|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God caused or uncaused? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Hi Rob.
My position is that I believe God is the first mover. I think God is un-caused, and always existed. For me this solves the problem. For me, the real infinite regression is that of things being continually caused. Then you have the question, "what caused the first cause". With God you don't need an answer - because his eternal existence solves that problem. I suppose if there's no God, there could be infinite regression, but why? Isn't it a contradiction in terms? If everything needs a cause, then how can it be infinite? Well, just my quick thoughts on the matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
That's why your a wiz Mike, in spite of your humility . Face it man... you've got the gift. My irrefutability has be noted. ...I am thinking philosophically aswell - are there usually reasons for things? What is the reason for everything/anything? To me, it's obvious in the function of the universe, and Aristotle's causes. Formal cause, final cause, etc... It seems that everything must be put down to coincidence. But that in itself becomes vacuous, as it is reduced to a none-answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
For me personally, God satisfies the question, because he answers a great many problems for me. If he doesn't answer your problems, fair enough, but for me, I believe he is the best answer put forward, even if entirely unproven.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Yes, that's right. Otherwise I have to accept all gods & goddesses regardles of whether they are mutually contradictory, or not. Ahhh - it's a false dillemma though Mark. Either we accept empirical evidence, or we accept all gods. The latter is a popular appeal to the consequences used by many atheists. Infact, logic does not require that God/s do not exist, or that you accept all gods. It requires that you treat all gods equally, when assesed logically. But their validity can not be known through logic alone, necessarily, without assuming that only empirical evidence can "find" out their truth-value. For we do not know what should be credence for a God, so it is very hard to treat them equally, when we are left to conclude that which is most plausible, through individual subjective analysis. Hence we then go back to science, if we are not convinced. I contend that spiritual experience is the only detector worth bothering with. I admitt that the biblical God can not be treated in a special sense, objectively, but I think logical positivism is essentially flawed because if something doesn't exist untill it's proven by humans, then everything we had not discovered, did not exist untill we discovered it. This is essentially the positivist's position; to deny all unless discovered. It is an appeal to ignorance. BUT, you did say that you are an atheist who does not reject God as a possibility, if memory serves?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Rob's link writes: ..for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." These particular words you quote, dispose of what epistemology tells us. Many positivists simply don't adhere to the fact that TRUTH exists beyond the empirically tangible, and/or without it. Many discoveries of knowledge preceded science. The cavemen had internal truth when they found that they enjoyed certain activities. This is subjective truth, but truth is all elemental. An objective truth is not worth more than a subjective truth. This is why the likes of this Hume-guy, disregard philosophy, but science only works because of the philosophies of epistemology and logic. This is why I see such statements as arrogant, because what we don't know is so prolific that we can not conclude anything about the whole universe, and it's full reality, from but a small measure of knowledge found scientifically. We have logic and epistemology as the base, then science, and what it can tell us, and then worldviews, which are guesswork.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
First off Rob, I am not sure what the beef is between you and Mark24, so I can't really comment on his views.
The term 'positivists' is new to me, Logical positivists(if memory serves correct), are those that claim that all claims are vacuous and deemed false unless proven positive. So for example; God exists = positivist would say, "no evidence/proof, therefore the claim is worthless". My problem with this is that, logic does not allow us to incapacitate a potential inference. If you assume everything with no evidence is false, or meaningless, then you throw the baby out with the bathwater.
So, as Lewis, myself, you, and many others have shown over and over again... there is ultimately nothing emperical about 'empericism' other than it's correct inference to logic (ie. philosophical coherence). I agree if you mean to say that empericism or empiricism is only sound because of logic.
And so modern science's claim to fame, the almighty and emperical fact that is superior and utterly removed from philsophical bias' was given birth to by philosophers. They have raised this image, and given it the ability to speak. And a great number of millions follow and marvel at it... I agree. Although I CAN understand why the marvel. Science is the torch in the dark. To others, nothing else has proved itself. But for those who have had spiritual experiences, they have subjective knowledge or conviction that God is true. Epistemology shows that internal knowledge can be true - and that's all I need to show. You can't conclude that only objective truth is valuable, as Shraff tries to show to me, time and time again.
What I think you and I understand, is that God reveals Himself through logical and coherent reasoning. And that is the Word. And that is what we all use to relay these things. So as soon as you speak, we are looking for coherence... I understand what you're saying, yes. For me, Christ is the most wise. Logic, the philosophy of humans, is probably the baby-steps to God's ultimate wisdom.
How was that mike??? Was I starting to ramble at the end? It was fine - thanks for the quotes, feel free to provide more. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I think the empericists are trying to say that the physical world proves itself to be logical. But what we are saying, is that it really only proves logic to be valid. And if logic is valid, then it is valid beyond even the emperical, since the emperical is baseless without it (as you said). That's the only reason either side can legitimately theorize about their ultimate philosophical construct of reality. So, the physical world shows emperically the validity of logic. We do not have a complete picture on either side, but it reveals God's (Reality's) nature. Excellent. Yes, I agree with you a 1000%. HOWEVER, (and yu might hate me for this) - I think the last part; "but it reveals God's (reality's) nature", I think this is our belief, because of our experience. (Our conviction.) I think Mark's message #37 hits on why God/s aen't proven. The problems we have is that all religions say the same thing - unfortunately for us, even if we are utterly convinced our God is God - that is not self-evident to others. But mostly, I agree with you pretty much fully, concerning logic, empericism etc.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
That quote about philosophical coherency is interesting.
This part is interesting; " science does not consider issues of "meaning" and "purpose" in the world ". For me - it is frustrating that people therefore dismiss such things. It's important to remember that there are logical reasons which are valid, when it comes to the God of the gaps, and the author can not help the authority science seems to have in the modern era, because of it's results. But the good news is that this statement doesn't say that God doesn't have any credence. Afterall, look at Aristotle's causes. Such arguments are powerful in regards to a formal cause, etc...that being that entities have the nature of that which they come from, within them etc...so the statement doesn't rule out value to philosophy. For example, inherently a biological entity will have an inner-cause/design which comes from the predecessors, the parents. May I ask though Rob - do you think ID should be a part of science then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I'm not very articulate in a way that others understand me. Here's a better explanation;
Formal cause
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
I have a friend. His name is reality. And He loves His Son logic. And logic never lies... . Nice one. I'll have to start calling you; God's lawyer.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024