That is, if you mean God as Creator. Someone might say there is a God, but the world evolved by chance despite him. I don’t know why, but they could, and the converse would not be true.
Is this right?
??
Well, it seems then we may be dealing with God ‘The family resembalance concept’.
Like when I tell you “I’m playing a Game.” In actuallity I tell you nothing at all. Not all games are fun (Russian Roulette). Not all games have winners (Footsie). There is not one concept that fits what is called a game. I tend to think this is because people are idoits and can’t maintain any sort of consistency especially in large numbers. So my question is what did God mean before people started messing it all up?
I think “God” meant something much like what PC’s “personal belief and opinion” is in the last paragraph of the second post i responded to. I also liked his moral statement…very Aristotelian/Taoist.
Let me get what you are saying, LG. “Game” applies to many things by different definitions – so there is no one definition of “game”. Do you mean to imply then that God is known under many names/definitions, hence there is no unity in all the concepts of God?
But we can only know God arguing from effect to cause, so it seems we just have to see that all these terms are related to our understanding of the First Principle. (But this last phrase is my own, so let me know if it makes sense or not.)
mrn
postscriptum: Sorry, PC, i seem to be hijacking your topic. Where are we on biconditional statements of God? Anyone else having the problems i expressed?
Maybe in order to see if the converse is true, we might have to make a cause to effect argument, which my sources say we can’t say about God, because we don’t know His nature. It would be like saying that since God is Love he has to create.
Well, I’m not going to assent that their is a God, known by many names. But their do seem to be serval concepts that don’t nessisarly overlap.
So there for when someone says “I belive in God.” One does not know how to argue agianst. Forex, If I go on about Evolution, one might then reveal he doesn’t belive God was the creater. Or if I go on about the problem of evil, one might say he doesn’t belive God is omnipotent.
I mean classicly in Philosophy the normal definition of God would be something like:
Something is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent iff God exsit.
That’s something I can argue agianst. But when Bob comes on talking about the mystery and such- I really don’t know what to argue agianst.
I think we are making progress here.
First, the idea that there are core concepts that are contained in the original universal concept of God, and that could be true iff God exists, is a good line of discussion, me thinks. There is something that could only be God. It could not be any other thing but God. It is the essence of God. No matter what God you are discussing from whatever culture and from whatever historical context, there as some basic characteristics that could only be possessed by God. It is how we could differentiate and distinguish God from something else entirely. For example: Fully-realized, infinitely-perfect knowledge with no further potential for improvement exists iff God exists. I like that thinking. Good insight.
Second, is there anything other than those core characteristics that distinguish and differentiate God from something else can be true if and only if God exists? The universe was created iff God exists, is close. The universe could not have been created iff God does not exist, because the act of creating something out of nothing is a characteristic that can only be God. Nothing other than God could possibly have the ability to create something out of nothing. There is the nagging problem that “the universe was created” could be false, but that “God exists” could be true. So the statement has some flaw that I can’t quite put into words but it is not a bad attempt. But I think that this statement is just another way of saying the same thing as my first point. The ability to create something out of nothing could only be possessed by God. So I think the blanket statement would be this: Something can be created out of nothing iff God exists. This is true because only God could possibly do this. However, we have never seen God create something out of nothing, and we have no evidence that God has ever created something out of nothing. And the reason is that we have not way of knowing what exists that was created out of nothing. It is entirely possible that nothing that exists was created out of nothing. But if there is anything that does exist that was created out of nothing then God exists because only God could do this.
I think both the first and second points are very close to saying the following: God exists iff God exists.
Thirdly, we are still left without anything we perceive with our senses that is biconditional upon the existence of God. Nothing in what we perceive of reality that is biconditional upon the existence of God. Nothing in our perception that could be true if and only if God exists. At least we have competing theories to explain everything we percieve that do not require us to posit a God. True, these theories have no more or less credibility than the original Theory of God, but still, there is nothing left to us that requires God to exist.
I think it is this third problem that is the problem. If God exists then it seems that there ought to be at least one very clear and plainly evident perception of something that could not possibly be as it is unless God exists. But we can come up with nothing that demands the existence of God. We have alternative explanations. There is a basic concept that nothing exists without a reason for it’s existence. So other than the hopes and fears of mankind, what is the reason for God to exist? What is there that does exist that could exist if and only if God exists?
You’ve read Aristotle – how about Motion?
If you want five of them, consider Aquinas’ arguments. I’ve posted them before – or they can be found here. newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm
I think all those arguments argue implicitly that they can happen only if God exsits.
mrn
Here are the five arguements and my answer to each:
The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality. But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
ANSWER NUMBER ONE: It can and does go on into infinity. Sorry. You have talked yourself into an infinite regression and positing a God to put a stop to it is no proof of God. If motion requires a mover then likewise God requires a Mega-God and on and on into infinity and beyond. And rather than positing a God, Why not stop with the Universe?
The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
MY ANSWER NUMBER TWO: If every effect requires a cause then every God requires a Mega-God and on and on into infinity. Once again, infinite regression. Rather than positing a God, simply stop with reality, the universe, energy and matter. Using God as the answer to infinite regression is a logical cop out. If you merely assign to existence, to reality, to the universe itself, all those possibilities that you assign to God then there is no need to posit a God. However, to say that all movement in the Universe is by way of returning to the source then I agree. Whether that source is God or not, we do not know. It could well be some naturally occuring event. Some freak chaotic accident. It may be true to say that every effect has a cause IFF God exists (God being the original effect) But we do not know if this is true or not since we cannot possibly trace all effects back to their causes. And even if we could, then there is no assurance we’d ever arrive at God. Just remove God from the explanation and we are left with an unknown source that cannot be named, and that is a mystery.
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence–which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
MY ANSWER NUMBER THREE: I agree that something does exist and that something always existed. We do not know what . And to call it God is not to say anything about it’s characteristics except for existence. It is energy. But to say that there is something that always existed, I cannot argue with that. I don’t think anybody can. However, I fail to see how this thing that always existed can only be God. Maybe it is the universe. Again, no need to posit a God. Just a minor shift from God to the Universe. I think you come very close of falling into the trap of saying that God must exist because God is perfect and a thing that exists is more perfect than one that does not exist, therefore God must exist or else he wouldn’t be God. But maybe he isn’t God. Maybe there is no God. Maybe that thing that always existed is that very thing that still exists and will go on existing long after mankind is extinct, the universe itself, energy, matter.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things. Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like. But “more” and “less” are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
MY ANSWER NUMBER FOUR: Infinite pefection is possible IFF God exists. I will accept that as a biconditional statement about God. However, mankind is not capable of infinite perfection. We only concieve of infinite perfection but we percieve ourselves always progressing never arriving at infinite perfection. We know we are not infinitely perfect in any way other than our infinitely perfect free will to form whatever judgements we choose. As to all other things, we precieve that we are only potentially perfection but never actually realized infinite perfection. However, the mere fact that we can imagine and speculate and conjecture about the possibility of infinite perfection not in the potential but rather actually realized does not mean that any such actually realized infinite perfection exists. Furhtermore, perhaps we are mere cogs in the machine of the universe, mere puzzle pieces in the universal inter-galactiic puzzle. And perhaps, our flaws that we are so painfully aware, our imprefect forms, are what make us perfect pieces in the universal puzzle. And perhaps when all those puzzle pieces are viewed as a whole, together they form a perfect picture. Maybe each tiny cog fits perfectly into the universal machine and together we form a unified universal well oiled machine that functions perfectly as cohesive harmoinious whole. And maybe if we cold only somehow step out of the puzzle and see it from some high viewpoint where we could see how everything fits together in perfect harmony, then we would see how our imperfect piece is perfectly suited to complete the universal perfection. So that maybe there is no God, but rather there is simply the universal perfection of the cohesive harmoinious whole of existence. Again, no need to posit a God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.
MY REPLY NUMBER FIVE: To view the sum of all things and see in it a perfection of purpose that demands some master plan has three obvious flaws. 1)There is much chaos in the universe. Upon closer inspection, the universe is not as orderly as St Augustine might have imagined in the 5th century AD. and 2)If the universe is so wonderful that it must be the result of some master plan, then what of that even more wonderful thing that planned the universe? Who planned the planner? Again, an infinite regression begins and goes slip sliding away on and on to infinity and beyond. But if one merely takes away the myth that they universe is unfolding according to some master plan then one is left with the vast unfolding of natural events and no need to posit a God. 3) Does it really make sense to view the sum of everything as having a purpose?
So I have answered all five of St Augustines arguements for the existence of God and shown that there are obvious flaws in these arguements and that it is not necessary to posit a God.
PC., you will find most of your arguments are dealt with in the text. Basically, you say "Why not the universe and not God? " But that moving, changable, imperfect thing beyond which he argues, is the universe.
Strange, i thought no meaning is why some (Sartre?) have exclaimed the universe is absurd.
Pace et bene.
Love iff god exists
thats the best one i got
Not absurd, just not created. It is that it is. We are that we are. Acceptance of what is with no need to posit unknowns. This is not absurdity, it is wisdom. In harmony with the vast unfolding of natural events, without the need to posit some master planner. Accepting the mystery of the unknown without offering a theory of God to explain it.
Love as a virtue is thought to depend upon the object of love being worthy, useful, pleasant, valuable and virtuous. Virtuous love is thought to be loving and taking pleasure from what one ought to rightly love. Love can be base, however. Men can love many things and not all of them are worthy, useful, pleasant, valuable or virtuous. So the fact that there are these two types of love, love as a virtue and love as a vice, seems to me to identify love as a purely human action.