If there is a God, why is there evil?

Post by **Belindi** » July 19th, 2017, 5:43 pm

Fanman wrote in a reply to Dark Matter:

How can you possibly know this to be the case? I think that if there's a method that can make successful predictions about the nature of reality - that method demonstrates its veracity and usefulness in practice - mathematics does that. Speculative claims about the nature of God do not demonstrate anything sound, despite the fact that they may be appealing. As you know, intuition can be mistaken and being appealing does not equate to "correct."

But mathematics does no more than quantify, not so?

As for speculative claims about God, if there is, as I believe to be the case, some claim about God without which no other claim about God could be made then that core claim is true. I think that Dark Matter's speculation about God as being itself is that core claim.

-- Updated July 19th, 2017, 5:44 pm to add the following --

Should have written "Being-itself" for clarity.

Dark Matter · Post by **Dark Matter** » July 19th, 2017, 7:45 pm

You got it, Belindi.

Post by **Belindi** » July 20th, 2017, 6:17 am

Fooloso4, by way of briefly continuing my naughty digression , I liked that material you posted about what I like to call Spinoza on psychology .

I find Spinoza's Ethics so difficult that I need to read a good commentary, and this is better than not reading anything. I do take to heart your critique of secondary sources.

Just one thing I 'd like to say about the 'psychology' part of Spinoza's book Ethicsis that Part 111 "Concerning the origin and nature of the emotions" is easier than the other parts of the book, and is a short and up to date explanation of human psychology.

Fanman · Post by **Fanman** » July 20th, 2017, 6:56 am

DM,

I can't say I disagree, but when contemplating Essence -- what must be in order for what is to be as it is -- there has to dialogue between empiricism and insight, at least in my view, and there has to be correspondence.

I think it depends on how you define “insight.” Insight as in looking speculatively at what is to get an “ought” or insight as in being guided by evidence to find out what is (not that they are the only definitions of insight). There is value in insightful speculation, but I question if by that process we can acquire knowledge about universals, such as God. We aren't guided by empirical evidence when contemplating God, so our frame of reference becomes religious texts and trying to correlate those conceptions of God with what we know is. This can be problematic though and we end can up with issues such as the PoE. I don't think that a correlation of empiricism and insight is necessary in contemplating physical essence, as the fact may be something completely counter-intuitive, or even something beyond our insights, but if we're talking about something such as the essence of Mind, then I think insight is very useful.

I agree. But you can't ignore Godel's Theorem.

That's correct. I just think that if a system makes accurate predictions about reality, its efficacy is demonstrated.

I'm not saying the universe is intelligently designed. I'm saying it looks like what one would expect it to look like if intelligence is a fundamental feature.

How would you expect it to look if intelligence wasn't a fundamental feature? Or, what would you expect the differences to be to this universe?

"Divine simplicity" means God is without parts or attributes.

That seems quite counter-intuitive. A being without parts or attributes that is the cause of everything that exists? That requires a stretch of insight.

---

Woodart,

I thought you probably meant higher and lower in terms of intelligence. If we were able to encounter human-beings 13.8 billion years into the future, we at our current stage would probably seem like "lower order creatures," due to the huge technological advancements. Evolution may be also be factor over such a long period of time.

---

Belindi,

But mathematics does no more than quantify, not so?

Correct. Mathematics provides quantitative results/axioms. I think that religion is a qualitative study of reality, but how do we decide which religious ideas or ideas about God are valid, when there are no religious axioms, nothing quantitative. We cannot even fall back on logic or common-sense, since there are no sound syllogisms for God's existence. As I've stated a few times, I think that religious ideas are founded on faith, can we get an “ought” from faith? This is why I ask DM “How can you possibly know this to be the case?”

As for speculative claims about God, if there is, as I believe to be the case, some claim about God without which no other claim about God could be made then that core claim is true. I think that Dark Matter's speculation about God as being itself is that core claim.

IMO, DM's speculation about God as Being-itself is just that. I say that because I don't think his claim is supported, even though some may find it appealing. It requires faith that God exists in order to hold validity with a person. If the root claim “God as Being-itself” is speculation, surely any further claims which attempt to say more about God which are extensions of that claim are also speculation? What standard of truth do you think the claim “God as Being-itself” fulfils? Why is it true?

Post by **Belindi** » July 20th, 2017, 12:16 pm

Fanman wrote:

What standard of truth do you think the claim “God as Being-itself” fulfils? Why is it true?

It's not necessary to claim cogito ergo sum in order to have immediate knowledge that something is happening, it's axiomatic.

Call it "God" or "Nature" that something whatever is happening does not matter too much . People are forced to deal with the fact that something is happening, so that people can come to some agreement about what to do about happenings ranging from predatory behaviour among human in groups, to bigger events such as earthquakes and famines. We cannot deal with happenings without a system of shared values. God or Nature is a fact at least an epistemic fact: evil is a human evaluation of what is happening and how we deal with it.

Religions usually hold that God is good. The use of religions is to promote and crystallise systems of values. Religions do so by foundation myths, by public and private rituals such as communal and private praying, by social support such as community welfare and some denominations are good at the lighter side of life.

When individuals sin e.g. child abusing priests it is either because the sinners have not understood the values that the religion enshrines, or because they are religious hypocrites.

Fooloso4 · Post by **Fooloso4** » July 20th, 2017, 1:10 pm

Fanman:

I think that taking knowledge-based steps is a better process than intuitive-leaps. In practice, accurate information should be supported by evidence as intuition is not as reliable …

And this is why those who appeal to intuitive leaps as a justification for religious gaps in logic are so dismissive of evidence. Einstein is usually the go to example, but Einstein did not think that intuition can stand on its own. He did not think his theories should be accepted because he had intuited them but because their correctness could be demonstrated. If they had not been demonstrated they would have remained hunches or guesses. Intuition is the starting point of inquiry not the end of the road.

Belindi:

One quick comment on commentaries: I think that having good teachers is indispensable. For someone attempting to read the philosophers on their own good commentaries are the best teachers. Even though I been fortunate enough to have studied with some good teachers I have still learned a great deal more by also having commentaries as my teachers and still benefit enormously from them.

But mathematics does no more than quantify, not so?

Mathematics models reality, both actual and theoretical.

As for speculative claims about God, if there is, as I believe to be the case, some claim about God without which no other claim about God could be made then that core claim is true. I think that Dark Matter's speculation about God as being itself is that core claim.

The first difficulty I see with this is what “being itself” or “Being itself” means. It is not my aim to sort all this out in order to determine what it does mean but rather to point to some of the different ways in which the term has been used in order to show that there may be unseen differences hidden in seeming agreement.

Aristotle’s “first philosophy” is the study of “being qua being”. It asks the question of what it is to be. The question of the being of beings for Aristotle is not the question of the Being of beings but rather the question of what it means to be, and this includes questioning the causes and principles of being. The answer to the cause of being cannot be a being, but not because he is claiming that there is a Being of beings that is not a being, but because the same question could be asked of this being.

Aquinas uses the term ‘being itself’ not to mean, as Aristotle did, being as being, but to define the supreme or subsistent being, that is, God, whose essence (literally the “what it is”) is to be or exist in and of itself ( Ipsum esse subsistens). He answers Aristotle's objection by claiming there is an uncaused being that is the cause of all other beings.

The term “Being itself” has been used by Heidegger and following him Tillich to mean the ontological difference between Being and beings. Heidegger criticizes what he calls "onto-theology" because it treats God as a being. Thus Tillich and others who were influenced by Heidegger redefine God as Being itself in a way that differs from both the theological tradition of Aquinas and the philosophical traditions of Aristotle and Spinoza. Being, as it is used here, is something other than what is. Being is something other than the things that are, have been, and will come to be.

The fundamental speculative claim being made here is that without God there would be nothing, or to put it in positive terms, there is something rather than nothing because there is God.

But why must there be something other than being, why must there be something that “is not” that is the ground for anything to be? Why is being itself rather than Being itself not fundamental?

Another option for a speculative first claim might be the ancient one that God is an architect. An architect does not create her materials, she works with them. I am not endorsing this option, simply pointing out that there may be other fundamental claims on which to speculative about God.

Fanman · Post by **Fanman** » July 20th, 2017, 2:45 pm

Belindi,

It's not necessary to claim cogito ergo sum in order to have immediate knowledge that something is happening, it's axiomatic.

Is God happening, how can we know? Everything theorised about God is speculative and arguments for God's existence are appealing at best. The statement “God as Being-itself” is not axiomatic, a priori or a posteriori true. If it doesn't meet any of those criteria, on what level or by what system can it be called true?

Call it "God" or "Nature" that something whatever is happening does not matter too much . People are forced to deal with the fact that something is happening, so that people can come to some agreement about what to do about happenings ranging from predatory behaviour among human in groups, to bigger events such as earthquakes and famines. We cannot deal with happenings without a system of shared values. God or Nature is a fact at least an epistemic fact: evil is a human evaluation of what is happening and how we deal with it.

I think that what we describe as Nature is a fact (I'm not sure what you mean by an epistemic fact) and I agree that evil is a human evaluation. Nature is happening, we observe it constantly, but is God happening, we can't observe God to know. I'd rather not speak of “God” and “Nature” as the same or a similar entity, as I think that could be a conflation, we know that Nature is real, whereas we don't know if God is real. If God is Being-itself, then by extension God exists in everything that exists, everything that has the quality of being. If God is so abundant and exists in everything he would also exist in what is tangible - so we could say, this or that is an aspect or evidence of God. Please expound upon at least one tangible aspect of God.

Religions usually hold that God is good. The use of religions is to promote and crystallise systems of values. Religions do so by foundation myths, by public and private rituals such as communal and private praying, by social support such as community welfare and some denominations are good at the lighter side of life.

I agree, that is one use of religion.

When individuals sin e.g. child abusing priests it is either because the sinners have not understood the values that the religion enshrines, or because they are religious hypocrites.

I agree with you, but I think there is more to it than you say here (and more than I'm going to say). Sinners may understand religious values, but choose to ignore them in favour of what they desire to do, even if their actions cause detriment to others. An unfortunate facet of some people's nature.

---

F4,

And this is why those who appeal to intuitive leaps as a justification for religious gaps in logic are so dismissive of evidence. Einstein is usually the go to example, but Einstein did not think that intuition can stand on its own. He did not think his theories should be accepted because he had intuited them but because their correctness could be demonstrated. If they had not been demonstrated they would have remained hunches or guesses. Intuition is the starting point of inquiry not the end of the road.

I agree. Rejecting evidence in favour of intuition is one of the hallmarks of religious faith.

Dark Matter · Post by **Dark Matter** » July 20th, 2017, 5:00 pm

Fanman wrote: I think it depends on how you define “insight.” Insight as in looking speculatively at what is to get an “ought” or insight as in being guided by evidence to find out what is (not that they are the only definitions of insight). There is value in insightful speculation, but I question if by that process we can acquire knowledge about universals, such as God. We aren't guided by empirical evidence when contemplating God, so our frame of reference becomes religious texts and trying to correlate those conceptions of God with what we know is. This can be problematic though and we end can up with issues such as the PoE. I don't think that a correlation of empiricism and insight is necessary in contemplating physical essence, as the fact may be something completely counter-intuitive, or even something beyond our insights, but if we're talking about something such as the essence of Mind, then I think insight is very useful.

Indeed. You can't get an "ought" from an "is" or vice versa. On the other hand, mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality. Mind is unifying of all divergencies, but in the very absence of such divergencies, mind finds no basis upon which to attempt to formulate understanding concepts. Science, I think, establishes the parameters for what's reasonable. In the words of Niels Bohr, "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature..." Creationism might sound reasonable to some, but it doesn't correspond with science very well.

Religious texts can be useful, but if you watched the videos I posted, you can see there's a lot more to it than that: there is such a thing as genuine personal religious experience and goals. That there are different interpretations of those should be is inevitable.

Now, I agree there is such a thing as 'suffering,' but do you agree there is such a thing as 'evolution'? The very idea of evolution implies an uncompleted process. How many people do you know that will complain about a boat being built that's not ready to put out to sea?

I just think that if a system makes accurate predictions about reality, its efficacy is demonstrated.

Of course, but quantity is not quality.

How would you expect [the universe] to look if intelligence wasn't a fundamental feature? Or, what would you expect the differences to be to this universe?

I imagine it would look like this: [t peinvpeivnpqimqi ['ai ;ot qi [qpir paj;qrak J A/JRQJE;u a/ja

"Divine simplicity" means God is without parts or attributes.

That seems quite counter-intuitive. A being without parts or attributes that is the cause of everything that exists? That requires a stretch of insight.

No argument there, but it's a major tenet of classical theism and not very different than Plotinus' One.

IMO, DM's speculation about God as Being-itself is just that. I say that because I don't think his claim is supported, even though some may find it appealing. It requires faith that God exists in order to hold validity with a person. If the root claim “God as Being-itself” is speculation, surely any further claims which attempt to say more about God which are extensions of that claim are also speculation? What standard of truth do you think the claim “God as Being-itself” fulfils? Why is it true?

It may bdoes e speculation, but it does address the question of what must be in order for what is to be as it is. Does skepticism for the sake of skepticism do that much?

The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. -- Neils Bohr

As for the PoE, atheists forget that when they posit the so-called problem of evil, they point to values and ideals beyond themselves from which they draw their rationale.

In the final analysis mathematics is a mental game that we can play or not play as we choose. Religion, on the other hand, deals with ourselves, with our life and death; its promises are meant to govern our actions and thus, at least indirectly, our very existence. We cannot just look at them impassively from the outside. Moreover, our attitude to religious questions cannot be separated from our attitude to society.

-- Updated July 20th, 2017, 5:03 pm to add the following --

It may bdoes e speculation, but it does address the question of what must be in order for what is to be as it is. Does skepticism for the sake of skepticism do that much?

Dang touchpad

Fanman · Post by **Fanman** » July 20th, 2017, 8:44 pm

DM,

Indeed. You can't get an "ought" from an "is" or vice versa. On the other hand, mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality. Mind is unifying of all divergencies, but in the very absence of such divergencies, mind finds no basis upon which to attempt to formulate understanding concepts. Science, I think, establishes the parameters for what's reasonable. In the words of Niels Bohr, "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature..." Creationism might sound reasonable to some, but it doesn't correspond with science very well.

I too think that science establishes the parameters for what is reasonable. It also allows us to understand what is to a certain degree. That doesn't mean that we're not allowed to think outside of the parameters it establishes, because it doesn't establish absolutes, but I think that if we're thinking outside of what science can establish, we should be aware that we're thinking speculatively rather than evidentially and thus be willing to accept that our speculations guided by intuition may not have any grounding.

Religious texts can be useful, but if you watched the videos I posted, you can see there's a lot more to it than that: there is such a thing as genuine personal religious experience and goals. That there are different interpretations of those should be is inevitable.

I also think that religious texts can be useful. Not in the respect of the dogma or fantastical stories, but because they can give us an insight into the human condition and teach us a few life lessons. I have come to reject religion, but I have noticed in life that old traditions subsist with the advancement of human societies, some more than others. Maybe there is genuine personal religious experience, I've had experiences which some theists may claim are of a religious or spiritual nature. I don't intuit that conclusion though, I have different views for why such events have taken place, but I don't claim to know. As you say, different interpretations of unexplainable events are inevitable.

Now, I agree there is such a thing as 'suffering,' but do you agree there is such a thing as 'evolution'? The very idea of evolution implies an uncompleted process. How many people do you know that will complain about a boat being built that's not ready to put out to sea?

Evolution is supported by evidence so there must be some truth to it. You may not believe it occurred, but is there a valid reason to doubt the evidence? Evolution may still be occurring, why would it have stopped? It occurs over such a long period of time that we wouldn't be aware of any changes. I don't really understand the point your analogy is attempting to make?

Of course, but quantity is not quality.

Qualitative understanding about the universe is problematic because there are so many different opinions and interpretations. From my perspective the universe is a gigantic machine. Yes, it has spawned creatures that are capable of qualitative understanding, but in and of itself based upon what we currently know it doesn't appear to have any qualitative purpose. Unless you subscribe to a system of belief which purports that it does.

I imagine it would look like this: [t peinvpeivnpqimqi ['ai ;ot qi [qpir paj;qrak J A/JRQJE;u a/ja

That need not be the case. The universe may be the way it is because complexity and order are just how nature operates. The speculative nature of our intelligence imposes things upon nature that might not be the case. I think that some axioms exist whether the universe is ordered or chaotic, for example there is no type of universe where 1+1 would not equal 2, where frozen water isn't ice or where combustion doesn't produce heat. I am of course speculating.

It may bdoes e speculation, but it does address the question of what must be in order for what is to be as it is. Does skepticism for the sake of skepticism do that much?

Does drawing a speculative conclusion about a universal demonstrate that we have knowledge? Of course not, as we've discussed that would be a conjecture. I think a degree of scepticism is necessary when contemplating religious ideas and claims. Not for scepticism sake, but for rigorous examination. Critical thinking is important especially for someone who enjoys philosophy. I think that many things must be in order for what is to be as it is, it may not be the case that one single thing is the cause of all things. Although intuitive, retrospective cause and effect chains need not be reductive or lead to a single root cause. The BBT posits that kind of reality, a single point of origin from which everything else emanates and its supported by expansion, but I'm not so sure reality works that way as the BBT has its problems.

Dark Matter · Post by **Dark Matter** » July 21st, 2017, 12:55 am

Fanman wrote:
I too think that science establishes the parameters for what is reasonable. It also allows us to understand what is to a certain degree. That doesn't mean that we're not allowed to think outside of the parameters it establishes, because it doesn't establish absolutes, but I think that if we're thinking outside of what science can establish, we should be aware that we're thinking speculatively rather than evidentially and thus be willing to accept that our speculations guided by intuition may not have any grounding.

Such "speculations" are interpretive concepts of personal religious experience and insights, not concrete "facts."

I also think that religious texts can be useful. Not in the respect of the dogma or fantastical stories, but because they can give us an insight into the human condition and teach us a few life lessons. I have come to reject religion, but I have noticed in life that old traditions subsist with the advancement of human societies, some more than others. Maybe there is genuine personal religious experience, I've had experiences which some theists may claim are of a religious or spiritual nature. I don't intuit that conclusion though, I have different views for why such events have taken place, but I don't claim to know. As you say, different interpretations of unexplainable events are inevitable.

I don't claim to "know," either. But I do have a narrative that, at least in my mind, illustrates how I relate to the cosmos.

Evolution is supported by evidence so there must be some truth to it. You may not believe it occurred, but is there a valid reason to doubt the evidence? Evolution may still be occurring, why would it have stopped? It occurs over such a long period of time that we wouldn't be aware of any changes. I don't really understand the point your analogy is attempting to make?

Among other things, proponents of the PoE assume that the created order is complete, but evolution suggests it's an ongoing process. The vanity anthropocentrism needed to suggest there is problem is mind-boggling. Atheists who pose it overlook that the situation is directly addressed by the Bible and religion. But I'm repeating myself.

Qualitative understanding about the universe is problematic because there are so many different opinions and interpretations. From my perspective the universe is a gigantic machine. Yes, it has spawned creatures that are capable of qualitative understanding, but in and of itself based upon what we currently know it doesn't appear to have any qualitative purpose. Unless you subscribe to a system of belief which purports that it does.

I suggest I and Thou by Martin Burber.

The universe may be the way it is because complexity and order are just how nature operates.

Absent of mind? That's speculation, too, and one that seems to be at odds with observation.

Does drawing a speculative conclusion about a universal demonstrate that we have knowledge? Of course not, as we've discussed that would be a conjecture. I think a degree of scepticism is necessary when contemplating religious ideas and claims. Not for scepticism sake, but for rigorous examination. Critical thinking is important especially for someone who enjoys philosophy. I think that many things must be in order for what is to be as it is, it may not be the case that one single thing is the cause of all things. Although intuitive, retrospective cause and effect chains need not be reductive or lead to a single root cause. The BBT posits that kind of reality, a single point of origin from which everything else emanates and its supported by expansion, but I'm not so sure reality works that way as the BBT has its problems.

Critical thinking is VERY important and our school do a disservice by neglecting it. But there comes a point where skepticism it looks irrational. But that's like adding one grain of sand at a time to a small pile of sand and asking at what point its a big pile of sand.

Post by **Belindi** » July 21st, 2017, 3:36 am

Fooloso4 wrote:

But mathematics does no more than quantify, not so?
Mathematics models reality, both actual and theoretical.

Yes, but mathematics models real quantity not real quality.

Aristotle’s “first philosophy” is the study of “being qua being”. It asks the question of what it is to be. The question of the being of beings for Aristotle is not the question of the Being of beings but rather the question of what it means to be, and this includes questioning the causes and principles of being. The answer to the cause of being cannot be a being, but not because he is claiming that there is a Being of beings that is not a being, but because the same question could be asked of this being.

Doesn't this imply that Aristotle would endorse the cosmological proof for the existence of God. And that Aristotle is not considering God as the one event that is cause of itself?

Aquinas uses the term ‘being itself’ not to mean, as Aristotle did, being as being, but to define the supreme or subsistent being, that is, God, whose essence (literally the “what it is”) is to be or exist in and of itself ( Ipsum esse subsistens). He answers Aristotle's objection by claiming there is an uncaused being that is the cause of all other beings.

I have to agree with Aquinas with regard to causa suis which seems to me to be implied by "to be or exist in and of itself".

The term “Being itself” has been used by Heidegger and following him Tillich to mean the ontological difference between Being and beings. Heidegger criticizes what he calls "onto-theology" because it treats God as a being. Thus Tillich and others who were influenced by Heidegger redefine God as Being itself in a way that differs from both the theological tradition of Aquinas and the philosophical traditions of Aristotle and Spinoza. Being, as it is used here, is something other than what is. Being is something other than the things that are, have been, and will come to be.

The fundamental speculative claim being made here is that without God there would be nothing, or to put it in positive terms, there is something rather than nothing because there is God.

But why must there be something other than being, why must there be something that “is not” that is the ground for anything to be? Why is being itself rather than Being itself not fundamental?

I will have to buy an easy Commentary on Heidegger! Meanwhile I don't understand how a criticism of God as Being itself differs from that ontological synthesis of Spinoza.

Another option for a speculative first claim might be the ancient one that God is an architect. An architect does not create her materials, she works with them. I am not endorsing this option, simply pointing out that there may be other fundamental claims on which to speculative about God.

Aristotle:

The material cause: “that out of which”, e.g., the bronze of a statue.
The formal cause: “the form”, “the account of what-it-is-to-be”, e.g., the shape of a statue.
The efficient cause: “the primary source of the change or rest”, e.g., the artisan, the art of bronze-casting the statue, the man who gives advice, the father of the child.
The final cause: “the end, that for the sake of which a thing is done”, e.g., health is the end of walking, losing weight, purging, drugs, and surgical tools.

Final cause is unpalatable in a scientific age, but I see no reason to omit material cause and formal cause.

Fanman · Post by **Fanman** » July 21st, 2017, 3:40 am

DM,

Such "speculations" are interpretive concepts of personal religious experience and insights, not concrete "facts."

I agree.

Among other things, proponents of the PoE assume that the created order is complete, but evolution suggests it's an ongoing process. The vanity anthropocentrism needed to suggest there is problem is mind-boggling. Atheists who pose it overlook that the situation is directly addressed by the Bible and religion. But I'm repeating myself.

I wouldn't call myself a proponent of the PoE, but I do see it as a valid argument. I don't fully understand what you mean be “created order,” but if you're talking about the order apparent in the universe then I think that it is some kind of ongoing process. I think that the Bible addresses the PoE with the doctrine of salvation (evil-being allowed to occur for the greater good), but many do not see this as an adequate resolution to the problem asking “why should an all-good God allow evil to occur at all?” I think that question has some logical validity - that's my view anyway.

Absent of mind? That's speculation, too, and one that seems to be at odds with observation.

I can see why observation of the universe leads to the conclusion of Mind or intelligence? But I don't think a universe absent of it is at odds with observation, because we intuit Mind not observe it. As you know, the observation of Mind is a matter of interpretation not fact.

Critical thinking is VERY important and our school do a disservice by neglecting it. But there comes a point where skepticism it looks irrational. But that's like adding one grain of sand at a time to a small pile of sand and asking at what point its a big pile of sand.

Religious scepticism is not without reason. If religion was fact then yes, scepticism would look/be irrational. I am sure you understand why people are sceptical about religious claims and ideas.

Fooloso4 · Post by **Fooloso4** » July 21st, 2017, 11:55 am

Belindi:

Yes, but mathematics models real quantity not real quality.

Mathematical models of dynamic physical systems are not just an model of “how much”. If you mean by real quality 'qualia' then we cannot model it not only mathematically but in any way or convey information about it except in vague and general ways.

And this gets us into the whole problem of experience, subjective states, and their relation to reality. There are some who treat "religious experience" as evidence of God or a transcendent reality, but this cannot be evidence in the ordinary sense because we cannot establish a connection between the experience and something outside of it that causes it or which the experience allows access to.

Doesn't this imply that Aristotle would endorse the cosmological proof for the existence of God. And that Aristotle is not considering God as the one event that is cause of itself?

No. I won’t go into it but in addition to what I said above about the problem of explaining the existence of being in terms of a being, the world, according to Aristotle is eternal, there is no beginning, and that means that there never was a time where there was no motion, and so, no prime mover or prime movers in the sense of a first cause that started all things moving from a state of rest. No creatio ex nihilo.

I have to agree with Aquinas with regard to causa suis which seems to me to be implied by "to be or exist in and of itself".

Aquinas rejects the claim that God is causa sui. God is, according to Aquinas, the uncaused cause. One might ask why he doesn’t just accept Aristotle’s view that the universe is uncaused. The answer, I think, is that as a Christian Aquinas is committed to a creator God. Where reason and faith or reason and revelation cannot be reconciled he chooses religion over philosophy.

When Spinoza uses the term 'causa sui' he does not mean cause itself to be temporally from a state of non-being (this was Aquinas objection to causa sui) but rather that God is not explained in terms of something else.

Meanwhile I don't understand how a criticism of God as Being itself differs from that ontological synthesis of Spinoza.

Heidegger distinguishes between Being and beings. When he speaks of Being itself he is distinguishing it from all that is. Heidegger’s criticism is that Spinoza is treating God as a being.

Spinoza:

That eternal and infinite being we call God, or Nature, acts from the same necessity from which he exists” (Part IV, Preface)

This is why I went into the discussion of Aristotle and Aquinas. When Aquinas says being itself he does not mean the same thing as Heidegger and Tillich do and others who follow Heidegger in this usage do. Aquinas means a being, but a being that is unlike other beings. Spinoza also means a being, and he too distinguishes the being of God from all beings that are not necessary beings. According to Heidegger Being is the ground of beings, that is, of what exists. As such Being does not exist, only beings exist. When Tillich says that God does not exist this is what he is referring to. Aquinas and Spinoza, think of God as the ground of all else but for them God does exist.

Dark Matter · Post by **Dark Matter** » July 21st, 2017, 1:41 pm

Fanman wrote: I wouldn't call myself a proponent of the PoE, but I do see it as a valid argument. I don't fully understand what you mean be “created order,” but if you're talking about the order apparent in the universe then I think that it is some kind of ongoing process. I think that the Bible addresses the PoE with the doctrine of salvation (evil-being allowed to occur for the greater good), but many do not see this as an adequate resolution to the problem asking “why should an all-good God allow evil to occur at all?” I think that question has some logical validity - that's my view anyway.

Well, I don't. God's thoughts are not our thoughts nor is any God worthy of the title a respecter of persons (both of these observations are my own as well as biblical). Maybe I'm just not self-centered enough to think the universe revolves around me.

I can see why observation of the universe leads to the conclusion of Mind or intelligence? But I don't think a universe absent of it is at odds with observation, because we intuit Mind not observe it. As you know, the observation of Mind is a matter of interpretation not fact.

To me, it's a matter of 'if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck -- it's a duck. Now, if there's some observation (like the 'duck' having teeth) that calls my observation into question, fine. But that's not the way things are working out in the world of science. In fact, it's just the opposite. IMV, even to the point where skepticism about mind being fundamental seems irrational.

Religious scepticism is not without reason. If religion was fact then yes, scepticism would look/be irrational. I am sure you understand why people are sceptical about religious claims and ideas.

Sure, but what is your narrative, the narrative that informs you about how you should relate to reality?

-- Updated July 21st, 2017, 4:12 pm to add the following --

My narrative posits that nothing is more natural or more real than that what cannot not be, and that if anything is "supernatural, it is the human ability to be estranged from it.