tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5209904753993857103..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Plantinga on the God Delusion Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19949698348768244652020-04-28T06:30:57.902-07:002020-04-28T06:30:57.902-07:00You obviously do not know what a physics theory is...You obviously do not know what a physics theory is.<br /><br />They are abstractions, ideas.<br /><br />If QFT is not an idea then there is no such thing as an idea.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83447181300586002982020-04-28T04:25:47.591-07:002020-04-28T04:25:47.591-07:00"Start with quantum field theory and just kee..."<i>Start with quantum field theory and just keep going.</i>"<br /><br />Quantum field theory is not an idea; it's a discovery. Apples and oranges.Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2156577823615761882020-04-27T22:04:30.070-07:002020-04-27T22:04:30.070-07:00Mankind has not had an original idea for the past ...<b>Mankind has not had an original idea for the past 2000 years</b><br /><br />Yet, some people cannot come to grasp with that fact due to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery" rel="nofollow">Chronological snobbery</a>.<br /><br />Even C.S. Lewis had a hard time overcoming it.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71210359785071903422020-04-27T20:47:57.285-07:002020-04-27T20:47:57.285-07:00"Mankind has not had an original idea for the..."Mankind has not had an original idea for the past 2000 years"<br />Nonsense, except for the religious, they are often utterly lacking in originality.<br /><br />Start with quantum field theory and just keep going.<br /><br />Digging through ancient texts and going to Christian services or whatever it is you do will indeed lead you to be mired in all the falsehoods of the past with no hope of gaining any new insights into reality.<br /><br />Just because you can't come up with a new idea doesn't nobody else can.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80538647719135684902020-04-27T17:08:48.008-07:002020-04-27T17:08:48.008-07:00"ideas that I thought only I worried about tu..."<i>ideas that I thought only I worried about turn out to be discussed rigorously by the medievals</i>"<br /><br />Ha! About 20 years ago, I became obsessed with learning about the earliest (written) artifacts of human culture. I read Gilgamesh, and Hesiod's Theogony, plus most of the Greeks. (I liked Homer by far the best.) I plowed through the ancient texts of Daoism, Hinduism, and Shintoism (the weirdest of the lot, by the way). I was (sadly) defeated by the Mahabharata, but managed to work my way through most every thing else.<br /><br />One thing I learned by all that study was that there is nothing truly new. Mankind has not had an original idea for the past 2000 years. Everything has already been discussed, dissected, argued over, and incorporated into every other idea to the point that it's now almost impossible to find a thought's first occurrence.<br /><br />That said, every generation can discover the old anew, and re-present it to a fresh audience with renewed vigor. That remains.<br />Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72182852090123350602020-04-27T16:41:53.223-07:002020-04-27T16:41:53.223-07:00Eric,
For myself, the experience has been very st...Eric,<br /><br /><b>For myself, the experience has been very stimulating and intellectually delightful. A lot of my muddleheaded intuitive ideas that I thought only I worried about turn out to be discussed rigorously by the medievals. </b><br /><br />Same for me.<br /><br />But I would advise newbies against just picking up the Summa Theologica and digging in. That work was for university graduate level theology students who had already showed they were proficient at lower level philosophy courses. Philosophy that few are proficient at at this point in time (although it is gradually being rediscovered). Feser does an excellent job introducing the concepts. bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35555404104078203612020-04-27T16:33:55.785-07:002020-04-27T16:33:55.785-07:00Probably a good thing that you didn't have eno...Probably a good thing that you didn't have enough time at the hospital to read it, right?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26200320885178664232020-04-27T09:06:59.928-07:002020-04-27T09:06:59.928-07:00"How was Life on the Mississippi?"
Sadl..."<i>How was Life on the Mississippi?</i>"<br /><br />Sadly, I never got around to it. I had of course brought along my travel-sized Bible, for some reason started in on the Minor Prophets, and never got beyond them. I read Obadiah with greater insight than ever before. So much there in such a short book!Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44939539669065997372020-04-26T20:48:22.840-07:002020-04-26T20:48:22.840-07:00As a completely personal side note, my own attempt...As a completely personal side note, my own attempt to think carefully about this stuff and try to learn Thomistic philosophy or thinking comes from a desire to acquire some tools to help myself think and express more carefully things about God in my inner life. I'm always wary of when Christianity sounds like a space opera or some big budget summer blockbuster with insane CGI, and I'm wary of the notion of God being ripped straight from a Hallmark card or Oprah. <br /><br />So the question would be: how well do I understand God or contemplate him philosophically, all while being normed by what scripture reveals?<br /><br />For myself, the experience has been very stimulating and intellectually delightful. A lot of my muddleheaded intuitive ideas that I thought only I worried about turn out to be discussed rigorously by the medievals. And, while not one inch further in solutions to great mysteries (Triunity, simplicity, reconciling divine foreknowledge with free will, penal substitution, to name a few), this off-and-on study of the last few years of Thomistic concepts has helped me more rigorously articulate the mysteries and where human knowledge ends and mystery begins. And as a Dominican asserted in one of his online Aquinas videos, merely contemplating these things carefully can bring a man that species of intellectual delight. <br /><br />I also find that thinking about these things can increase one's devotion as well. Rather than making God an object of study and putting God in a human box, it has reminded me that God is wholly singular and other. I hope I didn't need it in the first place, but this wading into the shallower waters of Thomism really impresses my creatureliness upon me. When contemplating these things, there is for me really this sense of "take of thy sandals, for this is holy ground".<br />Eric Vestruphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14414470504370998756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8049864515293800722020-04-26T20:33:41.515-07:002020-04-26T20:33:41.515-07:00"Is divine simplicity perhaps a solution to t..."Is divine simplicity perhaps a solution to the dilemma 'Is X good because God wills it, or does God will X because it is good?' The concept of simplicity allows us to replace the 'or' in the above question with 'and' - problem solved!"<br /><br />I think that, if divine simplicity is true, then Euthyphro dilemma is completely neutralized. Instead of being "under" morality or a standard of what is good, God is morality or what is good. <br /><br />It also seems to me that regardless of one's position on simplicity (true, coherent but false, neither true nor false because it is incoherent), one could still have a third option of Euthyphro where "what is good" is a "part" of God or an element of his nature.Eric Vestruphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14414470504370998756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40083154558336196542020-04-26T20:17:57.612-07:002020-04-26T20:17:57.612-07:00Good to see you back in "fighting form" ...Good to see you back in "fighting form" Starhopper.<br /><br />How was <i>Life on the Mississippi</i>?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56687079823270100772020-04-26T19:06:12.516-07:002020-04-26T19:06:12.516-07:00Is divine simplicity perhaps a solution to the dil...Is divine simplicity perhaps a solution to the dilemma "Is <b>X</b> good because God wills it, or does God will <b>X</b> because it is good?" The concept of simplicity allows us to replace the "or" in the above question with "and" - problem solved!Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79809707115629176112020-04-26T18:07:54.098-07:002020-04-26T18:07:54.098-07:00One doesn't have to agree with this and can ra...One doesn't have to agree with this and can raise thoughtful arguments and many have over the centuries. But one would have to actually do some reading to know that.<br /><br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14155869869586520972020-04-26T18:04:00.793-07:002020-04-26T18:04:00.793-07:00That could be one person's definition.
Yes. ...<b>That could be one person's definition.</b><br /><br />Yes. A person who knows what he's talking about.<br /><br /><b>You are using analogical terms, therefore, ultimately, you are using an analogical argument even by your own definition.</b><br /><br />You're confused. Tell me step by step how you reached that conclusion.<br /><br /><b>But you say it is not incoherent to say essence, existence, omnipotence, and omniscience are all identical to each other, because you are speaking analogically. </b><br /><br />Good example of showing you didn't even read the very first paragraph of article I linked, nor what I posted more recently.<br /><br />From the article:<br /><i><br />Medieval theories of analogy were a response to problems in three areas: logic, theology, and metaphysics. Logicians were concerned with the use of words having more than one sense, whether completely different, or related in some way. Theologians were concerned with language about God. <b>How can we speak about a transcendent, totally simple spiritual being without altering the sense of the words we use? </b></i><br /><br />Transcendence is idea of how the "analogical" attributes of God are really all the same thing, like The Good, the True and the Beautiful really being aspects of the same thing.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-859754115973556252020-04-26T16:55:12.854-07:002020-04-26T16:55:12.854-07:00That could be one person's definition.
You ar...That could be one person's definition.<br /><br />You are using analogical terms, therefore, ultimately, you are using an analogical argument even by your own definition.<br /><br />G=x, G=s, G=m, and G=n then<br />x=s=m=n<br />Thus<br />essence, existence, omnipotence, and omniscience are all identical to each other, which is incoherent.<br /><br />But you say it is not incoherent to say essence, existence, omnipotence, and omniscience are all identical to each other, because you are speaking analogically. So you very obviously are making an analogical argument, becuase when one speaks rationally, with words that have meanings, the idea that essence, existence, omnipotence, and omniscience are all identical to each other is gibberish.<br /><br />Speaking analogically is just a theistic excuse to try to pass off gibberish as though it were some kind of sound rational argument.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54064872322345033182020-04-26T16:18:16.538-07:002020-04-26T16:18:16.538-07:00Stardusty,
So, the theist claims to be using the ...Stardusty,<br /><br /><b>So, the theist claims to be using the terms in the argument analogically, that's what makes it an analogical argument, </b><br /><br /><a href="https://reasonresources.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/analogical-argument/" rel="nofollow"><br /><br />Analogical Argument<br />Introduction<br /><br />An analogical argument is an argument in which one concludes that two things are alike in a certain respect because they are alike in other respects.</a><br /><br />The argument for the God's simplicity is not an analogical argument.<br />Since God is simple, then it follows that his "attributes" must be transcendent.<br />But His "attributes" are not the same as ours just as His mode of being is not the same as ours. So we refer to His "attributes" in an analogical sense when we speak of things like His knowledge, understanding that His mode of knowledge is different than ours.<br /><br />We make clear that we are speaking in an analogical sense when we speak of His transcendent "attributes" and so have made clear what sense we are using the words.<br /><br />No one using an "Analogical Argument" except maybe you.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10615325884911044242020-04-26T16:01:10.582-07:002020-04-26T16:01:10.582-07:00Eric,
Doesn't look like your understanding is...Eric,<br /><br />Doesn't look like your understanding is so fledgling.<br /><br />I think your item (3) is what trips most people up. God is not just the most perfect example of <b>a</b> powerful being, He is completely unique and singular and so His mode of being and act is not the same as ours. But our mode of being and act is all we have access to and that makes it difficult to see clearly.<br /><br />As you say, the case is strong for the Purely Actualizing Actualizer, meaning that God must be simple. It follows that the (analogical) attributes of God must then be aspects of the same thing. The Good, the True and the Beautiful can all be part of the same thing in our own experience after all. bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23122691716782891932020-04-26T14:09:44.143-07:002020-04-26T14:09:44.143-07:00Continuing my stream of consciousness here:
(5) I...Continuing my stream of consciousness here:<br /><br />(5) In mathematics, a topic in which I have some fluency, there are so many well-defined but pathological entities that arise from limit processes or dealing with the continuum. Human beings can never visualize, say, a subset of the real line whose "length" cannot be meaningfully defined without other things breaking down, but such objects exist, and in great profusion. These pathological objects can be defined rigorously in a formal manner, but no human will ever visualize these things as they are in and of themselves. They are so bizarre, so exotic, that they can only be described formally.<br /><br />But barring some Moses-like experience of "shew my Thy glory!" or some experience like St Thomas had near the end of his life, I live with my metaphysical understanding of God in an analogous way to which I deal or contemplate these pathological mathematical entities.<br /><br />Thus, for me at my stage of theistic understanding, the case for simplicity is supported directly by other things I understand better. I understand that even some Christian philosophers think versions of simplicity are incoherent. Right now, I do not think it is.<br /><br />Closing note, I found this article by Dr Feser interesting:<br /> https://theopolisinstitute.com/conversations/simply-irresistible/<br />I think he makes some of the points I'm making, but of course much better and with more weight than an internet rando like me commenting on a blog.Eric Vestruphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14414470504370998756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87001014378653920012020-04-26T13:59:37.919-07:002020-04-26T13:59:37.919-07:00(3) I think that God not being simple would (someh...(3) I think that God not being simple would (somehow, still fleshing this out in my own mind) put God at the top of a pantheon of super-powerful beings. By this I mean that we could conceive of God as the maximal member of the class, maybe something like Robin < Batman < Superman < Thanos < Galactus .... < God. However, for reasons I won't explain in a blog post and am still working out, I don't think it is correct to think of God as an element of a class, or an instance of a kind.<br /><br />(4) I can think of creaturely analogies for simplicity, that while falling far short, show me that the concept is at least understandable to a limited finite degree. A Dominican friar gave me the example of, in very saintly people, their intellect (which perceives doing good) and their will (which propels them to do the good) seem to unified to some degree. They don't have to think "this is a good thing to do, so I'll do it"; they just do it. In this example, there is a blurring of intellect and will into a single intellect-will act. This act can be viewed as a unity, but from different angles one could talk about intellect, or will. God's unity is the limiting case of this sort of phenemonon.<br /><br />(to be continued)Eric Vestruphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14414470504370998756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11078903987794413462020-04-26T13:51:42.429-07:002020-04-26T13:51:42.429-07:00My present fledgling understanding of simplicity i...My present fledgling understanding of simplicity is that it has an ancient and impressive pedigree, but it also has modern day Christian detractors who view the doctrine (or the version of simplicity they are examining) as incoherent.<br /><br />Psychologically, parts of it do have that "word salad" feeling to me, the same feeling I get when (say) I try to read modern humanities-related things.<br /><br />Despite this, I argue with myself that:<br /><br />(1) I have the same lack of crystal clarity and precision when talking about other God-related things, i.e. his existence, or his goodness, or his omniscience, and so on. Thus, simplicity does not take something for which my mind has the firmest grasp and then make it ungraspable. Simplicity is just more of the same metaphysical shop-talk about God. Obviously, if one things, say the argument from change to a Purely Actual Actualizer is fancy-sounding puffery, then one can dismiss simplicity in the same way. But I think the classical argument from change is sound, or very believable. It carries great weight for me. The same sort of linguistic objections one could level against simplicity could also be brought to a PAA.<br /><br />(2) Simplicity isn't some doctrine that is tacked on to the list of "things we can say about God", but as I understand things (again, as an amateur and student of these things), simplicity is a consequence of God being the PAA, the Ultimate Cause, because were God to have "parts", he would not be ultimate.<br /><br />(to be continued...)Eric Vestruphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14414470504370998756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49501813068706150232020-04-26T13:44:24.815-07:002020-04-26T13:44:24.815-07:00Stardusty,
Thank you for letting me know where yo...Stardusty,<br /><br />Thank you for letting me know where you're coming from. I happen to think that what you just wrote is "gibberish", but I guess what goes around...Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38023037134702898622020-04-26T10:40:29.826-07:002020-04-26T10:40:29.826-07:00An "argument" that uses undefined terms ...An "argument" that uses undefined terms isn't an argument at all, it is just a generalized way of expressing some sort of beginning point to start thinking about things.<br /><br />If you want to use an analogy to try to explain a concept that's fine. That is not a sound argument, it is just a colloquial manner of human speech.<br /><br />I use analogies to help people to start thinking in a particular direction, such analogical expressions are not sound arguments, just imprecise pedagogical tools.<br /><br />When the theist claims to have a sound argument for god's essences, then makes an incoherent statement when speaking univocally, then claims to not be speaking univocally, rather, analogically, that is gibberish.<br /><br />Tossing in the term "analogical" is just an excuse to try to pass off irrational nonsense as some sort of sound argument.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86721647379461237212020-04-26T09:17:49.348-07:002020-04-26T09:17:49.348-07:00Stardusty,
Correct me if I've misunderstood y...Stardusty,<br /><br />Correct me if I've misunderstood you, but you seem to be saying that argument by analogy is "gibberish". Is this what you mean?Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57227797417339562762020-04-26T09:06:42.481-07:002020-04-26T09:06:42.481-07:00Of course it is an analogical argument. It is an ...Of course it is an analogical argument. It is an argument that is incoherent when speaking univocally. <br /><br />So, the theist claims to be using the terms in the argument analogically, that's what makes it an analogical argument, an argument that makes no sense using words according to their meanings so instead some vague analogy is claimed to make the argument coherent.<br /><br />When you make arguments employing analogical language you are making an analogical argument, or what rational people simple refer to as gibberish.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48581518867266024352020-04-25T18:41:44.439-07:002020-04-25T18:41:44.439-07:00Like I said people who either are too lazy to stud...Like I said people who either are too lazy to study or cannot understand what is being said make very boring statements after the novelty of the non-sequitur response wears off.<br /><br />This response falls into the "Not even wrong" category.<br /><br />For starters, no one is making an "analogical argument". Jeesh.bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.com