That’s further than we got the last time we went at this. Now, how does the necessary entity get identified with the facilitator of goodness. (I don’t recall seeing a proof for the latter.) Maybe they’re two different guys. Love isn’t nearly as necessary as it should be, alas.
It’s a fine line between refuting and rationalizing, but I guess it’s easier to make God out as loving if you can just ignore the inconvenient parts of the bible.
I’m tempted to ignore the part about turning the other cheek, but I’ll pass. When I get the energy to write a lengthy research article about how it’s possible for the god of the OT to be loving, I’ll get back to you.
I’ve never bought into the ontological argument (or modal logic, for that matter) - any philosophy based on “imagine it were possible that…”-style arguments is inherently flawed at describing the actual world, IMO. I’ve yet to come across any convincing argument for why God is logically necessary, and that goes from Anselm to Descartes to Lib.
The former. I had an epiphany, which I’ve spent my whole life contextualizing. It’s pretty much just as Vinyl Turnip put it. Revelation is a tricky epistemology: it must be tested thoroughly and put through the mill. Subsequent research, experience, and reasoning have in fact corroborated the understanding given to me.
To understand my point of view, you must keep in mind that underneath it all is the premise that the supernatural obtains. This axiom comes by way of the experience itself. It is the “A is A” of my philosophy. There is a dual world, the natural and the supernatural, and a dual man, the natural and the supernatural. I’ve come to understand that that is why my epiphanic experience yanked my worldview around so suddenly and so completely. Once it has been established that nature is not all there is, one’s viewpoint toward everything obviously changes.
The realization that the necessary entity and the loving entity are one and the same derives ultimately from two premises: (1) that the supernatural world is neguentropic, and (2) that the supernatural world is moral. These postulates may be derived by negating characteristics of the natural world. The natural world is entropic and amoral. Negation of A yields the opposite of A, and so the supernatural world is distinguishable from the natural world. (Were they indistinguishable, they would be the same.)
Therefore, the natural world is about energy and accident. I’m certainly no physicist, but I’ve been told (by Chronos, I think it was, and by others as well) that the universe may be described as a probability distribution. But the supernatural world is about morality and purpose. At some point, we can discuss why I examine morality from aesthetics rather than ethics. But for the time being, suffice it to say that I define goodness as that aesthetic which edifies (edification being the essence of the aforementioned purpose).
It is important that God be perfectly good; otherwise the supernatural world would already be destroyed. A context of eternity (or timelessness) means, not that things never change, but that all changes have already occurred. Eternity merely implies that the viewpoints of past, present, and future are exactly the same. That’s why I say, from time to time, that from God’s perspective, the universe simultaneously has not yet begun, is ongoing, and is finished — all at once.
Since the supernatural world cannot be destroyed (otherwise it would already be), then it cannot not be edified. That makes edification necessary. Since there can be one and only one necessary being[sup]1[/sup], then the being that facilitates goodness (i.e., edifies) must also be the being that is necessary.
[sup]1[/sup] Argument by reductio:
Suppose it were possible for there to be, separately, both a supreme being and a necessary being. Then because the necessary being, by definition, exists in every possible situation, there would arise at least one situation in which there was a being that is necessary and another being that is supreme but not necessary. Since every necessary being is also a supreme being, there would be two supreme beings — a contradiction, since supreme is a superlative.
Feel free to reject the ontological argument (and to ignore the contributions to it from Godel and Plantinga). But I don’t think you really mean to reject modal logic, a critical tool in computer science:
Modal logic is a discipline of many facets. It was baptized in philosophy, and for a long time it was known as ‘the logic of necessity and possibility.’ The modal analysis of the ‘mathematical necessity’-provability-brought modal logic to the foundations of mathematics. The discovery of topological and algebraic semantics for modal logic connected it with general topology and universal algebra, and the fact that first-order logic can be regarded as a propositional modal logic opened a ‘modal perspective’ in classical mathematical logic. But the most amazing metamorphosis happened when it turned out that modal logic could provide languages for talking about various relational structures, such as state transition systems for computer programs, semantic networks for knowledge representation, or attribute value structures in linguistics-languages that combined both sufficient expressive power and effectiveness! This opened new rich and rapidly growing application fields in computer science, artificial intelligence, linguistics, as well as in mathematics itself.Many-Dimensional Modal Logics: Theory and Applications
Therein lies the comprehension issue. How do you know your epiphany wasn’t delusional? If it were, then I presume your ontology (not that I can follow it anyway) collapses on itself?
That’s correct. If my experience was false, then so is the premise taken from it.
But you speak of your spiritual “awakening” as if it is factual rather than something that simply makes sense to you as a possibility. Why wouldn’t you wait until you’ve accepted it based on the processes you accept or reject the rest of the world.
What is your “realization” based on, other than a “that makes sense to me” feeling? I can see it as something you might like to pursue, but at this point, it doesn’t look like you have anything to base a solid understanding on. There are too many assumptions and no facts.
I mean I reject its application in philosophy - I don’t hold with the application of pure mathematics to the human condition either, and I don’t doubt you’ll find that equally as prevalent in CompSci.
Perhaps it’s more meaningful to say I reject the application of logical necessity to what I see as a unary-world discussion - I reject the notion of anything non-mathematical as “true in all possible worlds” as in-and-of-itself paradoxical, as I see it. I’m not a trained philosophy wonk by any means, but I’ve yet to have it adequately explained to me why I should think otherwise.
I understand that modal logic “possible” is not the usual “possible”, but I don’t agree with the application. You could say I just don’t hold with metaphysics or metaphysical possibility vs physical possibility, I suppose.
That’s what all the subsequent testing has been about. Not a day goes by that I don’t subject my premises to the rigors of observation and reason. And opposition too. As much as you might hold me in low esteem otherwise, surely you will not say that over the past seven years, I’ve shied away from exposing my beliefs to scrutiny here. Besides, the epiphany is certainly exciting for its sheer drama, but all my other experiences since (and those before, in retrospect) have jibed as well with the premise that the supernatural obtains. Now, just because a theory fits the facts does not make it viable, and so I require much more of my beliefs with respect to God than merely that they make sense to me. They must not only explain; they must compel truth through the same rules of validity to which I subject everything else I believe.
I don’t understand what you mean by “supernatural obtains.” Obtains what? Who?I don’t deny that you expose your beliefs to scrutiny; I just don’t see anything that points to them being factual and not just wishful thinking.
I believe your statement about the sheer drama being a big draw, but that doesn’t make it a god experience.
In this case, it just means that the supernatural is conceptually true (is an actual thing). In general, X obtains if X is true in every system where X is a wiff (well formed formula).
As I said, “…but all my other experiences since (and those before, in retrospect) have jibed as well with the premise that the supernatural obtains”.
At this point, it bears saying that even though this discussion seems tangential to the topic, it isn’t. In fact, it has revealed, possibly, THE difference between us as theist and atheist — namely, what to make of the supernatural. To you, it is nonsense; to me, nothing makes sense without it.
Is that an unbridgable chasm? Maybe so.
But you only experience this system - I don’t see how you can draw any conclusions about that premise from your own experience.
Do you consider logic, or at least the logic you have presented, to be science? Since the supernatural is outside of science, does the logic apply there?
However negation of any property B of the natural world would also create a distinguishable world. If all characteristics of A were negated, then one of the natural world is existence, and negating that proves the supernatural world is non-existent. So, you have a bug in your proof or assumptions.
[quote]
Therefore, the natural world is about energy and accident. I’m certainly no physicist, but I’ve been told (by Chronos, I think it was, and by others as well) that the universe may be described as a probability distribution. But the supernatural world is about morality and purpose. At some point, we can discuss why I examine morality from aesthetics rather than ethics. But for the time being, suffice it to say that I define goodness as that aesthetic which edifies (edification being the essence of the aforementioned purpose).
[quote]
We’ve shown that the supernatural world doesn’t have to be moral. Even if it does, the source of the morality is not clear. I’m not quite sure what your definition of edification is, but I assume it is along the lines of advancement of morality.
I agree that an omniscient god must see the universe and time as you describe. However, I assume you define perfectly good in terms of the morality of the supernatural world. Since our world is amoral, (which I agree with) what we call morality is based on imperfect human reasoning and needs. I see no correlation is required to the good in the supernatural realm and what we call good in ours. I also don’t see why an imperfectly good God would lead to the destruction of the supernatural world. Is it that fragile? Now, if God defines perfect goodness, then there is no issue, since anything God does is good by definition. We see that excuse for natural evil all the time.
I demonstrated during the last go round that a supreme being is logically impossible. Omniscience and omnipotence are logically inconsistent, and clearly a supreme being must be both. If a supreme being is impossible, then he cannot be necessary. Now I don’t agree that every necessary being is supreme, since I see no reason why a being existent and necessary in all worlds must be supreme in any given one - unless you define supreme in a way that includes existence in all possible worlds. That just makes necessity a necessary characteristic of supremacy, and since we’ve disproven supremacy, we’ve disproven necessity as well. If we don’t require supremacy for necessity, then it is possible that there are beings on worlds greater than the necessary being in some way - obviously not in the area of necessity, though.
And of course I still don’t buy necessity, for the reasons I gave earlier.
But do go on. This is the most fun I have in the Dope.
That’s my point. The fact that it jibes with your internal experience means nothing if it can’t be observed by someone else. All it is is a theory. We all know that the mind (and even our eyes) can play tricks on us.
But how can you possibly test your worldview when the very basis of it is, as you’ve said, an undetectable supernatural realm which you’ve invented? The supernatural, by its very nature, is illogical- so using logic to justify the supernatural is, well, illogical.
I would also like to say that I’m afraid we’ve seen all this before… well, this pattern of behavior, that is. For a while you’re much like other Dopers 'round these parts. You contribute to threads, you raise interesting points, ask interesting questions. You’re fun to have around.
Then you bring out one of your Logical Proofs of God threads. These rarely go well, as there’s not a thing anyone can say which will put a dent in your unshaken belief in God- and yet you seem to expect others to bow to your logical proof. In other words, you seem to be illogical about your logic, when it comes to the supernatural.
Then things go poorly. We may see one or two more of these threads. Pit threads might be involved. And then you end up leaving the board for a while. Is this what we’ve got to look forward to?
I’m also not following you on the “god is love” thing. And also, does your god control, reward, punish, or otherwise care what we do?