For those who like to solve things...

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
41

There are 12 capital letters. Wow, didn’t foresee that misunderstanding, lol.

We can learn about God like we learn about events in history and that our spouse loves us. That sort of thing. This is real knowledge. And by that I don’t mean ‘certain’ knowledge. One must be omniscient in order to have certain knowledge. All forms of knowledge and belief are varying degrees of faith. This has also come up elsewhere. Honestly, I am not ready for full-blown epistemology.

God ‘is’ the ultimate purpose. He is the ‘final cause’ in Aristotle’s theory of the four causes. Love. To ask “what is the purpose of God?” is to ask “what is the purpose of love?” Love ‘is’ the ultimate purpose. There is nothing beyond that.

You do not ask, “What caused that which has no cause?” It would be like asking, “What turned blue that which is not blue?” The argument you’re referring to comes up in the Reason for God discussion.

42

oops, I thought you meant the number of capital letters in the first two lines… as in, there are six capital letters in the first two lines each; you meant total. So 12 aye? I give up. is that the answer? 12? I’m sure there’s more to it. I’m just not gonna figure it out tonight. You can tell me the answer.

I’m starting with the assumption that ALL knowledge is empirical. You seem to be claiming there is another kind of knowledge. Please explain how knowledge could ever be anything else other than empirical (subjective/perspective) One person’s ability to remember events in history or notice that a spouse demonstrates certain behavior are knowledge like any and all knowledge, empirical.

Wrong, there is nothing (no questions) beyond that because you will not allow yourself to ask that. Just because you declare, “God = Love = Purpose = Hamsters = Cheeseburgers” does nothing to answer the never ending question: If everything has purpose, then the chain of causality must be infinite. You cannot get to one thing,(God) and say that it is the embodiment of the very idea that everything has purpose. I think that is exactly what God is: The notion of God stops this endless line of questioning for us. That is the purpose of a ‘final purpose’ or ‘first cause’; to be a first cause in an infinitely causal universe.

I haven’t heard of ‘Reason for God discussion’. Is it a book? I’m just letting my mind run. what you write, i respond with the best possible words to describe what I think and feel about what you wrote.

“What caused that which has no cause?” This is why the concept of God will not be let go of by people. It creates such mind loops and circles. Because the concept of god can shift and change SO MUCH, it can never be nailed down and put to rest, it always warps the mind of the person carrying the idea of God. They don’t realize how much they are altering their idea of God every time they think about the concept of God. It helps encapsulate questions where the answer is infinite; ie if everything must have a cause, ergo EVERYTHING must have a cause, nothing can not have a cause. Thus God must have a cause.

I digress… Anyway, You have this concept or notion called god; with it, you have attached the attribute that this idea, this concept (God) has no cause. Yet this attribute that you have attached doesn’t make sense at all. Everything has a cause. Everything is a part of this universe. everything is part of the real. everything is a result of atoms colliding with atoms. The fact is, everything has a cause. We can go back to no beginning and we can look forward to no end. Please see my new post titled Nothing from Something.

43

The answer to the riddle is not 12. The capital letters represent the months of the year starting with December, and the answer, in a nutshell, is “always.”

I repeat… I’m not ready for epistemology.

Does that hat have a hidden compartment? In statement 1, you are mixing cause-and-effect with ‘final cause’ and the conclusion does not follow… As for statement 2, the only things that need a cause are contingent things. Everything ‘contingent’ needs a cause. There is only one necessary being (God)–the ground of all contingent being. So there are two types of being… contingent and necessary. Only the contingent need a cause. Regarding statement 3, that is a giant leap of faith… but even if it were proved with certainty, it would not answer the question of why something exists rather than nothing… or how God could mix moments together when all moments are fixed (prophecy foretelling and fulfilling)… or many other questions, like why the chicken crossed the road (probably the most important question of our time).

This is interesting: http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1118527364.shtml

“The Reason for God” is a book by Tim Keller. http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=165828

44

It seems to me that everything has a cause. It is infinite. Thus, to propose a ‘first cause’ or ‘final cause’ is illogical because EVERYTHING must have a cause. What evidence leads you to believe there is a stop in the causal chain or that a non-‘contingent thing’ could exist? I can demonstrate and give examples of causality, and show how everything has a cause. Can you demonstrate a first or final cause? No, it is illogical and an impossibility.

45

I assume by ‘infinite’ you actually mean ‘eternal’ in statement 1. If the sum of all contingent things is eternal, then that sum has no ‘first cause’ (but is caused, 'cause it is mixedly fixed)… but it is still a mystery why it exists, rather than not existing… If that is what you are asking about God… why He exists, rather than not existing… why the ground of being exists… why existence exists… why love exists… rather than not existing… well… that’s making my brain into a giant knot. It seems to me that here we are smack dab in the middle of existence, so it’s a given – and existence and the nature of existence are summed up in a necessary God who is love. Nothing makes sense about existence if such a God is removed from it (as if), which is why all the why questions are asked when one rejects God as the answer… and why they cease when a necessary God who is love, is accepted. There’s more to it than that and I’m sure you’ll say I’ve just settled on something to ease the anxiety of asking why, but… oh well… you know there’s more that could be said, and I’ve referred you to the book discussion (which is just a start).

Think of ‘contingent’ as ‘that which changes’ and necessary as ‘that within which the contingent changes’… because if everything is changing and nothing is unchanging, then change is a meaningless concept (perhaps that is the fallacy of the suppressed correlative) (I’m no expert in logic).

46

This thread has turned into some serious philosophizing. Yahoo! :banana-dance:

I think it is the quintessential question of philosophy. “WHY!?” or rather “Why something rather than nothing?”

Irregardless of whether or not there is a God, this question applies to everything. God is included in part of anything when we ask, “Why anything?” She is not exempt, as people usually try to make her.

God simply provides, what seems to be, an answer to every why question… except for “Why God?” The fact is, we can always ask why. God is not exempt! There is profound understanding in realizing that this is EXACTLY what God is: an answer to most "why?"s. That is the answer to “Why God?” The concept of God exists to answer the why to everything… except “Why God”. It is a stop to all questions and thinking. It was a truly remarkable and, some may say, useful invention of humanity. However, it is no longer useful today. We realize today, that that reason we invented this being, this something, was to answer all questions with one single thing. It is easy to get your head around EVERYTHING, if the answer to the unknown is always the same… God. It is a simple truth that questions can always be formed and asked. Once this is realized, we watch as this ‘question answering concept’ called God falls apart.

I’m sure I’ve recommended it before, but I will again.
Please try to get a hold of Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing - by Bede Rundle

47

Why?

48

ha ha, funny, but Why what?

49

How?

50

Funny to me because it was an interesting way to not respond to what I said. Also funny to me because you were demonstrating that we can always ask why? Not necessarily “why”, but we can eternally ask questions.

I’m happy because I think you thought about my paragraph concerning the concept of God. Even though you will explain to me that you do not agree with it, I hope that it resonated somewhere deep in your mind. I think you realize that we can ask “why God?” and you see the purpose why we created him… to end questions. God is a way we can pretend we have our heads around things we do not have answers for. Though God seems to be an answer, it isn’t.

I was explaining this to my brother (strong Christian) yesterday: Any question that you can ask, in which the answer “God” is given, the question is not actually answered. Take any question: What is the meaning of life? I was taught by my father that it was to love God with all your heart, soul and mind, to seek his plan for me, and to follow Jesus’ teachings in the bible. In short; God gives meaning and purpose to our lives. But if we do exactly what you did, ask a simple “WHY?”, we see that we are in trouble. The line of questioning cannot stop. God cannot stop it.

I asked; What is our meaning? Answer; God provides it. Then you asked, “Why?” So why does God provide it? or rather, if God provides our meaning, what is God’s meaning?

Perhaps the eternal ‘why’ leads us to realize infinite causality. Unfortunately, if there is a cause to everything, then there is a cause to God, and a cause to that, and a cause to that, and a cause to that…

Or as American Christians often say, “Everything happens for a reason”. If you believe this then… God happens for a reason too, and there was a reason for the reason for God, and a reason for that…

In general, perhaps we should be more careful when we use the words everything, anything, or all.

51

You are stuck in a closed thought loop.

You do not read what I write… or you read selectively.

I’ll wait.

52

Your last two posts said, “Why?” and “How?”. I asked for clarification as to the “Why?” and you didn’t clarify your question. What am I supposed to do? I did my best interpretation of your intention in posting “Why?”. Explain your “Why?” question with more words please.

53

Why didn’t you reply to the rest of what I said? You are basically arguing on one hand that there is no answer to “Why?” because we could always ask ‘Why?’ about every answer, and on the other hand that ‘Why?’ is the “quintessential question of philosophy.” So, philosophy is a chasing of the wind, you might be trying to say. But “What is the purpose?” is a different question from “Why does purpose even exist, rather than not existing?” The second question does not ask for the purpose of purpose. I can’t answer why there is (instead of isn’t) purpose—I can merely stand in awe and embrace it. And that God answers the other “Why?” questions does not rule Him out as that answer to “Why?”, no more than food being the answer to hunger rules it out as being the answer to hunger. Why does food exist? To keep us from starving to death (simple answer). Why does it exist as that which keeps us from starving to death? Wullll… I dunno… but I’m sure glad it does! Why does something (physical) exist rather than nothing? Because God exists, who is love, and created the physical from which to mold us, so as to share His love. Why does God (Love) exist and why do we exist to share in His love? Wull… I dunno… but I’m sure glad we do! Why, from your perspective, should I do anything, forget reading that book, if (as you suggest) there is no real purpose? There was a thread a million years back, and this whole “Why?” business was discussed… and Tabula Rasa (I think) said that those promoting philosophy should start a group (under different identities) that promotes bottom-of-the-barrel type thinking/values, whatever… so as to create a hunger which the philosophy-promoting group (without the guise) can “tap into.” That’s when I left the discussion. Know why? ‘Cause I didn’t know why. Now I do. I kinda wonder if Epic Rites didn’t start out as the bottom-of-the-barrel guise… and got stuck in the mud…. ‘cause they didn’t know why, either. I don’t know how to lift them out, but I know Someone who does.

54

Yes, we can always ask another question and Yes, philosophy (to me) means asking those deepest and most infinite of questions.

Asking questions is human nature. We are born, we think and ask questions, and we die. It is chasing the wind if you are looking for final answers. If you realize that there is no end to questions, then I don’t think you would describe philosophy as chasing the wind; primarily, because we can answer a great many questions along the way.

Yes, this is the question I am asking with you and in the other thread I started.

Perfect. You have eloquently demonstrated, in your own way, how God does not answer the real question… why something rather than nothing? It is a fact that God is definitely SOMETHING. So why God rather than nothing? Do you see that God adds NOTHING to help answer the question?

55

“a necessary God” aye? The concept is necessary to answer the question for you, but it doesn’t truly answer what you are asking.

“existence”? God exists right? If all existence is summed up for you in God, what is God summed up in? Thanks for giving me that chance to demonstrate my argument in a different way and in another example.

There is a lot of sense we can make of existence and the universe without a big daddy in the sky. The reality that you are demonstrating is that God does not make sense to you, for when we ask any questions as to his existence, you refuse to go there or say, “Wull… I dunno…”

56

I’m not explaining it properly.

Go back to why the question “Why does something exist rather than nothing?” is even asked. Put the question in the mind of someone who has never even heard of God. They just want to know why anything exists… rather than nothing existing. It’s not a “How did this get here?” question or a “What’s the purpose of this stuff?” question. Those questions follow after the initial one and are asked after accepting that something exists even though we don’t know why nothing exists instead–BECAUSE we figure that, since something does exist instead of nothing… though we don’t know why nothing exists instead… there must be some way the something got here and is staying here… and a purpose for it (our questions are limited to the physical if we have never heard of God). I will grant you that if you include God in the “something” (though a different type of something than the physical) – His existence doesn’t exactly answer the question (it would actually be circular reasoning to say “He exists because He exists”… on the level of the “just because” of atheists, which is, granted, usually an answer to one of the questions that follow). It is indeed mind-boggling that He, and anything at all, exists. But “How did this get here?” and “What’s the purpose of this stuff?” – those questions don’t apply to Him, because He is not contingent, and is the source of purpose–He is the answer to those questions, which follow the initial question, the initial ‘itch,’ (of every philosopher) if you will… So what if the initial question cannot be answered? It isn’t the important one… it’s just the impetus/catalyst. The important questions are answered.

What is God summed up in? you ask. That is a “How did this get here?” or “What is the purpose of purpose?” question. Illogical.

See my signature.

God’s love makes sense to me. There is much about Him He has yet to teach me… with that, I will not argue. One thing I will enjoy learning once He’s made eternity accessible… is all the languages ever utilized… all the ins and outs of how each language evolved. That would be cool. I want to know God’s language, if He has one… the sort of language spoken within the Trinity which did not ever have to change, develop, evolve, etcetera. Sorta reminds me of Forms-type thinking. Weird. Well… gotta switch the laundry. One more thing…

Quite a leap of faith you’ve made there, Bane… I have evidence to the contrary. I do hope you will join the Reason for God discussion.

You, too, churro… formerly known as … uh … dude, I forgot what your name used to be. December 12 is a good guess… but not the answer to the riddle (well… not as far as I’m aware, hehe, depending on how you interpret the riddle). Hint: the answer is not a date on the calendar, but the calendar is very much involved. The answer was given already, if you scan the discussion… a warning if you don’t want the riddle spoiled… but I would encourage reading the discussion, anyway.

57

I am excited. In the paragraph above, for the first time, you have expressed back to me what I have been repeating over and over, that God does not answer many questions. I’m so thrilled that you expressed that you understand this idea. It demonstrates that new ideas CAN be introduced, that conversations can enlighten people, that minds can be changed. You’ve made me very happy today. I’m thrilled with the notion that you get the concept.

You may not know it, but you’ve loosely grasped God’s purpose, why the notion was invented. That you quickly turn your mind off after having grasped the concept (saying it’s not important) is o.k. with me. We’ve come very far indeed. You understand that God does not answer the question. Perhaps with more time and pondering, you’ll realize that the concept of God is vacuous. You’ve already just taken a big step.

58

How would you describe love? If there were no sentient beings on this earth, if there were not beings to love or hate each other, would there be love? If there are no beings to have emotions, how could there be emotions? How can you restrict God to having human emotions?

You have evidence that there is an end to questions? Evidence that questions cannot forever be asked?

59

Churro… ah, yes, tortoise. I thought you were the slow-and-steady, wins-the-race sort of tortoise. I thought of you a couple months ago when some Mormons came by to convert me and I engaged them in discussion. I pointed out several holes in Mormonism, being sure to assure them not to throw the baby (Jesus) out with the bath water (Mormonism) if they examine their religion and find it has too many holes. They were so young, and I could see the looks of uncertainty in their eyes. I told them how I lost faith and He brought me back. I could tell I got through. I hope they hang on to that.

Bane, How have you introduced a new idea and changed my mind? You haven’t answered the rest of my post about evidence of God (recognition of His existence, not invention of it). In a nutshell, I would describe love as treating others as you would like to be treated (as a fellow needer-of-love), regardless if you “feel” like it. This is not essential unless God is love. Love is liberating and requires strength. The inability to love is a greater weakness than physical inability. Keller mentions it as a freedom-loss, which would be interesting to discuss if you join me in that book discussion. As for the “end to questions” thang… of course you could always ask why, but then you’d never enjoy what it is that you’re incessantly asking “Why?” about. You’re saying we all stop asking “Why?” at some arbitary point… whatever ethical system or principle we live by (be it utilitarianism or “I want icecream,”). But love is not arbitrary–it ‘is’ the point… all the other points have problems (see my ethics paper).

<also noticed you maintain your happiness I asked you about months ago… you really do want for nothing, eh?>

60

I didn’t bother reading everything, but I thought it would be fun for my wife to do this as she’s the cryptologist in our family.

Again, I was impressed.
She got it in 40 minutes while a little high, and at 3am (we’re parents and we said, “fuck it” tonight and stayed up late)

(I know, you posted this already, but she got it without seeing that part)

As to the riddle, I PM’d you my answer, I didn’t read if anyone else had answered yet, but I didn’t really care.