But, Lib, let’s be clear. That puts a very fine point in play. If human souls are eternal, there is no way a soul can be without God per se, that is, where God is unavailable. Eternal damnation defined as an absence of God is impossible, if your proof stands.
Though the Jehova’s ideas that a non-saved soul is simply destroyed is still viable. Among, I would imagine, other alternatives.
—But, Lib, let’s be clear. That puts a very fine point in play. If human souls are eternal, there is no way a soul can be without God per se, that is, where God is unavailable. Eternal damnation defined as an absence of God is impossible, if your proof stands. —
Sure. I’ve always had the same complaint against people who claim that the reason sinners cannot go to heaven is that god cannot stand sin… and yet elsewhere claim that their god is omnipresent and omniscient. But if that is so, then god is just as screwed by the prescence of sinners no matter where their souls are.
Although I’m not sure the proof argues for a being that is restricted to only being omnipresent. The being is perhaps capable of being omnipresent, but unless we count “space filling” as one of its maximal characteristics…
I put this in blue to help make certain it isn’t missed: the following is not commentary about the proof.
Eris and Apos, yours are wonderfully profound thought experiments by materialists. It is a thing of beauty to witness your willingness to extend your intellect into such unfamiliar territory in such an honest way.
God eviscerating evil is clearly a self-sacrifice. He Himself (at least “in part”) is volunteering to “die”. If it is true that He values goodness above all else, and that He has deemed love to be the greatest possible goodness, and that He has deemed love among free moral agents to be the greatest possible love — then the remarkable gestalt that He seeks is mind boggling in the ingeniousness of its conception. It is in volunteering to die that He manifests as the greatest possible goodness.
—God eviscerating evil is clearly a self-sacrifice.—
Wait: I’m not clear what this is in reference to: anything to do with the omnipresent/can’t stand to be around sin problem (which I’m not suggesting is an unsolvable problem for everyone: various theologies have already dealt with it more sensibly in a number of different ways).
As to the kerygma, while I understand the theology of the Christian idea quite well, I have to say that the gestalt is not just mind-boggling… but actually carries over into being unintelligible. I have never seen how part of god “dying” in any way (whatever THAT actually means in hte first place) accomplishes the described task, or indeed what the original problem really is. There is a story to be told, of course, but the dots not only don’t connect, they seem non-sequitur in many places: a mismash of other traditions removed from the contexts in which they made sense. Of course, this is not really the thread to discuss this.
I still think adding the idea of unexercised capacity is a rather dangerous step to take the result of proof, because it could potentially undercut every meaningful implication that the existence of this being could potentially have.
whats an axiom?
—whats an axiom?—
For the purposes of this thread, you can basicaly just think of it as something that’s held to be true, without going into a discussion of why it is true.
Most commonly, axioms define the playing field of a discussion, so to speak: they present an uncontroversial common ground from which proofs and demonstrations are then drawn.
In the best case-scenario, axioms are “self-evident” or necessary truths, the denial of which would involve serious self-contradiction, or make discussion of just about any subject impossible.
Hootnholla
In the case of the argument addressed by this thread, the axiom is “it is possible that God exists”.
Apos
In my renegade Christian theology, God dying means God ceasing to exist. I take it that God breathing His Spirit into man indicates an ablative excursion of His Self into the formation of our selves. That we are created in His image means to me that our essence is spiritual and that we are free moral agents. The purpose of our bodies is to host our essential selves, and the purpose of the universe is to supply a mis-en-scene for each of our unique and private moral plays. In a very real sense, history, for each of us, is only as old as we are.
I can think of no more eloquent solution to the problem of free-will versus omniscience than to create a context wherein beings, ablatively formed, are indelibly isolotated from one another’s consciousness, the only real truth is tautology, and the proof of God’s existence is always left ultimately as a subjective exercise.
The gestalt is that, even though when all is finished (and from His reference frame, eternity, it already is) you can say that His spiritual “quantity” is diminished by death (assuming that some of the agents have selected death over love), His spiritual “quality” — the goodness defined by Him as love among free moral agents — is vastly enhanced.
So why bother attempting to prove the existence of God, if
?
This definition makes the argument necessarily valid, which is not good philosophy in my book.
I would forget about the funny symbols and go see a movie occasionally.
Maybe your philosophy book needs updating. Necessary existence does not imply actual existence. I think that was covered on page 4 or 5.
—That we are created in His image means to me that our essence is spiritual and that we are free moral agents.—
I don’t know what this means. I don’t think spiritual is a meaningful word. And I don’t think things can be legitimately internally described only by calling them “free.” Free from what?
—I can think of no more eloquent solution to the problem of free-will versus omniscience—
I don’t agree that there is something known as a “problem of free will vs omniscience” because I think “free will” is an unintelligible concept. Even if I treated it in the way people think it makes sense, I still don’t see what the problem is, or how isolating beings from each other affects anything related to it.
Again, if your theology explains the world to you, that’s great. But there is, of coures, no reason why it should be meaningful to others, especially if it uses concepts that have no meaning to others.
Well, of course you don’t. You’re a materialist.
Coercion.
My teleology explains the world to me; my theology explains reality to me.
Oh, I agree. Meaning can be a fleeting thing, inextricably tied to context. It wasn’t so long ago that “spirit” wasn’t meaningful for me.
Libertarian:
Why does the assertion that our essence is spiritual have anything to do with free will? Free will means you are able to follow the inclinations of your own will. If the will is physical, then free will is physical. If the will is spiritual, then free will is spiritual. I will agree with you that there could be multiple realms other than the physical realm, even though I (and you) cannot comprehend them. But in either case, your actions are “determined” by your will. Maybe you think this denies free will, but then there is no possible situation that would fulfill it. I don’t know how you define free will.
Preguntas:
Very nice indeed. This seems to make Plantinga’s argument even more reasonable than it already was, and Lib didn’t even have an answer to it before.
There is a possible world with the property of no-maximality.
A world has the property of no-maximality if no entity in that world has the property of unsurpassable greatness.
(Hence) No-maximality is exemplified in every possible world–i.e. there actually exists no being who is omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect, etc., and who has these properties in every world.
Hmm… perfectly logical… wait… did I just prove we are in hell?
Of course, you can now reject this argument because you are uncomfortable with the conclusion.
—Well, of course you don’t. You’re a materialist. —
I certainly don’t deserve that moniker when my very first post in this thread pointed out that was not one. You’re being too glib.
I think “spiritual” is a non-concept that arises out of negation (rather than positive evidence or understanding) of “materialism,” which is often used in a way that makes it another non-concept.
There are, of course, uses of spirit and material that are useful, as metaphor, for instance, but as characteristics of beings in a serious discussion? No. When I find an instance in which it is useful specify that something is “material” or not, maybe then I’ll be a materialist or dualist, but not before.
—Coercion.—
This is the weak, or external, definition of free will. But your original usage seems to be employing the strong sense (which I believe to be yet another non-concept).
Nonsense.
Says who? Is there a possible world with the property of A != A?
Then I apologize. What are you?
I think Jesus spoke of the Spirit quite positively: the whole being born again thing in His conversation with Nicodemus. He linked it to truth: “God is spirit: we must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”
You’re entitled. But your opinions and insights do not necessarily constitute any absolute framework for discourse. There is no sense in which materialism is more valid than spiritualism, given that the very discernment of material is made by — other material.
And belief? Isn’t that a non-concept, too?
Ok, I have not read beyond page 3. But I feel I can contribute by telling you my view of god, and the world.
Is god necessary? Subjectively, my brain does not have enough information to answer that, but I can reason my way to a satisfactory conclusion. Consider this:
The world is like a human body. This body was born by it’s mother.
Now, the human does not know who it’s mother is, nor does it know how it was created, much like the universe as we know it.
Through science the human can reason it’s way to a conclusion, but only if it can witness another birth. If the human is totally isolated, how can it gain the knowledge necessary to find the answer to it’s origin?
This is much like the universe now, it’s sheer scale is preventing us from finding an answer to our origins.
Now, to this human, is god = his mother? Perhaps in his own view, or perhaps it’s his brain, because that is the one thing that understands all of the body. The arm cannot be the god.
Hence, god did not necessarily create the universe, but a greater being than any other must exist inside the world. By simple logic.
Some people might argue, “if everything has zero value, how can there be a god?” Maybe the human mind is too “dumb”(for lack of a better word) to grasp the concept of objective value.
To conclude, do I believe in a God in the original concept(omnipotent)? No. Do i believe in a God by scientific means and logic? Yes.
Although i must say, this is somewhat of a pointless question.
Even if we find the “answer”, how do we know it’s the truth?
Libertarian:
Why do I have to prove that hell is possible, but you don’t have to prove that god is possible?
It is possible that god exists.
It is possible that hell exists.
Both axioms are coherent. Both arguments are logical. I think you have every right to accept the axiom that results in a conclusion that makes you happy, and reject the axiom that results in a conclusion that makes you uncomfortable. I just think you should stop pretending that it is fully logical to do so.
Because of the way you’re defining “hell” and the way Anselm et all are defining “God”. It’s nothing to do with what conclusion I prefer; I simply cannot accept that nonexistence exists.
From Fritjof Capra…on the revealings of quantum physics.From his book, The Turning Point 1982.
The apparent similarities between the structure of matter and the structure of mind should not surprise us too much, since HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS PLAYS A CRUCIAL ROLE IN THE PROCESS OF OBSERVATION, AND IN QUANTUM PHYSICS DETERMINES TO A LARGE EXTENT THE PROPERTIES OF THE OBSERVED PHENOMENA.
In atomic physics the OBSERVED phenomena can be understood only as correlations between processes of OBSERVATION and measurement, and at the end of this chain of processes lies ALWAYS IN THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE HUMAN OBSERVER
THE CRUCIAL FEATURE OF QUANTUM THEORY IS THAT THE OBSERVER IS NOT ONLY NECESSARY…BUT IS NECESSARY TO BRING ABOUT THE PROPERTIES.
THE ELECTRON DOES NOT HAVE OBJECTIVE PROPERTIES INDEPENDANT OF THE MIND, WE CAN NEVER SPEAK ABOUT NATURE WITHOUT SPEAKING ABOUT OURSELVES.
Libertarian
Do you agree with the above info?
I’m not a scientist, and was looking to determine the truth of whether mind and matter are linked in a significant manner at the sub-atomic level.
Thank you for your consideration.
David Wilson.
I’m honestly not qualified to comment on quantum theory, David. I’m sorry. For what it’s worth, as best I can determine from discussions on these boards, the universe may be described philosophically as a probability field.
My understanding is that there are a lot of quack interpretations of quantum mechanics that extrapolate its implications far outside its scope. Frankly, the mind and matter business of Fritjof Capra sounds like it might be a bit quacky.
Ok Libertarian.
Libertarian.
For what it is worth, David Suzuki, considers Capra a renowned physicist. Thanks for answering anyhow, i’ll keep looking for comments.
Does this BB have a resident Quantum person?
See you later.
David.