If god is not bound by time then how can he come to earth in the form of a human being and acquire all the physical and temporal attributes we associate with human beings? The son is not timeless, he is temporal. And if god never gains or loses his son, then he sacrificed nothing, and the whole of Christian theology makes no sense. Not that it ever did anyway, but it makes even less sense. <br /><br />Pure Act is pure nonsense. A being who has not created is not a creator, it is a potential creator. Thus any being always has more potential to gain and lose. Nothing is complete. And your failure to give logical answers to my questions shows that this edifice is built on sand. <br /><br />How about this. Suppose a skeptic is not convince god is perfect. Make your best argument to prove that god is perfect. I want to see it.The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-81493961387766201002014-01-23T11:32:02.848-05:002014-01-23T11:32:02.848-05:00In his series Martin outlines classical theism inc...In his series Martin outlines classical theism including some of its arguments for God's existence. I'm trying to show that he's not as crazy as you seem to think he is. But you probably aren't going to understand everything based on a few blog posts or the discussion in these comments. It's difficult to know where to start responding to you because some of your errors build upon previous errors you've made.<br /><br />That God is Pure Act is argued for in the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas (among other places). These arguments also show that God's essence is existence. From this basis other attributes of God are deduced. Keep in mind that Aquinas' natural theology builds off of his metaphysics so I don't recommend jumping into his natural theology before his metaphysics. Unfortunately, this is kind of what we're doing here.<br /><br />When we speak analogically of God we're taking a middle ground between univocal and equivocal language. God is a mind like us in the sense that he has knowledge but he is not a mind like us in the sense that he does not think about A and then later think about B. In everyday discussion we might note a "good hamburger" and a "good doctor". The word "good" is used analogically. The hamburger and doctor are not good in the exact same sense but they are both good in a broader sense.<br /><br />The space-time continuum is an effect of God and hence does not contain God. What we perceive as his actions in history are also effects and hence do not entail he is bound by time.<br /><br />As Pure Act God has no potentialities. That's what is meant when Martin says God is perfect. It has nothing to do with suffering and hence nothing to do with the problem of evil.<br /><br />As for God gaining or losing something, your examples are not convincing. God does not gain or lose a son because the Son is as timeless as the Father. While a man can gain knowledge, God can't because he is timelessly omniscient.Jaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-29850581101586573692014-01-22T18:00:07.989-05:002014-01-22T18:00:07.989-05:001. It doesn't but, for the sake of argument, l...<i>1. It doesn't but, for the sake of argument, let's assume it does. You're still stuck with God. No free will defense of the problem of evil is necessary since God's goodness is a result of his nature and not what he does or does not do. The problem of evil is no problem for the classical theist.<br /></i><br /><br />I'm sorry to tell you that it does logically lead to determinism. And without a free will defense you've certainly got an evil god who determines suffering to happen for no logically necessary reason. That is <i>far</i> from perfection and goodness.<br /><br /><i>2. No, it's because entities have forms or essences. Martin is working at a higher level of abstraction. Since not even self-proclaimed physicalists can agree on what the term "physical" means it is not prudent to start one's metaphysics there.<br /></i><br /><br />I thought we were talking about the physical universe here. If we're talking about abstract objects, then what is the structure of the number googolplex? Or what is the form of god?<br /><br /><i>3. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that the universe does not need a cause. Even so, there are still such causal series that need a first cause. Since the universe is not pure act it can't be that first cause.</i><br /><br />You have yet to demonstrate that pure act is something that actually exists, or is coherent. That's what we're trying to do here. It seems you can just assume it, even while acknowledging that you can't even logically explain it. Sounds like BS to me. Just saying.<br /><br /><i>4. If an act truly requires time then God would have to create time first.</i><br /><br />Which is why I asked a question related to it. How can a timeless being create time if prior to the existence of time literally nothing can happen?<br /><br /><i>5. I don't know. But none of Martin's arguments rely on free will from what I recall.</i><br /><br />Let's say they don't. Eventually, it will come up in order to try and make the justification that god is good. But even if I allow you human free will, you've still got tons of problems: <a href="http://www.atheismandthecity.com/2014/01/christian-responses-to-problem-of.html" rel="nofollow">Christian Responses To The Problem Of Suffering</a><br /><br /><i>6. What is time? If time is dependent on change then the mere act of "doing something" would "create" time. The counter-question is: how could time have existed forever?<br /></i><br /><br />OK so here you try to answer my question above. But your answer runs into the problem of my other question: <i> How does a timeless god who knows everything freely chose to create our world and not some other world?</i> I argue it is logically impossible. And on top of that it is still impossible to will something if there is no time to do it. <br /><br /><i>7. Causal regularity implies the existence of final causes. Final causes merely limit the number of options one can choose. For example, I can't choose to fly by flapping my arms but I could choose to walk or run. But, again, free will is not necessary for theism to be true.</i><br /><br />It is true that we are limited by our physical options, but that would also mean that in a universe of "causal regularity" that every "choice" we make is also caused by antecedent events, thus making free will impossible.<br /><br /><i>But, again, free will is not necessary for theism to be true.</i><br /><br />If theism requires a greatest conceivable being of sorts, then a god who determines millions of years of suffering for no logically necessary reason falls far short of this standard, and you would not be able to make the ontological argument that this being is necessary. Aquinas' arguments would fall apart as would classical theism. The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-65308188622971890182014-01-22T17:59:21.800-05:002014-01-22T17:59:21.800-05:00As Martin already hinted at, God is a mind in an a...<i>As Martin already hinted at, God is a mind in an analogical, not univocal, sense.</i><br /><br />analogical: expressing, composed of, or based on an analogy; "the analogical use of a metaphor"<br /><br />Am I missing something here? I fail to see how god being "analogical" solves this problem. If you mean to say that god is not really in time but we pretend like he is anthropomorphically, that still doesn't resolve the issue. Either god is in time or he is not. If he is not, a timeless being cannot do anything, because doing anything is an event and all events require time. This is one of the reasons why I think the god of classical theism is not even logically coherent. <br /><br /><i>How is it any more of a problem for God to interact with humanity during the Exodus and during the Resurrection than it is for a human to interact with another human?</i><br /><br />We exist in time. Existing in time is to exist in the space-time manifold. To say god exists in this manifold and is interacting with people is to say god exists in time. Again, there is a dichotomy here: god either exists in time or out of time. Each is fraught with problems, but you cannot have it both ways.<br /><br /><i>You've failed to show that God gains or loses anything. The act of creation is not an example of God gaining something.</i><br /><br />If I have a son do I gain something? Of course I do. I doubt you are going to say that I have not gained anything. Likewise, you believe god gains (and loses) a son. If I gain a doctorate degree have I gained something? Of course I have. Thus, no being could ever be complete, it is logically impossible. All beings can gain and lose. And as a Christian, if you say god did not lose anything when he lost Jesus you will have admitted Jesus' redemption was worthless.<br /><br /><i>On Aquinas' view, the doctor is better because he better conforms to his essence. But this is not to say he perfectly conforms to his essence. This differentiates him from God since God perfectly conforms to his essence.<br /></i><br /><br />I'm still waiting to hear the justification how god perfectly conforms to his essence in a manner bereft of assertion. And what is god's essence and how do you even determine that?<br />The Thinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14303015383137218932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7110460687773644977.post-76386748302801406082014-01-22T16:30:20.186-05:002014-01-22T16:30:20.186-05:00Thinker:
All events require time. Thinking requir...Thinker:<br /><br /><i>All events require time. Thinking requires time. Personal beings require time. Could you have a personal interaction with a person who was frozen in time like a block of ice? No. A timeless mind is by definition, non functional. To say otherwise is the say god exists outside of logic and is illogical. Which is my point.</i><br /><br />As Martin already hinted at, God is a mind in an analogical, not univocal, sense. Hence, it does no good to note some differences between God and man for this is already granted. Since you have an affinity for eternalism you already think we are something like blocks of ice and yet believe we have personal interactions. How is it any more of a problem for God to interact with humanity during the Exodus and during the Resurrection than it is for a human to interact with another human?<br /><br /><i>I was responding to a person claiming god is perfection and is complete. Something complete cannot gain anything. The fact that god can gain and lose things means he cannot be complete.</i><br /><br />You've failed to show that God gains or loses anything. The act of creation is not an example of God gaining something.<br /><br /><i>A Doctor who dedicates his time to saving lives is better than a lazy person who does nothing, even though they are both human beings in essence.</i><br /><br />On Aquinas' view, the doctor is better because he better conforms to his essence. But this is not to say he perfectly conforms to his essence. This differentiates him from God since God perfectly conforms to his essence.<br /><br /><i>1. Causal regularity means you must adopt determinism, (so much for the free will defense).</i><br /><br />It doesn't but, for the sake of argument, let's assume it does. You're still stuck with God. No free will defense of the problem of evil is necessary since God's goodness is a result of his nature and not what he does or does not do. The problem of evil is no problem for the classical theist.<br /><br /><i>Structure exists because things are physical</i><br /><br />No, it's because entities have forms or essences. Martin is working at a higher level of abstraction. Since not even self-proclaimed physicalists can agree on what the term "physical" means it is not prudent to start one's metaphysics there.<br /><br /><i>The universe doesn't necessarily need a cause.</i><br /><br />I mentioned an essentially ordered causal series. Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that the universe does not need a cause. Even so, there are still such causal series that need a first cause. Since the universe is not pure act it can't be that first cause.<br /><br /><i>And if your answer is that god exists out of time, then you need to logically demonstrate how a timeless being does things that requires time.</i><br /><br />If an act truly requires time then God would have to create time first.<br /><br /><i>How does a timeless god who knows everything freely chose to create our world and not some other world?</i><br /><br />I don't know. But none of Martin's arguments rely on free will from what I recall.<br /><br /><i>And how does god create time, if prior to time existing literally nothing can happen?</i><br /><br />What is time? If time is dependent on change then the mere act of "doing something" would "create" time. The counter-question is: how could time have existed forever?<br /><br /><i>I don't see how you can believe in the hypothesis of free will given "causal regularity" which logically deduces a determined universe.</i><br /><br />Causal regularity implies the existence of final causes. Final causes merely limit the number of options one can choose. For example, I can't choose to fly by flapping my arms but I could choose to walk or run. But, again, free will is not necessary for theism to be true.Jaymanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06413844619464733681noreply@blogger.com