The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.
The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now
The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: June 7th, 2019, 1:16 pm
A devotee of Schopenhauer, I imagine, would make 3 points.
1) You cannot apply our notions of causality beyond physical reality.
2) We only know our experience inside time and space, so how could we know this “God” beyond everything we know ?
3) We cannot know the noumena behind phenomena.
How might one respond ? As a platonist, or theist ?
- Posts: 38
- Joined: September 7th, 2017, 7:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Spinoza
The further arguments wouldn't be the same as the first refutation?
If yes, the discussion will be worthwhile in the case of entering to a circle?
But ok, let's try to take the cosmological argument as if it were a rejoinder.
Can you accept the notion that everything that exists exist by a cause? Or do you think they came from nothing?
Have you ever asked yourself that the fact that you are a being makes you alike everything that is?
If something is, can you plainly say that it "is because it is"?
What is less convincent, to say that something is because it is or because it has came to existence?
Now think about the totality of the Universe.
Can you just say that 'it is because it is'? Or is it came from something?
Let us guess that so you concede that it couldn't came from nothing but there is only physical causes.
The physical totality would have itself a cause. The cause of totality would have a cause, that in its turn has a cause, that has a cause...
But why the physical totality has some laws of nature and not others? Wouldn't you seek the answer in something not physical?
If you say that the laws of physical totality has origins in the laws of physical totality, wouldn't you be saying that 'it is because it is' again?
How Schopenhauer answer this?
- Posts: 2269
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
I would agree with this statement.spiltteeth said: You cannot apply our notions of causality beyond physical reality.
These two points seem to be the same. Some would say (e.g., mystics and yogis) that their awareness is not limited by time and space, and this is validated by their own experience. That is, while noumena, by definition, cannot be apprehended by the senses, they can be apprehended via intuition or extrasensory perception.2) We only know our experience inside time and space, so how could we know this “God” beyond everything we know?
3) We cannot know the noumena behind phenomena