the vastness of it all

Yellow wrote:

The qualities and aspects of the object exist simultaneously with and indistinguishably from the object. It is the very essence of the object itself that is doing the existing, and the sum total of its existence is its essence

But how can something with no attributes exist?

But how can something with no attributes exist?

No, I agree with you, and that was my argument against existentialism--but I agree with Tfindlay, my consideration of existentialism is not particularly relevant to our discussion, sorry.

I am beginning to see your philosophy take shape, Tfindlay. Can I define it as follows?:

1. What exists is physical/material/empirically verifiable, and everything else (if anything else exists) is unknowable.

2. Survival is the ultimate goal of humanity. Every natural desire should ultimately lead to action that perpetuates the survival of both oneself and the rest of humanity.

3. All reality is subject and relative to other forms of reality, therefore nothing is absolute.

4. "Morality" is that action which would best sustain survival for the most amount of people in any given situation.

Of course, please correct me on any of these criteria as you see fit, I'm just trying to understand.

I have a few questions:

1. Do a man and a woman who procreate have to sustain a relationship in order to best uphold survival? If so, why? I can see why the parent-child relationship would be necessary to your theory, though.

2. Is killing ever acceptable? If what is real is physical and empirically verifiable, then is involuntary man-slaughter any different than third-degree murder? Both acts produce the same result, though one may be accidental.

3. Is homosexuality unnatural? After all, homosexuals are physically incapable of reproducing with their partners. I do not want to delve into this topic too much, as it would be easy to get off track, but if you can answer this question concisely, then please do.

I am beginning to see your philosophy take shape, Tfindlay. Can I define it as follows?:

1. What exists is physical/material/empirically verifiable, and everything else (if anything else exists) is unknowable.

What we can know is physical/material/empirically verifiable but there may well be aspects of existence that we cannot know.

2. Survival is the ultimate goal of humanity. Every natural desire should ultimately lead to action that perpetuates the survival of both oneself and the rest of humanity.

Survival of the species is not necessarily a conscious goal of any particular person but it is the goal of the biological organism and as such underlies much of what we are and what we do.

3. All reality is subject and relative to other forms of reality, therefore nothing is absolute.

Nothing in human experience is verifiably absolute.

4. "Morality" is that action which would best sustain survival for the most amount of people in any given situation.

In biological terms what is "good" is that action which would best sustain survival for the greatest population of organisms in any given situation. This is not necessarily what we usually mean by "morality". To relative beings morality is relative to context (cultural, physical, historical, etc.)

I have a few questions:

1. Do a man and a woman who procreate have to sustain a relationship in order to best uphold survival? If so, why? I can see why the parent-child relationship would be necessary to your theory, though.

It depends on what constitutes the most advantageous set of circumstances relative to the well-being of the child. In most cases a sustained parental relationship would probably meet this requirement but, of course, there are situations where such a relationship might be detrimental to the child's welfare.

2. Is killing ever acceptable? If what is real is physical and empirically verifiable, then is involuntary man-slaughter any different than third-degree murder? Both acts produce the same result, though one may be accidental.

This is essentially a question of morality and so what is acceptable will be relative to the full context of a specific situation (cultural, physical, historical, etc.)

3. Is homosexuality unnatural? After all, homosexuals are physically incapable of reproducing with their partners. I do not want to delve into this topic too much, as it would be easy to get off track, but if you can answer this question concisely, then please do.

In terms of the survival of the species homosexual partnership is not an optimal partnership. However, this does not mean that homosexuality is biologically unnatural since there is likely a genetic component to sexual orientation. However, what society labels as "unnatural" may not necessarily correspond with biology but may, instead, be determined by historical cultural norms or religious dogma.

What we can know is physical/material/empirically verifiable but there may well be aspects of existence that we cannot know.

The metaphysical necessity for the nonphysical: the finite cannot exist without the existence of the infinite, since only the self-existent can cause that which is not self-existent. Every effect must have a cause. That which is not self-existent must have a cause. If the infinite did not exist, the finite could not exist, because nothing could have ever caused it. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I do not see how this conclusion is illogical.

Survival of the species is not necessarily a conscious goal of any particular person but it is the goal of the biological organism and as such underlies much of what we are and what we do.

Is this absolute?

Nothing in human experience is verifiably absolute.

Except, according to you, that we exist to survive and that nothing is verifiably absolute.

In biological terms what is "good" is that action which would best sustain survival for the greatest population of organisms in any given situation. This is not necessarily what we usually mean by "morality". To relative beings morality is relative to context (cultural, physical, historical, etc.)

The object of moral law is to secure the well-being of the governed. The foundation of moral law itself is the objective value of well-being. If you take away the objective value of well-being, you take away the very foundation of moral law.

It depends on what constitutes the most advantageous set of circumstances relative to the well-being of the child. In most cases a sustained parental relationship would probably meet this requirement but, of course, there are situations where such a relationship might be detrimental to the child's welfare.

I partially agree with you. But how do we know what is detrimental to a child's welfare? Physical abuse is a pretty obvious factor, but are there any other factors? Also, this subject relates to above arguments.

For the homosexuality issue, I just mainly wanted to see what you thought about it--I think the issue could too easily become a rabbit trail if we argue further.

The metaphysical necessity for the nonphysical: the finite cannot exist without the existence of the infinite, since only the self-existent can cause that which is not self-existent. Every effect must have a cause. That which is not self-existent must have a cause. If the infinite did not exist, the finite could not exist, because nothing could have ever caused it. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I do not see how this conclusion is illogical.

Your argument makes logical sense but we can never verify it empirically. My personal belief (and it is just a belief, not a description of absolute fact) is that the apparent world of independently existing objects and sequential events is not the ultimate nature of reality. It makes sense to me that reality may ultimately be a single indivisible and eternal event in which separate objects and sequential events have no actual existence. In this reality cause and effect do not pertain. There is a difference between what we can know and what we can imagine, logically or not.

According to you, we exist to survive and nothing is verifiably absolute.

My assertions are coherent relative to the empirical data available at this time.

The object of moral law is to secure the well-being of the governed. The foundation of moral law itself is the objective value of well-being. If you take away the objective value of well-being, you take away the very foundation of moral law.

I agree that the purpose of moral law should be the well-being of the governed but this does not mean that it is necessarily universal. It only means that we agree. Others could have a different idea. For example, in ancient Sparta the well-being of individuals was not given primacy. It was morally acceptable to sacrifice the well being of the individual in the pursuit of the military might of the city state.

I partially agree with you. But how do we know what is detrimental to a child's welfare? Physical abuse is a pretty obvious factor, but are there any other factors? Also, this subject relates to above arguments.

You seem to assume the necessity of an objective and immutable definition of the child's welfare. As I have pointed out previously, determinations of this kind can only be made relative to the context (cultural, historical, physical, legal, etc.) of a particular situation.

The metaphysical necessity for the nonphysical: the finite cannot exist without the existence of the infinite, since only the self-existent can cause that which is not self-existent. Every effect must have a cause. That which is not self-existent must have a cause. If the infinite did not exist, the finite could not exist, because nothing could have ever caused it. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I do not see how this conclusion is illogical.

Your argument makes logical sense but we can never verify it empirically. My personal belief (and it is just a belief, not a description of absolute fact) is that the apparent world of independently existing objects and sequential events is not the ultimate nature of reality. It makes sense to me that reality may ultimately be a single indivisible and eternal event in which separate objects and sequential events have no actual existence. In this reality cause and effect do not pertain. There is a difference between what we can know and what we can imagine, logically or not.

According to you, we exist to survive and nothing is verifiably absolute.

My assertions are coherent relative to the empirical data available at this time.

The object of moral law is to secure the well-being of the governed. The foundation of moral law itself is the objective value of well-being. If you take away the objective value of well-being, you take away the very foundation of moral law.

I agree that the purpose of moral law should be the well-being of the governed but this does not mean that it is necessarily universal. It only means that we agree. Others could have a different idea. For example, in ancient Sparta the well-being of individuals was not given primacy. It was morally acceptable to sacrifice the well being of the individual in the pursuit of the military might of the city state.

I partially agree with you. But how do we know what is detrimental to a child's welfare? Physical abuse is a pretty obvious factor, but are there any other factors? Also, this subject relates to above arguments.

You seem to assume the necessity of an objective and immutable definition of the child's welfare. As I have pointed out previously, determinations of this kind can only be made relative to the context (cultural, historical, physical, legal, etc.) of a particular situation.

I understand what you're saying.

This discussion has been a pleasure, and it was very helpful. If you feel that it has been cut short, then perhaps we can continue for your sake, but I would be satisfied to stop now.

Thank you for your time and contribution.

Yellow wrote:

Belinda wrote:
But how can something with no attributes exist?

No, I agree with you, and that was my argument against existentialism--but I agree with Tfindlay, my consideration of existentialism is not particularly relevant to our discussion, sorry.

Later on Yellow wrote that the infinite exists,

The metaphysical necessity for the nonphysical: the finite cannot exist without the existence of the infinite, since only the self-existent can cause that which is not self-existent. Every effect must have a cause. That which is not self-existent must have a cause. If the infinite did not exist, the finite could not exist, because nothing could have ever caused it. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I do not see how this conclusion is illogical.

but the claim that the infinite exists implies also the claim that there exists something with no beginning and no end.

If something exists its existence is necesssarily defined by beginning and ending i.e. it is a finite thing. If it is a finite thing it cannot possibly be infinite because 'infinite' means unbounded by beginning and end.

Every finite event is subject to causation. But that which is infinite has no cause , it's the one and only thing that is the cause of itself,m it's existence itself. If it were true to say that the infinite is the cause of all finite things, this infinite causality is not simply linear causation due to a chain of circumstances but is the natural system as a whole, in another word it is eternity.

I understand what you're saying.

This discussion has been a pleasure, and it was very helpful. If you feel that it has been cut short, then perhaps we can continue for your sake, but I would be satisfied to stop now.

Thank you for your time and contribution.

The pleasure has been mine. Thank you too for your time and contribution.

Yellow wrote:

Belinda wrote:
But how can something with no attributes exist?

No, I agree with you, and that was my argument against existentialism--but I agree with Tfindlay, my consideration of existentialism is not particularly relevant to our discussion, sorry.

Later on Yellow wrote that the infinite exists,

The metaphysical necessity for the nonphysical: the finite cannot exist without the existence of the infinite, since only the self-existent can cause that which is not self-existent. Every effect must have a cause. That which is not self-existent must have a cause. If the infinite did not exist, the finite could not exist, because nothing could have ever caused it. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I do not see how this conclusion is illogical.

but the claim that the infinite exists implies also the claim that there exists something with no beginning and no end.

If something exists its existence is necesssarily defined by beginning and ending i.e. it is a finite thing. If it is a finite thing it cannot possibly be infinite because 'infinite' means unbounded by beginning and end.

Every finite event is subject to causation. But that which is infinite has no cause , it's the one and only thing that is the cause of itself,m it's existence itself. If it were true to say that the infinite is the cause of all finite things, this infinite causality is not simply linear causation due to a chain of circumstances but is the natural system as a whole, in another word it is eternity.

The nature of eternity is indeed a reality with no beginning and no and, or simply an "isness". Which is an argument for the existence of God. I was trying to steer a way from the explicit use of the word "God," because I wanted to finish the discussion before I opened up a whole new aspect. I believe God exists, but I want my belief to be based upon reason. The God who said "I AM" is evident due to epistemological and metaphysical necessity.

--the finite cannot exist without the existence of the infinite--

This is an unsupportec claim.

--since only the self-existent can cause that which is not self-existent.

Existence isn't/wasn't "caused". Existence simply "is"...

Every effect must have a cause.

The various "forms" that portions of "existence" take, are caused. There is no evidence, however, that existence itself, however, was in any way "caused" (or "created").

That which is not self-existent must have a cause. If the infinite did not exist, the finite could not exist, because nothing could have ever caused it. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I do not see how this conclusion is illogical.

What do you mean by "that which is not self-existent"?
(And, how do you know that it is not "self-existent"?)

Every finite event is subject to causation. But that which is infinite has no cause , it's the one and only thing that is the cause of itself,m it's existence itself.

You're making a common mistake; confusing "infinite" with "eternal". All "things" are finite. Existence is eternal, but (as a "thing", too) it is also finite.

The nature of eternity is indeed a reality with no beginning and no and, or simply an "isness".

This is what I mean by "existence exists".

Which is an argument for the existence of God.

I fail to see how an eternal, always-existing, uncreated universe is any sort of argument for the necessity of a Creator "God".

This is an unsupportec claim.

By nature, "finite" possesses both a beginning and an end. Every beginning has a cause. In order for a finite universe to exist, an "uncaused" infinite cause would have to exist.

Existence simply "is"...

I agree. But only the infinite can be self-existent and uncaused (see above).

The various "forms" that portions of "existence" take, are caused. There is no evidence, however, that existence itself, however, was in any way "caused" (or "created").

The existence of a God does not contradict this statement. After all, if God exists then he must be infinite, therefore this idea of "existence" itself would also be infinite and uncaused.

What do you mean by "that which is not self-existent"?

That which had a beginning and thus a cause.

(And, how do you know that it is not "self-existent"?)

The chain of causes would continue back in inexplicable and fallacious infinite regression if not for an uncaused cause.

I fail to see how an eternal, always-existing, uncreated universe is any sort of argument for the necessity of a Creator "God".

I fail to see how the universe may be eternal and always-existing if it is finite, for the above reasons. Also, because of the law of entropy, which means that the universe is winding down like a clock, there must have been some point where the clock was wound and started.
And by saying "uncreated universe," you're arguing off of a presupposition, the types of ideas which are exactly what we're trying to examine: that a God exists or that he does not.

By nature, "finite" possesses both a beginning and an end.

Not necessarily. Limits, borders don't refer to "time", but simply to space. Aa atom is finite, in that it does not extend indefinitely into space. An atom can change form; it can be split or fused, and it can be converted into energy.

But, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Finite, but eternal. Uncreated. Uncaused.

Every beginning has a cause.

OK. But "existence" is not a beginning; "existence" is a thing. Finite/limited/bordered. But not "caused".

In order for a finite universe to exist, an "uncaused" infinite cause would have to exist.

There's no evidence to suggest this, whatsoever. And, there is a great deal of evidence that seems to refute it.

But only the infinite can be self-existent and uncaused (see above).

The above is utterly unconvincing.

The existence of a God does not contradict this statement. After all, if God exists then he must be infinite, therefore this idea of "existence" itself would also be infinite and uncaused.

An uncaused existence requires no "Creator-God".

That which had a beginning and thus a cause.

Events are caused, things are not. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

The chain of causes would continue back in inexplicable and fallacious infinite regression if not for an uncaused cause.

An "uncaused cause" is an oxymoron, and if it averts the infinite regress, it's only by an appeal to magicical thinking.

I fail to see how the universe may be eternal and always-existing if it is finite, for the above reasons.

What "reasons"?

Also, because of the law of entropy, which means that the universe is winding down like a clock, there must have been some point where the clock was wound and started.

You're thinking anthropomorphically. Entropy only affects the current form of existence, not existence itself. Yes, the various organizations of matter and energy will yield to entropy, but existence (the raw "stuff" of the matter and energy) cannot be created or destroyed.

It will simply change form...as it always has.


And by saying "uncreated universe," you're arguing off of a presupposition, the types of ideas which are exactly what we're trying to examine: that a God exists or that he does not.[/quote]

I must say I agree with Keith Russell,generally. And this point interests me particularly:

Quote:

Also, because of the law of entropy, which means that the universe is winding down like a clock, there must have been some point where the clock was wound and started.

You're thinking anthropomorphically. Entropy only affects the current form of existence, not existence itself. Yes, the various organizations of matter and energy will yield to entropy, but existence (the raw "stuff" of the matter and energy) cannot be created or destroyed.

It will simply change form...as it always has.

Entropy as explained here seems to me to be counteracted by cosmos, the ordered and meaningful world of experience.From here I can either suppose, poetically, that the order and meaning is the work of a creating deity or that, more scientifically, it's the product of conscious beings and their habitat.

Either way 'the raw "stuff" ' of nature cannot be created or destroyed'.

I must say I agree with Keith Russell,generally. And this point interests me particularly:

Quote:

Also, because of the law of entropy, which means that the universe is winding down like a clock, there must have been some point where the clock was wound and started.

You're thinking anthropomorphically. Entropy only affects the current form of existence, not existence itself. Yes, the various organizations of matter and energy will yield to entropy, but existence (the raw "stuff" of the matter and energy) cannot be created or destroyed.

It will simply change form...as it always has.

Entropy as explained here seems to me to be counteracted by cosmos, the ordered and meaningful world of experience.From here I can either suppose, poetically, that the order and meaning is the work of a creating deity or that, more scientifically, it's the product of conscious beings and their habitat.

Either way 'the raw "stuff" ' of nature cannot be created or destroyed'.

I also find it intriguing. Assuming that matter is eternal, how did form, which is not eternal, originally "apply" itself to matter?
To be honest with both of you, I am seventeen years old--certain aspects of cosmology and the particulars of logical reasoning, such as modal logic, are still relatively unfamiliar to me. Alvin Plantinga, who I have yet to study in depth, provides insight into these realms. I suggest his work to those who are interested. My knowledge is quite limited in the area to which the discussion has shifted.

By nature, "finite" possesses both a beginning and an end.

Not at all. Matter and energy are two forms of the same "stuff", and they cannot be created or destroyed.

Every beginning has a cause. In order for a finite universe to exist, an "uncaused" infinite cause would have to exist.

I believe the universe itself (not its current form, but the raw "stuff" of existence) is an uncaused eternal.

Existence simply "is"...

I agree. But only the infinite can be self-existent and uncaused (see above).

I've seen the above, and I disagree. All "things" are finite. Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed; thus existence is eternal, uncaused.

The existence of a God does not contradict this statement. After all, if God exists then he must be infinite, therefore this idea of "existence" itself would also be infinite and uncaused.

I believe that "God" is not possible.

What do you mean by "that which is not self-existent"?

That which had a beginning and thus a cause.

Again, I believe that existence is eternal, uncaused. Causes bring about the various forms/structures that matter and energy take on, but the matter and energy itself is eternal.

The chain of causes would continue back in inexplicable and fallacious infinite regression if not for an uncaused cause.

But an "uncaused cause" is just a fancy version of "God did it", a way to avoid an infinite regression, without really knowing what we're talking about.

I fail to see how an eternal, always-existing, uncreated universe is any sort of argument for the necessity of a Creator "God".

I fail to see how the universe may be eternal and always-existing if it is finite, for the above reasons. Also, because of the law of entropy, which means that the universe is winding down like a clock, there must have been some point where the clock was wound and started.

Yes, there was a point (the "Big Bang") when the "clock" was wound and started, but not a point where the clock was created...

And by saying "uncreated universe," you're arguing off of a presupposition, the types of ideas which are exactly what we're trying to examine: that a God exists or that he does not.

It's a supposition, but not a "pre"-supposition. It's a conclusion based on evidence and logic, not simply a preference...