Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Londoner »

Don Schneider wrote: Me: I have never observed 'causality'.


My OP proof is, as I said, also based upon the implicit assumption therein of the validity of material realism. Your reply seems to point to an acceptance of idealism. If you adhere to material realism, than you have witnessed causality myriad times. If you ever saw (personally or by video) a person being decapitated, then you observed that person’s death and its cause. Your bit about the chicken and the egg being the same thing is classic idealism, so welcome aboard. Since I now lean towards idealism, I no longer hold that my own proof is valid, though I still do if I am wrong and material realism is after all valid.
It is nothing to do with idealism. It is a view associated with Hume (and Newton).

You write: If you ever saw (personally or by video) a person being decapitated, then you observed that person’s death and its cause. Yes, I would observe the death, but I would not observe a separate thing 'causality'.

Consider your description of the event; where does that causality exist? One could equally say that what caused the death was blade being sharp and hard, or whatever made the victim come to be present in that place, or the geopolitical situation, or the physiology of humans, or that the mothers of the participants happened to meet their fathers, or the laws of physics...A full causal explanation would have to describe the complete history and nature of the universe. A complete description of the cause of anything would be ...everything.

That we wish to point to one particular relationship as 'the cause' is something we do, in order to make a particular point. If you say that the cause of the beheading was 'the victim was a murderer' and I say the cause was 'the force exerted overcame the physical integrity of the neck' there is no way we can look at the event and use science to prove which of us is correct. You are the idealist, in that you are proposing the existence of this metaphysical thing: 'causality'- a thing that resides within the material, but is not itself material.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by -1- »

Londoner wrote:.

Good point, Londoner. But your holistic view of causality erases the practical usefulness of finding causes and effects, and thus your view prevents you from predicting future behaviour (of weather, of people, of celestial bodies, of dogs, etc.)

Humans and animals have learned the way to perfect to isolate those causes and effects in an infinitely large and interwoven causational chain of events, which are immediately preventable or amplifiable. This gives living things a survival advantage.

Philosophically speaking you're correct, but you would not last five minutes in a corporate environment if you kept on pushing this view.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Steve3007 »

I also think Londoner is right to illustrate that causality is a metaphysical concept. I think it is essentially the same as the metaphysical concepts known as the laws of physics, even though we often tend to see it as being deeper and more immutable than those laws. We created it because it's useful for attempting to find correlations in present and past events and thereby predict future events.

-1-:
Good point, Londoner. But your holistic view of causality erases the practical usefulness of finding causes and effects, and thus your view prevents you from predicting future behaviour (of weather, of people, of celestial bodies, of dogs, etc.)
I don't think it does erase its practical usefulness. I think it illustrates that practical usefulness is central to causality. It's the reason why we learned to believe in causality when we were very young. Because it's one of our more successful and reliable theories for helping us make sense of the stream of information with which we're bombarded from birth.

-- Updated Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:05 pm to add the following --

Don Schneider:
If you ever saw (personally or by video) a person being decapitated, then you observed that person’s death and its cause.
I am fully prepared to accept that the answers to the following questions don't matter because they aren't particularly useful for anything, but:

If you ever saw an object falling to the ground, did you see gravity? Or did you just see a moving object? Or did you just see photons of light entering your eyes? Is the question of what we regard as a physical entity and what we regard as a metaphysical concept invented to describe/predict the behaviour of physical entities entirely a function of our present purpose?
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by -1- »

Steve3007 wrote: I don't think it(1) does erase its(2) practical usefulness.
Yes, it(1) does.

Key to meanings:

it(1): expanding causality to the infiniteness of all the events causing everything else in the universe, as Londoner has shown us. This is what I was talking about, and I thought it was pretty clear what I meant. But maybe not, and therefore I am clarifying my stance.

Causality to a human or to an animal can only be useful if it is isolated to smaller, controllable elements. A holistic approach erases this control.

its(2) causality's (things in the world happen in a fashion of causes causing effects.)

--------------

It is my concern that people use too many UNCLEAR references with pronouns which have lost their attachment to their antecedents by the time the pronouns hit the listening ear of an audience.

-- Updated 2017 July 7th, 8:03 am to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote: I don't think it(1) does erase its(2) practical usefulness.
Yes, it(1) does.

Key to meanings: (an illustration of my point, my beef about the unclear and/or ambiguous referencing of antecedents)

it(1): expanding it to the infiniteness of all of it causing everything else in the universe, as Londoner has shown it. It is this what I was talking about, and I thought it was pretty clear what I meant. But maybe not, and therefore I am clarifying it.

To a human or to an animal it can only be useful if it is isolated to smaller, controllable elements. Otherwise it erases its control.

its(2) causality's (it happens in a fashion of it causing effects.)

--------------

It is my concern that people use it when attachment to its antecedent is lost by it by the time it hits it.

I think we should use the word "nik" more often instead. We shall be called the Knights of "nik" therefore.

Now, bring us more SHRUBBERY!!!!
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Londoner »

-1- wrote:
Londoner wrote:.

Good point, Londoner. But your holistic view of causality erases the practical usefulness of finding causes and effects, and thus your view prevents you from predicting future behaviour (of weather, of people, of celestial bodies, of dogs, etc.)

Humans and animals have learned the way to perfect to isolate those causes and effects in an infinitely large and interwoven causational chain of events, which are immediately preventable or amplifiable. This gives living things a survival advantage.

Philosophically speaking you're correct, but you would not last five minutes in a corporate environment if you kept on pushing this view.
What humans learn to do is look for what is particular to whatever they are trying to understand or communicate. If I wanted to know why my pen fell to the floor, this would be because of 'the laws of physics', but these laws also applied before the pen fell. So, in looking for 'the reason the pen fell' I usually need not need to take them into account. Not unless I thought whoever I was explaining 'why it fell' was ignorant of gravity. In other words, what we include as 'cause' all depends on what we are trying to communicate and to whom.

But this has nothing to do with the issue, which is that of whether something called 'causation' can be observed. It cannot.

As to corporate environments, I seem to manage. But it is a distinction that is important in science; if you start to treat the 'laws of physics' as though they are forces in themselves, as if you start to think of 'gravity' (say) was a 'thing' which intervenes to throw pens to the ground, then you are not doing science any more, you are doing metaphysics.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by -1- »

I think it's spiritualistic or voodoo to think that gravity is conspiring against you and throws your pen on the ground.

As you so aptly pointed it out, man looks for things to understand. Gravity and linear acceleration was never a point man wanted to understand, or even noticed. For literally tens of thousands of years.

I quite agree with you there. "My pen fell on the ground because Simpkins bumped my desk as he always does when he walks by". This is not a law of physics, or of motivational psychology. But it's a controllable unit in causation. I can ask Simpkins to be more careful, or I may hire a sharpshooter to get him fired.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Steve3007 »

-1-:
It is my concern that people use too many UNCLEAR references with pronouns which have lost their attachment to their antecedents by the time the pronouns hit the listening ear of an audience.
It's true, and I regret it. I will not do it again except as mockery/satire/sarcasm. My use of those two its: it was very confusing wasn't it.
Causality to a human or to an animal can only be useful if it is isolated to smaller, controllable elements. A holistic approach erases this control.
I agree. Reductionism - the boxing of the world into distinct problems that can be dealt with individually and whose interactions can be assumed to be negligible - is essential and we all do it (Reductionism, that is). it's certainly an essential part of my job - unit testing.

The point about causality is that it (causality) is imposed on the world by us for our purposes so even though, in the example of the beheading, there are numerous different causes of the head falling off, I don't think that implies the holistic view that you describe. It just means we pick the individual cause that suits our current purposes. If our current purpose is an analysis of crime and punishment then we talk about the cause of the beheading being that the victim was a murderer. If our current purpose is an analysis of the physical properties of neck muscles, then the cause is "the force exerted overcame the physical integrity of the neck".

No holistic approach required, I feel.

---

Wasn't it "ni", without the "k"? (The "it" here refers to "the word used in the relevant section of the film Monty Python's Holy Grail").
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by -1- »

Steve3007 wrote: No holistic approach required, I feel. Well, I can't agree more with that. I said that very early on, to which you wrote a protest... why protest something if you agree with it?

---

Wasn't it "ni", without the "k"? (The "it" here refers to "the word used in the relevant section of the film Monty Python's Holy Grail").
I'm partially deaf, partially an immigrant, and I live in Canada, so I have a hard time understanding Briton dialects. So you are very probably right, and I'm wrong... I capitulate, I trust you hear better than I.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Steve3007 »

Londoner:
But this has nothing to do with the issue, which is that of whether something called 'causation' can be observed. It cannot.
I previously agreed that a thing called 'causation' cannot be observed, but: I think actually the question of what we regard as a physical entity that can be observed and what we regard as a metaphysical concept which defines/proposes relationships between these observable entities is somewhat arbitrary and dependant on our purpose.

I think this becomes particularly evident when we consider things such as electrons that are only ever experienced very indirectly. Is an electron a physical entity that we can observe (using the word "observe" in the general sense that it is often used in physics - not in the everyday sense which is exclusively tied to vision and visible light)? Or is it a metaphysical concept that we've created to describe the relationships between other things that we can observe, such as glowing lines in cathode ray tubes or data displayed on computer screens? I don't think that there is an objective answer to that question. In a sense, I don't that there is any answer that really matters. So I think it comes down to which is the most useful way to talk and think.

It's often very handy and useful to think of some things, such as electrons, photons or gravitational fields, as physical "things" and not as metaphysical concepts. Maybe it's also sometimes useful think of causes in the same way?

-1-:
Well, I can't agree more with that [no holistic approach required]. I said that very early on, to which you wrote a protest... why protest something if you agree with it?
Did I write a protest about that? I'm not sure if that was my protest, exactly. But I'll check and see if I still agree with myself.
Don Schneider
Posts: 64
Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Don Schneider »

Londoner wrote:
Don Schneider wrote: Me: I have never observed 'causality'.


My OP proof is, as I said, also based upon the implicit assumption therein of the validity of material realism. Your reply seems to point to an acceptance of idealism. If you adhere to material realism, than you have witnessed causality myriad times. If you ever saw (personally or by video) a person being decapitated, then you observed that person’s death and its cause. Your bit about the chicken and the egg being the same thing is classic idealism, so welcome aboard. Since I now lean towards idealism, I no longer hold that my own proof is valid, though I still do if I am wrong and material realism is after all valid.
It is nothing to do with idealism. It is a view associated with Hume (and Newton).

You write: If you ever saw (personally or by video) a person being decapitated, then you observed that person’s death and its cause. Yes, I would observe the death, but I would not observe a separate thing 'causality'.

Consider your description of the event; where does that causality exist? One could equally say that what caused the death was blade being sharp and hard, or whatever made the victim come to be present in that place, or the geopolitical situation, or the physiology of humans, or that the mothers of the participants happened to meet their fathers, or the laws of physics...A full causal explanation would have to describe the complete history and nature of the universe. A complete description of the cause of anything would be ...everything.

That we wish to point to one particular relationship as 'the cause' is something we do, in order to make a particular point. If you say that the cause of the beheading was 'the victim was a murderer' and I say the cause was 'the force exerted overcame the physical integrity of the neck' there is no way we can look at the event and use science to prove which of us is correct. You are the idealist, in that you are proposing the existence of this metaphysical thing: 'causality'- a thing that resides within the material, but is not itself material.
I am referring to the immediate cause, the decapitation. Since every cause is also an effect within material realty of a virtually infinite chain of causes (succeeding and preceding effects), then, yes, there were myriad causes of the event in question. So what’s your point? This hardly denies observable causality. On the contrary, it magnifies it. Your attempted point here seems to me to be nothing more than what Asimov’s character Labuan Twissell in The End of Eternity referred to as “cobwebs,” obtuse and meaningless points of distraction. Such gives philosophy a bad name and renders it the butt of jokes by satirists like George Carlin and Douglas Adams.

Nevertheless, my OP philosophical proof does point out that although causality obviously exists based upon observation, it cannot within a paradigm of material realism as indicated by relativity and the eternalism such implies. Therefore, causality must have occurred outside of our observable universe and within a higher order dimension of time. This is because causality is a function of movement (change) and the block universe relativity implies exists eternally and statically. Parmenides and Zeno pointed this out ages ago without the benefit of Einstein’s theory.

A way to avoid this is to scrap material realism in favor of idealism of the Eastern metaphysical paradigm as such views the material reality that we observe to be an illusion along the lines of a dream and therefore does not actually exist other than as a perception and therefore does not actually move Universal consciousness (which is all that fundamentally exists) is what moves and renders what we perceive as change (and time).

By the way, Kant claimed that Hume's empiricism leads to idealism. I disagreed with Kant here on another point, but I agree on this one.
User avatar
Rayliikanen
Posts: 136
Joined: May 22nd, 2013, 10:31 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Location: British Columbia
Contact:

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Rayliikanen »

Anaximander, the pre-Socratic, stated all things that exist have been chanelled/taken out from the Apeiron, taken to mean the infinite, the unbounded, or limitless. The big bang raises the question of how can an infinite density be contained in zero space-time? Philosophers can speculate that it took some preceding event to produce the infinity at the beginning of all things, when there was only this singularity. General Relativity has things collapsing to such a point, and cosmologists apply the laws of physics to figure out the progression of events after what's called the Planck time (10 to the minus 43 seconds). My suggestion to philosophers/metaphysicians is that the regress has to be pushed back even further, to get to the ultimate origin, determine what might have happened prior to the singularity to bring about the singularity. Hegel called his beginning the Absolute. And here I see some value in both Hegel and Anaximander. But I would think an ultimate beginning, in this sense, would constitute and Absolute Void. Then again, it's impossible for finite minds like ours to grasp the totality of that which is Absolute, and so for a philosophical proof of a creator, how about: This Absolute Void, at the very beginning of all things, was the Eternal Mind of God at its least possible level of existence. That same Mind has now transcended that least possible level of existence to bring into being all that now exists. There is an emergence from the least possible state of being to the much more complex state of being that now exists. So again, Anaximander more than two millennia ago, I think, was on the right track. We simply have not taken all the hints we have before us and put them into some kind of rational order. The big bang does point to a possible rational philosophical proof of a creator.
Don Schneider
Posts: 64
Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Don Schneider »

Rayliikanen wrote:Anaximander, the pre-Socratic, stated all things that exist have been chanelled/taken out from the Apeiron, taken to mean the infinite, the unbounded, or limitless. The big bang raises the question of how can an infinite density be contained in zero space-time? Philosophers can speculate that it took some preceding event to produce the infinity at the beginning of all things, when there was only this singularity. General Relativity has things collapsing to such a point, and cosmologists apply the laws of physics to figure out the progression of events after what's called the Planck time (10 to the minus 43 seconds). My suggestion to philosophers/metaphysicians is that the regress has to be pushed back even further, to get to the ultimate origin, determine what might have happened prior to the singularity to bring about the singularity. Hegel called his beginning the Absolute. And here I see some value in both Hegel and Anaximander. But I would think an ultimate beginning, in this sense, would constitute and Absolute Void. Then again, it's impossible for finite minds like ours to grasp the totality of that which is Absolute, and so for a philosophical proof of a creator, how about: This Absolute Void, at the very beginning of all things, was the Eternal Mind of God at its least possible level of existence. That same Mind has now transcended that least possible level of existence to bring into being all that now exists. There is an emergence from the least possible state of being to the much more complex state of being that now exists. So again, Anaximander more than two millennia ago, I think, was on the right track. We simply have not taken all the hints we have before us and put them into some kind of rational order. The big bang does point to a possible rational philosophical proof of a creator.
Good post. Thank you.

That conforms closely with my present metaphysical leanings. Universal Consciousness in its pristine, undifferentiated state of being is unlimited potential. Once it manifests as what It/we perceive as material reality, then dualism results and thus a limitation of that potential occurs. This illusion of differentiation and separateness is called “Maya” in the terminology of Vedanta within Hinduism and is the source of all suffering.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Londoner »

Don Schneider wrote: I am referring to the immediate cause, the decapitation.
If you like, but then 'the cause' is determined by you. I might refer to the same event with a different intention (to describe the psychological state of the decapitator, say), in which case what I identified as 'the cause' would be different. Neither of us is right and the other wrong.
...Since every cause is also an effect within material realty of a virtually infinite chain of causes (succeeding and preceding effects), then, yes, there were myriad causes of the event in question. So what’s your point?
That 'the cause' is not material. First, it is not itself a material 'thing' such that in addition to the physical events of the decapitation there is also an additional material object; 'a cause'. And second, if the cause referred to something material, then either your identification of 'the cause' would be correct or mine would be. They could not both be true.

To put it another way, all material things are finite but you say the causes are 'virtually infinite'.

A lot of proofs of God work this way; they want to somehow marry the material to abstractions, like 'perfect', 'eternal' etc., so that we can use a definition of God to prove his existence. In this case, 'causality' is being used to bridge the gap, because it both seems to refer to material events but it is also metaphysical.
This hardly denies observable causality. On the contrary, it magnifies it. Your attempted point here seems to me to be nothing more than what Asimov’s character Labuan Twissell in The End of Eternity referred to as “cobwebs,” obtuse and meaningless points of distraction. Such gives philosophy a bad name and renders it the butt of jokes by satirists like George Carlin and Douglas Adams.
I thought I was being very straightforward. I am not the one who writes phrases like 'a paradigm of material realism as indicated by relativity and the eternalism such implies.'
Nevertheless, my OP philosophical proof does point out that although causality obviously exists based upon observation, it cannot within a paradigm of material realism as indicated by relativity and the eternalism such implies. Therefore, causality must have occurred outside of our observable universe and within a higher order dimension of time. This is because causality is a function of movement (change) and the block universe relativity implies exists eternally and statically. Parmenides and Zeno pointed this out ages ago without the benefit of Einstein’s theory.
In what sense does 'causality' 'exist'? In the sense that an object exists? Or an idea? Or a number? Or a metaphysical force? What do you mean when you say it 'occurs'?
A way to avoid this is to scrap material realism in favor of idealism of the Eastern metaphysical paradigm as such views the material reality that we observe to be an illusion along the lines of a dream and therefore does not actually exist other than as a perception and therefore does not actually move Universal consciousness (which is all that fundamentally exists) is what moves and renders what we perceive as change (and time).
I ma not being sarcastic when I say you are absolutely free to take such an approach, but in that case we would understand that when you say 'causality' or a creator 'exists' we would understand that this is in the context of a view which sees everything as an illusion. If you start from that position, then we cannot have a philosophical proof of anything, let alone a Creator.
By the way, Kant claimed that Hume's empiricism leads to idealism. I disagreed with Kant here on another point, but I agree on this one.
But what Kant meant by Idealism is not what you (seem to) mean by it, as discussed with others on page 2. (I'm also not clear about what you think Parmenides and Zeno pointed out.)
Don Schneider
Posts: 64
Joined: April 13th, 2016, 5:24 pm

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Don Schneider »

Londoner wrote:
Don Schneider wrote: I am referring to the immediate cause, the decapitation.
If you like, but then 'the cause' is determined by you. I might refer to the same event with a different intention (to describe the psychological state of the decapitator, say), in which case what I identified as 'the cause' would be different. Neither of us is right and the other wrong.
...Since every cause is also an effect within material realty of a virtually infinite chain of causes (succeeding and preceding effects), then, yes, there were myriad causes of the event in question. So what’s your point?
That 'the cause' is not material. First, it is not itself a material 'thing' such that in addition to the physical events of the decapitation there is also an additional material object; 'a cause'. And second, if the cause referred to something material, then either your identification of 'the cause' would be correct or mine would be. They could not both be true.

To put it another way, all material things are finite but you say the causes are 'virtually infinite'.

A lot of proofs of God work this way; they want to somehow marry the material to abstractions, like 'perfect', 'eternal' etc., so that we can use a definition of God to prove his existence. In this case, 'causality' is being used to bridge the gap, because it both seems to refer to material events but it is also metaphysical.
This hardly denies observable causality. On the contrary, it magnifies it. Your attempted point here seems to me to be nothing more than what Asimov’s character Labuan Twissell in The End of Eternity referred to as “cobwebs,” obtuse and meaningless points of distraction. Such gives philosophy a bad name and renders it the butt of jokes by satirists like George Carlin and Douglas Adams.
I thought I was being very straightforward. I am not the one who writes phrases like 'a paradigm of material realism as indicated by relativity and the eternalism such implies.'
Nevertheless, my OP philosophical proof does point out that although causality obviously exists based upon observation, it cannot within a paradigm of material realism as indicated by relativity and the eternalism such implies. Therefore, causality must have occurred outside of our observable universe and within a higher order dimension of time. This is because causality is a function of movement (change) and the block universe relativity implies exists eternally and statically. Parmenides and Zeno pointed this out ages ago without the benefit of Einstein’s theory.
In what sense does 'causality' 'exist'? In the sense that an object exists? Or an idea? Or a number? Or a metaphysical force? What do you mean when you say it 'occurs'?
A way to avoid this is to scrap material realism in favor of idealism of the Eastern metaphysical paradigm as such views the material reality that we observe to be an illusion along the lines of a dream and therefore does not actually exist other than as a perception and therefore does not actually move Universal consciousness (which is all that fundamentally exists) is what moves and renders what we perceive as change (and time).
I ma not being sarcastic when I say you are absolutely free to take such an approach, but in that case we would understand that when you say 'causality' or a creator 'exists' we would understand that this is in the context of a view which sees everything as an illusion. If you start from that position, then we cannot have a philosophical proof of anything, let alone a Creator.
By the way, Kant claimed that Hume's empiricism leads to idealism. I disagreed with Kant here on another point, but I agree on this one.
But what Kant meant by Idealism is not what you (seem to) mean by it, as discussed with others on page 2. (I'm also not clear about what you think Parmenides and Zeno pointed out.)
Firstly, as the OP I was negligent in allowing this thread to become confused by my stating that I no longer hold my own proof as valid because I no longer support its implicit assumption of the validity of material realism and then stating that my current view is to support an ontological paradigm consistent with the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism and some schools of Mahayana Buddhism, most notably. Zen. Therefore, we have fallen into discussing two separate topics concurrently causing, of course, confusion. I should have started a separate thread. With this admission, I shall address some of your points as I am able.

I fail to see what is unclear or ambiguous with: “a paradigm of material realism as indicated by relativity and the eternalism such implies.” Yes, the verbiage is rather heady for the average person, but not for the type of people interested in this subject, such as yourself. Anyway, it refers to the “the block universe.”

Causality exists as evidenced by the relationship of events. If the causal event did not exist, then neither would the effect. This is what is observed, a description of relational events as opposed to the causal event the same as with, for example, gravity.

Following on that, Zeno’s renown paradoxes were formulated in support of his mentor’s philosophy that: “A thing is what it is and can never be anything else. Therefore, change is impossible.” This is very much relevant to my OP. Are you aware that after the implications of Einstein’s STR were made clear by Minkowski, that some of his colleagues started sarcastically calling him “Dr. Parmenides”?

You wrote in regard to my current philosophy of Eastern metaphysical idealism:

“I am not being sarcastic when I say you are absolutely free to take such an approach, but in that case we would understand that when you say 'causality' or a creator 'exists' we would understand that this is in the context of a view which sees everything as an illusion. If you start from that position, then we cannot have a philosophical proof of anything, let alone a Creator.”

But once again, my proof implicitly assumes the validity of material realism. I term what I now believe (or at least lean in that direction) to be “corporate solipsism” to distinguish it from what I now term as: “radical solipsism,” the belief by an individual that only he or she exists with all else being a figment of his or her imagination. It is still, however, a form of solipsism and, therefore, as David Deutsch, the Oxford physicist, states, it cannot be refuted. That makes it unscientific but not necessarily false. So I agree with you no philosophical; proof of a creator can be valid in this paradigm. I have been drawn to it by “pointers” or “clues” which I believe I have discerned in my personal observations and then partaking in deductive reasoning. As I also said, I lean towards this form of idealism by default as I see material realism as having too many hurdles (such as Zeno’s paradoxes) to overcome for me to accept its validity. I don’t even know of a third paradigm to material realism and idealism, let alone any arguments for such. Therefore, I lean towards idealism by default.
User avatar
Sam26
Posts: 99
Joined: March 8th, 2012, 1:23 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Ludwig Wittgenstein

Re: Philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind)

Post by Sam26 »

None of this seems to amount to a proof Schneider, because your premises are too speculative. No one knows if the premises are true. It would probably be stronger if the argument was inductive.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021