Should believers in god(s), the creator(s), ask the question what created them?

[heracleitos]

I do not know what you mean by foundationalism.

The Wikipedia explanation:

Foundationalism concerns philosophical theories of knowledge resting upon justified belief, or some secure foundation of certainty such as a conclusion inferred from a basis of sound premises. The main rival of the foundationalist theory of justification is the coherence theory of justification, whereby a body of knowledge, not requiring a secure foundation, can be established by the interlocking strength of its components, like a puzzle solved without prior certainty that each small region was solved correctly.

Identifying the alternatives as either circular reasoning or infinite regress, and thus exhibiting the regress problem, Aristotle made foundationalism his own clear choice, positing basic beliefs underpinning others.

Foundationalism is about knowledge that ultimately rests on axioms, i.e. basic beliefs or first principles. The admiral ship of foundationalism is, beyond any doubt, mathematics.

In Aristotle's time, the flagship of foundationalism was (classical) Euclidean geometry.

In modern times, the dominant axiomatization is either Arithmetic Theory (PA) or Set Theory (ZFC).

Classical geometry is still a valid theory but considered to be quite weak.

The noisy cabal of set theorists will say that the most dominant axiomatic theory is Set Theory (ZFC), but everybody else will say that it is Arithmetic Theory (PA).

Aristotle believed that he would be able to reorganize all knowledge with foundationalist foundations. Nowadays, we know that this is not possible, and probably, not even desirable.

[Sunday66]

I do not know what you mean by foundationalism.

The Wikipedia explanation:

Foundationalism concerns philosophical theories of knowledge resting upon justified belief, or some secure foundation of certainty such as a conclusion inferred from a basis of sound premises. The main rival of the foundationalist theory of justification is the coherence theory of justification, whereby a body of knowledge, not requiring a secure foundation, can be established by the interlocking strength of its components, like a puzzle solved without prior certainty that each small region was solved correctly.

Identifying the alternatives as either circular reasoning or infinite regress, and thus exhibiting the regress problem, Aristotle made foundationalism his own clear choice, positing basic beliefs underpinning others.

Foundationalism is about knowledge that ultimately rests on axioms, i.e. basic beliefs or first principles. The admiral ship of foundationalism is, beyond any doubt, mathematics.

In Aristotle's time, the flagship of foundationalism was (classical) Euclidean geometry.

In modern times, the dominant axiomatization is either Arithmetic Theory (PA) or Set Theory (ZFC).

Classical geometry is still a valid theory but considered to be quite weak.

The noisy cabal of set theorists will say that the most dominant axiomatic theory is Set Theory (ZFC), but everybody else will say that it is Arithmetic Theory (PA).

Aristotle believed that he would be able to reorganize all knowledge with foundationalist foundations. Nowadays, we know that this is not possible, and probably, not even desirable.

Frege, Russell, Whitehead, tried to demonstrate the foundation of math. They failed. Why Godel is referenced for showing no foundation can be self affirming.

[Sunday66]

I

Aristotle believed that he would be able to reorganize all knowledge with foundationalist foundations. Nowadays, we know that this is not possible, and probably, not even desirable.

I have never read anything by Aristotle to justify that claim about him.

[heracleitos]

By "God" I understand Aristotle to mean consciousness or intelligence. I don't need to believe in either to see it.

In his Prime Mover theory, Aristotle introduces a Creator of the heavens and the earth, very much compatible with the Abrahamic notion of God.

Aristotle's prime mover does not need to be "conscious" or even intelligent. All he has to do, is to make some kind of ..."move".

[Sunday66]

By "God" I understand Aristotle to mean consciousness or intelligence. I don't need to believe in either to see it.

In his Prime Mover theory, Aristotle introduces a Creator of the heavens and the earth, very much compatible with the Abrahamic notion of God.

Absolutely not. Aristotle explicitly states the physical world always existed. The Prime Mover did not create the physical world.

[Sunday66]

By "God" I understand Aristotle to mean consciousness or intelligence. I don't need to believe in either to see it.

Aristotle's prime mover does not need to be "conscious" or even intelligent. All he has to do, is to make some kind of ..."move".

In the Metaphysics Aristotle defines God/Prime Mover as "thought thinking thought."

[Sunday66]

By "God" I understand Aristotle to mean consciousness or intelligence. I don't need to believe in either to see it.

In his Prime Mover theory, Aristotle introduces a Creator of the heavens and the earth, very much compatible with the Abrahamic notion of God.

Aristotle's prime mover does not need to be "conscious" or even intelligent. All he has to do, is to make some kind of ..."move".

Prime Mover does not move.

[heracleitos]

I have never read anything by Aristotle to justify that claim about him.

The Wikipedia page (on the foundations of mathematics) suggests this about Aristotle. In fact, Socrates and Plato already started doing that:

In the Posterior Analytics, Aristotle (384–322 BC) laid down the axiomatic method for organizing a field of knowledge logically by means of primitive concepts, axioms, postulates, definitions, and theorems. Aristotle took a majority of his examples for this from arithmetic and from geometry. This method reached its high point with Euclid's Elements (300 BC), a treatise on mathematics structured with very high standards of rigor: Euclid justifies each proposition by a demonstration in the form of chains of syllogisms (though they do not always conform strictly to Aristotelian templates). Aristotle's syllogistic logic, together with the axiomatic method exemplified by Euclid's Elements, are recognized as scientific achievements of ancient Greece.

The real goal of the three famous Athenians is deemed to have been to reorganize knowledge in the manner of geometry, i.e. axiomatically.

[Sunday66]

I have never read anything by Aristotle to justify that claim about him.

The Wikipedia page (on the foundations of mathematics) suggests this about Aristotle. In fact, Socrates and Plato already started doing that:

In the Posterior Analytics, Aristotle (384–322 BC) laid down the axiomatic method for organizing a field of knowledge logically by means of primitive concepts, axioms, postulates, definitions, and theorems. Aristotle took a majority of his examples for this from arithmetic and from geometry. This method reached its high point with Euclid's Elements (300 BC), a treatise on mathematics structured with very high standards of rigor: Euclid justifies each proposition by a demonstration in the form of chains of syllogisms (though they do not always conform strictly to Aristotelian templates). Aristotle's syllogistic logic, together with the axiomatic method exemplified by Euclid's Elements, are recognized as scientific achievements of ancient Greece.

The real goal of the three famous Athenians is deemed to have been to reorganize knowledge in the manner of geometry, i.e. axiomatically.

Sorry, no offence. I never read Wiki for philosophy.

[heracleitos]

Sorry, no offence. I never read Wiki for philosophy.

My opinion on the matter, is that if it matters who says it, then what he says, cannot possibly matter.

On the other hand, if the source provides acceptable justification, then I will accept the claim, even from a three-year old child.

In my opinion, the alternative approach of appointing "credible" sources does not work.

Who exactly is going to decide what sources are credible and what sources are not?

That system is obviously going to get gamed.

That is exactly how we ended up in a situation in which Proctor and Gamble got to decide what theory on cardiovascular disease ("cholesterol") doctors should memorize and parrot, because that allows P&G to sell more seed oils and margarine.

That theory is nonsense but it does make P&G more money. It is certainly not supported by observation or by clinical trial.

The fact that every medical board and medical university in the world still endorses that nonsense theory does not make it any less false or any less corrupt.

[Sunday66]

Sorry, no offence. I never read Wiki for philosophy.

My opinion on the matter, is that if it matters who says it, then what he says, cannot possibly matter.

The first authority on what Aristotle said is Aristotle's own text.


Wiki is just collective opinion. I've read political entries that I knew were factual false or deliberately excluded information.

[heracleitos]

The first authority on what Aristotle said is Aristotle's own text.

Yes, agreed.

However, I find your take on the matter a bit quick to reject the summary in Wikipedia. A rejection in globo does not work. You did not point out a particular contradiction which would make their summary of Aristotle's "Posterior Analytics" unsuitable.

I do not believe that it is a constructive or productive way of looking at the work done by these people.

Wiki is just collective opinion.

It does have a very strong epistemology: "no original research". For every claim, all untruth must be the result of untruth in the original sources.

To the extent that they Wikipedia editors abide by this directive, their work is often a useful organization of information.

I've read political entries that I knew were factual false or deliberately excluded information.

Ok, I agree.

As I see it, all institutions in the West are now indeed corrupt to the bone, including but not limited to the system of education and the mainstream media.

Therefore, I also expect Wikipedia to be corrupt at its fringes. If a good part of it is still usable, that is merely the result of its solid epistemology where applicable.

In a collapsing society, corruption is indeed the primary factor explaining everything. Academic journals are even more corrupt than Wikipedia. Is there anything that is not corrupt in the West? I can't imagine.

[Drakkhis]

At the point in whitch a believer matures in their faith, they come to a point where asking the Question of their creator is like when a child comes of an age and asks questions of their parents. Most who believe in God(s), never step past the point of the blind faith of a child, and those who "Lead" the faith do no encourage the furthuring of questions beyond the worship of the diety... And when those individuals who do move beyond and begin to question, they are ostracize.. like science in the dark ages when those who chalanged the known science were banned and forced out. Bit I believe that Humanity is beginning to spiritually evolve and open upto the question of Who created the creator.

[paulm12]

Therefore, the origin of the universe is not a legitimate subject for investigation with a legitimate empirical knowledge-justification method.
Therefore, whatever anybody believes about it, it cannot possibly be a formally justified belief.

If I believe in God, this is not because I would be able to formally justify it. I even reject all attempts at formal justification. The reason why I believe, is that I find this choice several orders of magnitude more useful than the disbelief.

When you have to arbitrarily choose yes[ or no, the only relevant question ultimately turns out to be:

What's in it for me?

I've come to a similar conclusion myself, and I'll add that I think an interesting parallel is belief in the existence of the external world, and the belief in the existence of other minds. Philosophy has been going on for thousands of years and (to my knowledge) there's no "proof" that the external world exists. Perhaps foundationalists would argue that such beliefs are properly basic, but I'm not sure that they necessarily are (i.e. I can still live my life believing that I am a brain in a vat or inside of a simulation somewhere, so why would the existence of the natural world need to be presupposed for anything). Then again, I haven't really read too much on the subject and I think reading Plantinga and others may change my mind. Another interesting angle (and maybe this is the approach you are describing) is the pragmatism offered by William James. Put simply, "all philosophical concepts should be tested via scientific experimentation, [and] that a claim is true if and only if it is useful" from SEP.

[Sunday66]

Another interesting angle (and maybe this is the approach you are describing) is the pragmatism offered by William James. Put simply, "all philosophical concepts should be tested via scientific experimentation, [and] that a claim is true if and only if it is useful" from SEP.

Mussolini affirmed he believed in pragmatism. The useful is the efficient; power is its own justification.