tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post226622551130155455..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: C. S. Lewis's Vision of Heaven: Positively Desirable?Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger149125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26830687371445652352012-09-16T18:31:07.027-07:002012-09-16T18:31:07.027-07:00As I posted at Feser's:
And guys, as for me r...As I posted at Feser's:<br /><br />And guys, as for me responding to Papalinton, neither in my professional medical career nor in my personal life do I ever deal with Pap smears.dgullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14647381896282400404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28220121463684733582012-09-15T22:41:32.913-07:002012-09-15T22:41:32.913-07:00>This is going to be epic. Bonus points if dgul...>This is going to be epic. Bonus points if dguller, of all people, is the one who delivers the smackdown.<br /><br />>Hey Ben? Don't be surprised if Feser reaches through the computer and smacks you across the face.<br /><br />I didn't invite him to Feser's blog. I exorted him to read & learn some intelligent argument for once in his life. I know it's in vain but I can hope. <br /><br />Besides Feser has an open comments box & Paps would have to not only argue with the regulars who would eat him alive but he would have to compete with other gnus to even be noticed. Considering what an attention whore he is that would drive him crazy. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47620587882381574832012-09-15T20:11:53.740-07:002012-09-15T20:11:53.740-07:00Papalinton, you still ignore, or cannot understand...Papalinton, you still ignore, or cannot understand, my points. That's ok, I understand you do not have free will to do so.<br /><br />Ben, dguller does have some good questions. I just LOVE IT when there is some REAL questions and dialog that get to the real heart of the issue. Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34090437840089175762012-09-15T19:55:23.507-07:002012-09-15T19:55:23.507-07:00Though the current problem with the doctrine of di...<i>Though the current problem with the doctrine of divine simplicity is that it clashes with God's free will. I think the challenge is to see if the two can be coherently bridged.</i><br /><br />I noticed your comment above about that.<br /><br /><i>God created the universe necessarily. Therefore, God requires the universe.</i><br /><br />God did not create the universe necessarily--that sounds like Platonism. If he did create it necessarily, then he would require the universe. <br /><br />To say that X does Y from eternity is not to say that X does Y necessarily. Aquinas is very clear that God has free will, and that what he has done has not been a matter of necessity. The exact details of this would have to be spelled out in a more complicated form, but suffice it to say that God did not create the universe necessarily.rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42221143159843758512012-09-15T19:01:29.776-07:002012-09-15T19:01:29.776-07:00"Thanks for the invite Ben.
I think it is tim..."Thanks for the invite Ben.<br />I think it is time to migrate to Feser's blog."<br /><br />Hey Ben? Don't be surprised if Feser reaches through the computer and smacks you across the face.ozero91https://www.blogger.com/profile/15383910270101919080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43920242786270775282012-09-15T18:37:29.883-07:002012-09-15T18:37:29.883-07:00im-skeptical,
I chuckled, nicely done. But are yo...im-skeptical,<br /><br />I chuckled, nicely done. But are you familiar with the doctrine of analogy? I think it might cause some issues with the Story. Also, the last line should be "I've always known I would create the universe."<br /><br />Though the current problem with the doctrine of divine simplicity is that it clashes with God's free will. I think the challenge is to see if the two can be coherently bridged.ozero91https://www.blogger.com/profile/15383910270101919080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59861484292436170612012-09-15T18:30:34.345-07:002012-09-15T18:30:34.345-07:00Here's a little story - The Story of God.
You...<i>Here's a little story - The Story of God.</i><br /><br />Your story immediately devolves into temporality and worse ("I am sitting in the void.") And it's helping to illustrate precisely the problems people are bringing up to you - your problem seems to stem from your regarding God as just another being, or worse, just another human being.<br /><br />What you're going to need to do is give an argument about why creation necessitates desire or imperfection. If you can't do that, that's it.<br /><br />If you feel strongly about it but you can't put it into an argument, go ahead and say that. If you say it's an intuition, great - it's an intuition. But so far, all you've done is insist that one cannot create without being imperfect or filling a need, and when we point out the problems or ask for an argument, you just repeat it again.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33265636508073875092012-09-15T18:05:27.239-07:002012-09-15T18:05:27.239-07:00Here's a little story - The Story of God.
I&#...Here's a little story - The Story of God.<br /><br />I'm sitting here in the void and everything's cool. I am all there is. I am in my own presence and it is awesome, because I couldn't be any better. I am perfect. I have nothing, and I don't want or need anything because I am completely fulfilled in my divinely simple perfection. Everything's cool. I think I'll make the universe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73784518447562854412012-09-15T18:00:26.700-07:002012-09-15T18:00:26.700-07:00I'd add that WLC, contra Feser, does believe t...I'd add that WLC, contra Feser, does believe that God can change explicitly - and notice that doesn't disprove God's existence for WLC, or even that God 'desired' (I believe). I think the difference may be that WLC regards God not as perfect of 'maximal'.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33593375172675331332012-09-15T17:48:37.128-07:002012-09-15T17:48:37.128-07:00And I'm not for an instant saying that God can...And I'm not for an instant saying that God can change, only imagining that He can for the sake of the argument.Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77210863981503689992012-09-15T17:44:56.141-07:002012-09-15T17:44:56.141-07:00"No, I'm not. I'm only saying that Go..."No, I'm not. I'm only saying that God had some kind of need to create the world, which he now fulfills by his creation."<br /><br />Having a need and having a desire are two different states of affairs. Why must God need to create the world?<br /><br />"No, I am not assuming anything temporal."<br /><br />Here's the thing, though. If God does not experience time in the same way as us - indeed, if He does not even experience past and future as non-real states - then saying God "changes" in the same way that we change is nonsensical. The only way I can imagine that happening is in such a way that God would have been that way, in our perspective, from eternity past (since causes and effects can be simultaneous, and do not have to be temporally ordered). We really can't use the same definitions with God that we do with respect to us.Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29214116255682359952012-09-15T17:40:39.899-07:002012-09-15T17:40:39.899-07:00im-skeptical,
I argued that the cosmos need not h...im-skeptical,<br /><br /><i>I argued that the cosmos need not have a beginning. But that's not what I was referring to by "this creation", which is God's creation.</i><br /><br />But this adds up to the same thing for your case. You're hinging your criticism on there being a change from no creation to there being a creation. If there was always 'creation', your argument - on your own terms - doesn't get off the ground.<br /><br />In which case it seems, unless you have additional arguments, you've just argued yourself into theism.<br /><br /><i>No, I'm not. I'm only saying that God had some kind of need to create the world,</i><br /><br />That's the problem. Why are you saying that God had some kind of need? If your response involves any kind of comparison to humanity and why humans create, you're doing exactly what you're being accused of.<br /><br />If your claim is that creation cannot take place without there being a lack or imperfection on the part of the Creator, then you're in trouble from another angle - you've asserted this, rather than argued for it.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23803762641753904542012-09-15T17:26:20.267-07:002012-09-15T17:26:20.267-07:00"Aren't you assuming that God experiences..."Aren't you assuming that God experiences time in a similar way to that in which we do?"<br /><br />- No, I am not assuming anything temporal.<br /><br />"You reject this, last I checked"<br /><br />- I argued that the cosmos need not have a beginning. But that's not what I was referring to by "this creation", which is God's creation.<br /><br />"you're assuming that God is like a human"<br /><br />- No, I'm not. I'm only saying that God had some kind of need to create the world, which he now fulfills by his creation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28708119631420225842012-09-15T17:18:26.036-07:002012-09-15T17:18:26.036-07:00And, I'll point out, all of the Five Ways work...And, I'll point out, all of the Five Ways work just fine if creation is past-eternal. Aquinas didn't think it was provable that the universe was finite in the past, and so constructed his arguments under the paradigm of an eternal universe. So, even if your point were true, it would just touch creation ex nihilo, not creation as such.Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86668387643963002252012-09-15T17:06:26.585-07:002012-09-15T17:06:26.585-07:00I also think that most of us would agree that this...<i>I also think that most of us would agree that this creation did not always exist.</i><br /><br />Hold on - what do you mean "us"? You reject this, last I checked, so by your own terms you have no argument against the theism outlined here.<br /><br /><i>Therefore God has changed his own state.</i><br /><br />As Syllabus said - you're assuming that God is like a human. But that univocity is precisely what Aquinas and company denies.<br /><br />Keep in mind that under Aquinas', "creation" is not a past event, something that took place once years ago. It's taking place right now - hence the First Way.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54997663433220079882012-09-15T16:52:53.150-07:002012-09-15T16:52:53.150-07:00"The point I raised is that in fulfilling his..."The point I raised is that in fulfilling his desire or need to create the world, God changes his state from one of desire to one of fulfillment. I also think that most of us would agree that this creation did not always exist. Therefore God has changed his own state."<br /><br />Aren't you assuming that God experiences time in a similar way to that in which we do?Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8973519296569035982012-09-15T16:48:01.531-07:002012-09-15T16:48:01.531-07:00Feser: "Of course, in created things, bringin...Feser: "Of course, in created things, bringing about an effect is typically associated with undergoing change oneself (e.g. for us to cause another to learn typically requires lecturing, writing, or the like as a means). But that is accidental to agency per se, something true of us only because of our status as finite, created things. We should not expect the same thing to be true of a purely actual uncaused cause of the world. Hence there is no reason to suppose that God’s creation of the world entails a change in God Himself."<br /><br />The point I raised is that in fulfilling his desire or need to create the world, God changes his state from one of desire to one of fulfillment. I also think that most of us would agree that this creation did not always exist. Therefore God has changed his own state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19985478302778718372012-09-15T16:35:11.404-07:002012-09-15T16:35:11.404-07:00God's creation must have always existed becaus...God's creation must have always existed because otherwise, God would not always have been perfect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62760115975577018222012-09-15T16:08:18.403-07:002012-09-15T16:08:18.403-07:00"If that's true, then creation must be et..."If that's true, then creation must be eternal. In other words, God's creation must have always existed."<br /><br />Now why on earth must that be true?Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73628337249515094362012-09-15T15:55:08.601-07:002012-09-15T15:55:08.601-07:00"Creation is a quality of perfection."
..."Creation is a quality of perfection."<br /><br />If that's true, then creation must be eternal. In other words, God's creation must have always existed. Do we think that the world has always existed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81290841799661628142012-09-15T15:37:01.154-07:002012-09-15T15:37:01.154-07:00Crude,
I didn't see your link at first. I...Crude,<br /><br />I didn't see your link at first. I'm reading it now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14365434655813394792012-09-15T15:28:09.573-07:002012-09-15T15:28:09.573-07:00Walt Whitman, as usual, said it best:
"O Tho...Walt Whitman, as usual, said it best:<br /><br />"O Thou transcendent,<br />Nameless, the fibre and the breath,<br />Light of the light, shedding forth universes, thou centre of them"<br /><br />Creation is a quality of perfection.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91503009915419024572012-09-15T15:27:33.811-07:002012-09-15T15:27:33.811-07:00I think it is time to migrate to Feser's blog....<i>I think it is time to migrate to Feser's blog.</i><br /><br />Oh wow.<br /><br />And he thought he was getting his intellectual ass kicked *here*?<br /><br />This is going to be epic. Bonus points if dguller, of all people, is the one who delivers the smackdown.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52562962716908765312012-09-15T15:18:54.349-07:002012-09-15T15:18:54.349-07:00"God created the universe necessarily. Theref..."God created the universe necessarily. Therefore, God requires the universe. But does that follow?"<br /><br />Maybe in process theology...Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20437310428365640042012-09-15T15:17:57.457-07:002012-09-15T15:17:57.457-07:00God created the universe necessarily. Therefore, G...God created the universe necessarily. Therefore, God requires the universe. But does that follow? I mean, picture a star in a solar system. It necessarily warms the planets in its system. But now, Imagine a star without any neighboring planets, so its heat simply radiates into the cosmos. Is the star in the second situation really "less of a star" than the one in the first situation?ozero91https://www.blogger.com/profile/15383910270101919080noreply@blogger.com