|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God caused or uncaused? | |||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
If you're going to put options on the table, get them out there.
Rob: Assuming the existence of God for a moment, what are our options on this issue? 1. God is uncaused 2. God is caused. 3. Both of the above. 4. Neither of the above. 5. You can't know. (Keeping in mind that the initial assumption is exactly that.) Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Rob: C.S. Lewis gave a simmilar illustration to yours, but not about time but God himself. He said that if our life is a line on a sheet, then God would be the whole page. But even then he cautiously reminds us that it is only meant to help, it cannot capture the infinite nature of God. God is not a page, He is a book. And even then we're dealing with only one chapter of His reality that relates to this particular part of the story as he relates to us. In the end, there is no end. In the end, there is no book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Rob: there is ultimately nothing emperical about 'empericism' other than it's correct inference to logic (ie. philosophical coherence).
Two goofs. 1. Reliance on quantifiable sensory data is also an identifying feature of empiricism. 2. Logical coherence is mathematical, not "philosophical," in nature. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Rob: Quantifiable? ie. mathematical? Measurable. Math applies, obviously.
We now have quantifiable sensory data. We watch for more red shift, measure more amounts, and build up a body of data. We look for pattens. We make predictions based on the patterns we discern, then look at more stars to see how the predictions turn out. And so it goes. That's empiricism.
Well of course... one cannot rely on his senses to tell him his senses are valid. It must be tested by good reasoning (ie. mathematical / logical thinking). One does not measure the amount of red shift in stars to 'tell him his senses are valid.' One does it so one can be precise in talking to others. This helps ensure that everyone is talking about the same thing. Instead of a scientist saying 'I thought that star looked kind of orangey when I looked at the charts. What do you think? Does it look orangey to you?', followed by a long discussion about how to define 'orangey', the scientist can simply say 'This star shows X amount of shift into the red end of the spectrum.' The other scientist can then observe the star and see if she finds the same thing. If she does, the amount of correspondence can be measured. If she does not, the amount of difference can be measured. Either way, you get more data--more quantifiable sensory data. And so it goes. So it is not accurate to say, as you do, that one confirms sensory data simply by 'applying logic.' One confirms sensory data in no small part by making sure others notice the same thing. Which brings us to an important way to test, empirically, whether your 'senses are valid.' One makes sure others get the same data when they use their senses. That's why precise terms are needed and measurements are so important. Another test is to make falsifiable predictions based on what one senses, then get everybody looking. Those are the methods of empiricism.
What is philosophy? It is applied logic. applied logic | Fallacies, Varieties, & Facts | Britannica So, good philosophy is simply mathematical observation and testing of an idea. You are trying to say philosophy and empiricism are 'the same thing.' They aren't. In the first place, philosophy does not begin from 'mathematical observations' as you say. It begins from axioms. (See posts by jar.) Philosophy regularly applies its logic to premises empiricism cannot confirm. The two are thus not the same, despite your wish to have it so. An example of philosophy's approach would be, say, a discussion of whether God is caused or uncaused. One starts from an axiom--'God exists'--that has nothing to do with 'mathematical observation' or quantifiable sensory data. Given that premise, one applies logic. It's possible, I suppose to make fine case for either point of view. The result would be a logically valid argument. But validity and truth are not the same thing. A perfectly valid argument about causes or lack of causes does not obligate God to exist if he doesn't. It does not prove his existence if he does. All philosophy asks of quantifiable sensory data is that any philosophical argument put forward not contradict it. Clearly, the methods of philosophy are not those of empiricism. Until you have designed a test for God, measured God, shown us your math, let us replicate the results, and made falsifiable predictions everyone can test, they remain two distinct ways of going about things.
Call it math, call it philosophy, call it sensory. The point is we are all seeking logical (philosophical) coherence between the physical world, our experiences of it, and logic. All you have said here is that philosophy and science are two ways we try to understand the world around us, and that both use logic. You have not demonstrated that the two are 'the same thing.' That conclusion does not logically follow from the statement. You are eager to point out the characteristics the two share. On that basis you jumble terms. But you fail to address the ways in which the two differ. Those differences are substantial. To overlook them is foolish and, for the purposes of making your argument, logically unsound. ___ Edited by Archer Opterix, : making sure the word 'shift' gets an S. Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev. Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair. Edited by Archer Opterix, : html. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Human beings are logical or not logical.
Reality is just real. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Rob: God is logic. The argument isn't, though, if this is it. You're just waxing eloquent on a metaphor. It's a common rhetorical turn. One starts with the idea that God is 'good'. From there one asserts that God 'is' anything that the audience puts in that category.
You can do it with anything. You'll get no argument from a friendly crowd that likes love, likes logic, likes baseball, likes cartoons, and likes God. Why would they argue? It all fits. It must be true because it sounds so good. Once the metaphor is created it can be extended. It is only limited by the lengths the speaker is ready to go. Give it a good rhetorical polish and it can almost pass for theology.
Rhetoric like this is gratifying to an audience that enjoys thinking of itself as loving, logical, athletic, and cartoony. It makes God look like the ultimate member of the same gang. It's a convincing way to talk to the already convinced. But have you said anything? 'Arguments' like this go nowhere once you leave the clubhouse because they nothing rationally persuasive. It isn't logic. It's just running away with a figure of speech. ___ Edited by Archer Opterix, : html. Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev. Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev. Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Rob: How could God have begotton a Son who is eternal?[...] He is eternal. So if God begets God... then He begets that which is exactly Like Him. Something which has a beginning, then. A beginning is what 'begat' refers to. ___ Archer All species are transitional.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024