PDA

View Full Version : The Divine Non-Contradiction Principle and Why it Fails-Refuted



TimelessTheist
05-16-2014, 05:11 PM
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/divine_non_contradiction_principle/

The problems come from, again, the arguments are based on unsubstantiated premises that basically amount to question begging, such as:


This seems reasonable at first glance. However, we then fall upon a problem, since the following proposition is also true from the materialist standpoint:

(P3) The existence and nature of the universe is a logical necessity.

and this:


In reality, we know that this is a fallacy because, from the materialist viewpoint, there is only one kind of existent – material – and only one kind of fact – empirical.

Eh, Francois, you 'do' know that theists aren't materialists, right? So we have literally, no reason to accept either of those premises. :doh:

Carrikature
05-16-2014, 06:16 PM
Eh, Francois, you 'do' know that theists aren't materialists, right? So we have literally, no reason to accept either of those premises. :doh:

You do know that he's not talking to or about theists in the section quoted, right? He's talking to skeptics who already accept the materialist view.

TimelessTheist
05-16-2014, 06:26 PM
You do know that he's not talking to or about theists in the section quoted, right? He's talking to skeptics who already accept the materialist view.

Never said he was. The point is that he's using a premise that theists don't accept to refute a theological argument.

shunyadragon
05-16-2014, 06:54 PM
Never said he was. The point is that he's using a premise that theists don't accept to refute a theological argument.

So what's new? theists use premises in their argument that atheists don't accept.

TimelessTheist
05-16-2014, 07:04 PM
So what's new? theists use premises in their argument that atheists don't accept.

Name some.

Carrikature
05-16-2014, 07:11 PM
Never said he was. The point is that he's using a premise that theists don't accept to refute a theological argument.

This is false. He's refuting two things. The first is a theological argument made by theists with the temporary granting of the premise of materialism (materialist apologetics he calls it). The second is to expose the fallacy of splitting logic from empiricism as is commonly done by materialist atheists.

TimelessTheist
05-16-2014, 07:16 PM
This is false. He's refuting two things. The first is a theological argument made by theists with the temporary granting of the premise of materialism (materialist apologetics he calls it). The second is to expose the fallacy of splitting logic from empiricism as is commonly done by materialist atheists.

Wait....what? Eh, the solution to the Problem of Divine Contradiction does not grant materialism. The Problem of Divine Contradiction is a purely logical problem. It, and it's solution, have nothing to do with materialism. Not sure where you two are getting that from.

Edit: Ohhhh, wait, now I see it. Nevermind, my bad....still though. This does not refute the Solution to the Problem of Divine Contradiction, when making it from a stance that does not grant materialism.

Carrikature
05-16-2014, 07:28 PM
Wait....what? Eh, the solution to the Problem of Divine Contradiction does not grant materialism. The Problem of Divine Contradiction is a purely logical problem. It, and it's solution, have nothing to do with materialism. Not sure where you two are getting that from.

Edit: Ohhhh, wait, now I see it. Nevermind, my bad....still though. This does not refute the Solution to the Problem of Divine Contradiction, when making it from a stance that does not grant materialism.

You're right, it does not refute the solution when made from a stance that does not grant materialism. As far as I can tell, that wasn't the intent. :shrug:

TimelessTheist
05-16-2014, 07:32 PM
You're right, it does not refute the solution when made from a stance that does not grant materialism. As far as I can tell, that wasn't the intent. :shrug:

Well, I misunderstood the intent, I see that now.

Carrikature
05-16-2014, 07:32 PM
Well, I misunderstood the intent, I see that now.

:smile:

shunyadragon
06-08-2014, 10:12 AM
Name some.

That the nature of existence is necessarily finite, and there must be 'Source' other then natural outside our physical existence.

Human morality could not have evolved naturally.

Doug Shaver
06-08-2014, 09:03 PM
So what's new? theists use premises in their argument that atheists don't accept.


Name some.
It depends on the argument. Atheists don't all reason the same way or from the same premises, and neither do theists.

shunyadragon
06-09-2014, 02:30 AM
It depends on the argument. Atheists don't all reason the same way or from the same premises, and neither do theists.

Correct, I was just asked for 'some' of the assumptions theists make for their arguments for God that atheists do not make, and of course 'some' atheists make 'some' assumption that theists do not make.

Doug Shaver
06-09-2014, 05:56 PM
Correct, I was just asked for 'some' of the assumptions theists make for their arguments for God that atheists do not make, and of course 'some' atheists make 'some' assumption that theists do not make.
William Lane Craig presents a few of them on his website: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god.

Doug Shaver
06-09-2014, 05:59 PM
and of course 'some' atheists make 'some' assumption that theists do not make.
It's probably a safe guess that most atheists, at least among those who are active on Internet forums, assume the truth of philosophical naturalism.

shunyadragon
06-09-2014, 07:23 PM
It's probably a safe guess that most atheists, at least among those who are active on Internet forums, assume the truth of philosophical naturalism.

I do not consider philosophical naturalism an assumption, and it is based on methodological naturalism. Methodological Natural remains neutral to existence of anything outside our physical existence. I consider it the conclusion based on the lack of objective falsifiable evidence of 'God(s) and equivalent to the belief in atheism. An example of an assumption would be that our physical existence is infinite and eternal. Most Christians and Muslims assume our physical existence is temporal and finite. The Baha'i Faith cosmogony is the only theist view that believes in an infinite and eternal physical existence.

robrecht
06-09-2014, 07:37 PM
I do not consider philosophical naturalism and assumption. I consider it the conclusion equal to the belief in atheism. ... Are you intending to define atheism as belief?

shunyadragon
06-10-2014, 04:12 AM
Are you intending to define atheism as belief?

Yes, I do. If not a belief, what is it? There are churches and institutions such as the Unitarian Universalist Church that have atheist/agnostic principles at their foundation.

The denial that it is a belief is similar to many theists who deny that their belief is not a 'religion,' or a number of churches deny that they are churches, ie Jehovah Witnesses.

robrecht
06-10-2014, 04:22 AM
Yes, I do. If not a belief, what is it? There are churches and institutions such as the Unitarian Universalist Church that have atheist/agnostic principles at their foundation.Just checking. I know some atheists would disagree. I know that Unitarians welcome atheists (and pretty much everyone) but was not aware of their having atheist foundational principles. How would you respond to an atheist who says that atheism is not itself a belief but simply the absence or critique of belief in God?

shunyadragon
06-10-2014, 04:38 AM
Just checking. I know some atheists would disagree. I know that Unitarians welcome atheists (and pretty much everyone) but was not aware of their having atheist foundational principles. How would you respond to an atheist who says that atheism is not itself a belief but simply the absence or critique of belief in God?

The Unitarian Universalist Credo is the Humanist Manifesto, which describes Naturalist Humanism as source human morals, ethics, and beliefs. Yes, Unitarians do welcome pretty much everyone, but their foundation principles and teachings pretty much exclude theism. In reality most religions and churches say they 'welcome everyone,' but in reality their foundation beliefs and theology excludes all who do not share their beliefs. UUs are just more open and eclectic as far as alternate beliefs not generally accepted by establishment churches.

I would consider this denial a word game similar to the Jehovah Witness denial that they are a church, or the place they worship is not a church.

Some use words as stones to build walls and through at others.

robrecht
06-10-2014, 04:48 AM
The Unitarian Universalist Credo is the Humanist Manifesto, which describes Naturalist Humanism as source human morals, ethics, and beliefs. Yes, Unitarians do welcome pretty much everyone, but their foundation principles and teachings pretty much exclude theism. In reality most religions and churches say they 'welcome everyone,' but in reality their foundation beliefs and theology excludes all who do not share their beliefs. UUs are just more open and eclectic as far as alternate beliefs not generally accepted by establishment churches.

I would consider this denial a word game similar to the Jehovah Witness denial that they are a church, or the place they worship is not a church.

Some use words as stones to build walls and through at others.Interesting. I had no idea that the foundation principles of Unitarians pretty much exclude theism.

What if an atheist is not playing word games or throwing stones but just being honest about her understanding of her own atheism being a lack of theistic belief and/or a critique of theistic belief?

OingoBoingo
06-10-2014, 05:26 AM
I do not consider philosophical naturalism an assumption, and it is based on methodological naturalism. Methodological Natural remains neutral to existence of anything outside our physical existence. I consider it the conclusion based on the lack of objective falsifiable evidence of 'God(s) and equivalent to the belief in atheism. An example of an assumption would be that our physical existence is infinite and eternal. Most Christians and Muslims assume our physical existence is temporal and finite. The Baha'i Faith cosmogony is the only theist view that believes in an infinite and eternal physical existence.

You have that backwards. Christians believe in a physical re-embodiment of the living and the dead to eternal life. Likewise, Muslims believe in a later reunification of the soul to the body before final judgement to an eternal life in Paradise or Hell. The Baha'i faith does not believe in an infinite and eternal physical existence, at least, not according to official channels. According to Bahai.org (http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-5-2.html):

The soul does not die; it endures everlastingly. When the human body dies, the soul is freed from ties with the physical body and the surrounding physical world and begins its progress through the spiritual world. Bahá'ís understand the spiritual world to be a timeless and placeless extension of our own universe--and not some physically remote or removed place.

"Know thou, of a truth, that if the soul of man hath walked in the ways of God, it will, assuredly return and be gathered to the glory of the Beloved," Bahá'u'lláh wrote. "By the righteousness of God! It shall attain a station such as no pen can depict, or tongue can describe."

In the final analysis, heaven can be seen partly as a state of nearness to God; hell is a state of remoteness from God. Each state follows as a natural consequence of individual efforts, or the lack thereof, to develop spiritually. The key to spiritual progress is to follow the path outlined by the Manifestations of God.

Beyond this, the exact nature of the afterlife remains a mystery. "The nature of the soul after death can never be described," Bahá'u'lláh writes.

robrecht
06-10-2014, 05:39 AM
I think Shuny was speaking of an eternal cosmos without beginning, not individual physical resurrection in heaven or hell.

shunyadragon
06-10-2014, 05:45 AM
I believe the root of this negative word association is the belief that words like 'belief, religion, and church' are human made and not fundamentally true.

shunyadragon
06-10-2014, 05:47 AM
You have that backwards. Christians believe in a physical re-embodiment of the living and the dead to eternal life. Likewise, Muslims believe in a later reunification of the soul to the body before final judgement to an eternal life in Paradise or Hell. The Baha'i faith does not believe in an infinite and eternal physical existence, at least, not according to official channels. According to Bahai.org (http://info.bahai.org/article-1-4-5-2.html):

The soul does not die; it endures everlastingly. When the human body dies, the soul is freed from ties with the physical body and the surrounding physical world and begins its progress through the spiritual world. Bahá'ís understand the spiritual world to be a timeless and placeless extension of our own universe--and not some physically remote or removed place.

"Know thou, of a truth, that if the soul of man hath walked in the ways of God, it will, assuredly return and be gathered to the glory of the Beloved," Bahá'u'lláh wrote. "By the righteousness of God! It shall attain a station such as no pen can depict, or tongue can describe."

In the final analysis, heaven can be seen partly as a state of nearness to God; hell is a state of remoteness from God. Each state follows as a natural consequence of individual efforts, or the lack thereof, to develop spiritually. The key to spiritual progress is to follow the path outlined by the Manifestations of God.

Beyond this, the exact nature of the afterlife remains a mystery. "The nature of the soul after death can never be described," Bahá'u'lláh writes.

Robrecht got it right. If you read my posts I was referring ONLY to the 'Nature of our physical existence' and its origins. Pretty much all cosmological arguments from the Christian and Islamic perspective assume that our everything in our physical existence had a beginning, therefore the necessity of a Source outside our physical existence, ie God(s).

robrecht
06-10-2014, 05:50 AM
I believe the root of this negative word association is the belief that words like 'belief, religion, and church' are human made and not fundamentally true.
Interesting. Is your view that some words are fundamentally true or none of them, at least 'human' words. Is all truth ineffable, or just some fundamental truths.

OingoBoingo
06-10-2014, 06:10 AM
I think Shuny was speaking of an eternal cosmos without beginning, not individual physical resurrection in heaven or hell.

Baha'i teaching is inconsistent on this matter. Initial Baha'i teachings taught the following:

All that is in heaven and all that is in the earth have come to exist at His bidding, and by His Will all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being.

All praise to the unity of God, and all honor to Him, the sovereign Lord, the incomparable and all-glorious Ruler of the universe, Who, out of utter nothingness, hath created the reality of all things, Who, from naught, hath brought into being the most refined and subtle elements of His creation, and Who, rescuing His creatures from the abasement of remoteness and the perils of ultimate extinction, hath received them into His kingdom of incorruptible glory. Nothing short of His all-encompassing grace, His all-pervading mercy, could have possibly achieved it. How could it, otherwise, have been possible for sheer nothingness to have acquired by itself the worthiness and capacity to emerge from its state of non-existence into the realm of being?

Having created the world and all that liveth and moveth therein, He, through the direct operation of His unconstrained and sovereign Will, chose to confer upon man the unique distinction and capacity to know Him and to love Him—a capacity that must needs be regarded as the generating impulse and the primary purpose underlying the whole of creation…. Upon the inmost reality of each and every created thing He hath shed the light of one of His names, and made it a recipient of the glory of one of His attributes. Upon the reality of man, however, He hath focused the radiance of all of His names and attributes, and made it a mirror of His own Self. Alone of all created things man hath been singled out for so great a favor, so enduring a bounty.

Regard thou the one true God as One Who is apart from, and immeasurably exalted above, all created things. The whole universe reflecteth His glory, while He is Himself independent of, and transcendeth His creatures. This is the true meaning of Divine unity. He Who is the Eternal Truth is the one Power Who exerciseth undisputed sovereignty over the world of being, Whose image is reflected in the mirror of the entire creation. All existence is dependent upon Him, and from Him is derived the source of the sustenance of all things. This is what is meant by Divine unity; this is its fundamental principle.

Some, deluded by their idle fancies, have conceived all created things as associates and partners of God, and imagined themselves to be the exponents of His unity. By Him Who is the one true God! Such men have been, and will continue to remain, the victims of blind imitation, and are to be numbered with them that have restricted and limited the conception of God.

robrecht
06-10-2014, 06:23 AM
Are there authoritative texts or authoritative tradition(s) of interpretation or any kind of living and continuing teaching authority recognized by some or all Baha'is?

Carrikature
06-10-2014, 06:39 AM
The Unitarian Universalist Credo is the Humanist Manifesto, which describes Naturalist Humanism as source human morals, ethics, and beliefs. Yes, Unitarians do welcome pretty much everyone, but their foundation principles and teachings pretty much exclude theism. In reality most religions and churches say they 'welcome everyone,' but in reality their foundation beliefs and theology excludes all who do not share their beliefs. UUs are just more open and eclectic as far as alternate beliefs not generally accepted by establishment churches.

I would consider this denial a word game similar to the Jehovah Witness denial that they are a church, or the place they worship is not a church.

Some use words as stones to build walls and through at others.

Don't make the mistake of conflating humanist principles with atheist/agnostic principles. They are not identical. In point of fact, there's an Atheist+ movement designed to spread both atheism and humanism.

Carrikature
06-10-2014, 06:43 AM
Interesting. I had no idea that the foundation principles of Unitarians pretty much exclude theism.

I'd caution against taking his word for it. Unitarian Universalism is not about the truth of a specific religion (as members can identify with any religion) but is rather a means for multiple belief systems to coexist peacefully. His claim that the principles pretty much exclude theism is inaccurate.

OingoBoingo
06-10-2014, 06:48 AM
Are there authoritative texts or authoritative tradition(s) of interpretation or any kind of living and continuing teaching authority recognized by some or all Baha'is?

Depends on who you ask. There are currently about 10 Baha'i denominations. Reform Baha'is, Free Baha'is, and Unitarian Baha'is don't accept that Shoghi Effendi is the successor of Abdul-Baha, and believe in individual interpretation of the Baha'i scriptures.

Carrikature
06-10-2014, 07:18 AM
Depends on who you ask. There are currently about 10 Baha'i denominations. Reform Baha'is, Free Baha'is, and Unitarian Baha'is don't accept that Shoghi Effendi is the successor of Abdul-Baha, and believe in individual interpretation of the Baha'i scriptures.

They're just waiting for someone to convene a council. :tongue:

OingoBoingo
06-10-2014, 07:22 AM
They're just waiting for someone to convene a council. :tongue:

:hehe: Maybe so.

shunyadragon
06-10-2014, 02:37 PM
Interesting. Is your view that some words are fundamentally true or none of them, at least 'human' words. Is all truth ineffable, or just some fundamental truths.

I believe language, ie words are used to communicate. Fundamental truth are illusive from the human perspective.

shunyadragon
06-10-2014, 02:43 PM
Don't make the mistake of conflating humanist principles with atheist/agnostic principles. They are not identical. In point of fact, there's an Atheist+ movement designed to spread both atheism and humanism.

Please not I used Naturalist Humanism, and referred to the Humanist Manifesto, which are at the foundation of atheism/agnostic belief as in the Unitarian Universalist view. Yes, there other uses and meanings for humanism. If you read my posts carefully I absolutely do not conflate my use of the concept of humanism with others you may refer to.

Are you familiar with the Humanist Manifesto?

shunyadragon
06-10-2014, 02:54 PM
Are there authoritative texts or authoritative tradition(s) of interpretation or any kind of living and continuing teaching authority recognized by some or all Baha'is?

The writings of Baha'u'llah are authoritative, and the writings of Abdul'baha and Shoghi Effendi are excepted as interpretive guidance.

There is one important principle in the Baha'i Faith, the Harmony of Science and Religion, where ALL scripture, including Baha'i scripture, must be understood and interpreted in the light of the evolving nature of Scientific knowledge concerning the nature of our physical existence. Example the Spiritual nature of humanity is unique and distinct from the animal kingdom. It is accepted that ALL acripture including Baha'i scripture must be understood in the light of the scientific knowledge of evolution and the nature of being human in the physical form.

It is not well understood in other ancient religions that knowledge evolves and changes and we must embrace this evolving nature of knowledge. We cannot understand the nature of our worldand the changing knowledge well if we cling to ancient world views.

Doug Shaver
06-10-2014, 08:37 PM
I do not consider philosophical naturalism an assumption, and it is based on methodological naturalism. Methodological Natural remains neutral to existence of anything outside our physical existence.
I do not consider methodological naturalism a belief. I consider it is a process.


I consider it [philosophical naturalism] the conclusion based on the lack of objective falsifiable evidence of 'God(s) and equivalent to the belief in atheism.
OK, that is how you reason. I was reporting my observation about most atheists. A single counterexample does not disprove it.


An example of an assumption would be that our physical existence is infinite and eternal. Most Christians and Muslims assume our physical existence is temporal and finite. The Baha'i Faith cosmogony is the only theist view that believes in an infinite and eternal physical existence.
The content of a belief or the kind of people who hold it has nothing to do with whether it is an assumption. Any belief can be either an assumption or an inference, depending on where it fits into the individual's worldview. One person's assumption can be another person's inference.

Doug Shaver
06-10-2014, 08:41 PM
I know that Unitarians welcome atheists (and pretty much everyone) but was not aware of their having atheist foundational principles.
They don't. I attended a Unitarian church for a few years after becoming an atheist. There is nothing foundational about atheism in the principles of Unitarianism.

Doug Shaver
06-10-2014, 08:45 PM
I had no idea that the foundation principles of Unitarians pretty much exclude theism.
They don't. That accusation is similar to the creationist canard that you can't believe in God if you accept the theory of evolution.

shunyadragon
06-11-2014, 04:48 AM
I do not consider methodological naturalism a belief. I consider it is a process.

I do not consider it a belief nor a process. I consider it a scientific philosophy. An example of a process or processes of MN would be the falsification of theories and hypothesis.

Philosophical Naturalism is inferred from Methodological Naturalism.


OK, that is how you reason. I was reporting my observation about most atheists. A single counterexample does not disprove it.

I do not consider this a counter example to prove anything. There is no proof likely possible here. It is simply an assumption from a different religious perspective that clearly better reflects a modern view of our physical existence. In other older dated defunct cosmological logical arguments are no longer supported by the Baha'i cosmogony.



The content of a belief or the kind of people who hold it has nothing to do with whether it is an assumption. Any belief can be either an assumption or an inference, depending on where it fits into the individual's worldview. One person's assumption can be another person's inference.

Assumptions in logical arguments, particularly in this instance cosmological arguments, are not the content of the belief. The assumptions of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas are not inferences, but assumptions of logical arguments to support the existence of God. The assumption 'everything in our physical existence has a beginning' cannot remotely be inferred from the evidence. It is weakly possible to infer that our physical existence (the greater cosmos including all possible universes based on the math and cosmological models) is infinite and eternal, but because of the limits of our ability to comprehend our physical existence beyond our universe it remains more an assumption in philosophical naturalism that our physical existence is infinite and eternal and there is no 'Source' beyond our physical existence some call God(s).

Doug Shaver
06-11-2014, 06:15 PM
Shuny, you've lost me with your idiosyncratic semantics. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

shunyadragon
06-12-2014, 03:22 AM
They don't. I attended a Unitarian church for a few years after becoming an atheist. There is nothing foundational about atheism in the principles of Unitarianism.

Are you familiar with the Humanist Manifesto??? It is fundamentally an atheist/agnostic statement of human morals and ethics. The Unitarians dominated the formation of the document.



Ed: Seventy five years ago this May, thirty-four ministers (mostly Unitarian), philosophers and others, put their signatures to, and published, a document designed to provide direction to and the beginnings of structure for, a movement that had been growing since the mid teens. Some saw in its tenets, the future of the American Unitarian Association, others undoubtedly saw the beginnings of a completely new direction. With its interchanging use of the terms “Religious humanism” and “Humanism,” the document proclaimed both a break from, and a progressive continuation and remaking of, traditional religion. Though it has been rewritten and re-issued twice (1973 and 2002) the Manifesto remains one of the clearest statements of that trend in religious and ethical thought proudly carried by the title of this publication.

the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values… Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

shunyadragon
06-12-2014, 03:23 AM
Shuny, you've lost me with your idiosyncratic semantics. I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I believe you need to read again carefully.

Quote Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
I do not consider methodological naturalism a belief. I consider it is a process.

Frank - I do not consider it a belief nor a process. I consider it a scientific philosophy. An example of a process or processes of MN would be the falsification of theories and hypothesis.

Philosophical Naturalism is inferred from Methodological Naturalism.

Doug Shaver - OK, that is how you reason. I was reporting my observation about most atheists. A single counterexample does not disprove it.

Frank - I do not consider this a counter example to prove anything. There is no proof likely possible here. It is simply an assumption from a different religious perspective that clearly better reflects a modern view of our physical existence. In other older dated defunct cosmological logical arguments are no longer supported by the Baha'i cosmogony.


Doug Shaver -The content of a belief or the kind of people who hold it has nothing to do with whether it is an assumption. Any belief can be either an assumption or an inference, depending on where it fits into the individual's worldview. One person's assumption can be another person's inference.

Frank - Assumptions in logical arguments, particularly in this instance cosmological arguments, are not the content of the belief. The assumptions of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas are not inferences, but assumptions of logical arguments to support the existence of God. The assumption 'everything in our physical existence has a beginning' cannot remotely be inferred from the evidence. It is weakly possible to infer that our physical existence (the greater cosmos including all possible universes based on the math and cosmological models) is infinite and eternal, but because of the limits of our ability to comprehend our physical existence beyond our universe it remains more an assumption in philosophical naturalism that our physical existence is infinite and eternal and there is no 'Source' beyond our physical existence some call God(s).

shunyadragon
06-12-2014, 03:26 AM
They don't. That accusation is similar to the creationist canard that you can't believe in God if you accept the theory of evolution.

Read the previous post. You need to do your homework and get your facts straight.


http://huumanists.org/publications/journal/humanist-manifesto][/url]


Ed: Seventy five years ago this May, thirty-four ministers (mostly Unitarian), philosophers and others, put their signatures to, and published, a document designed to provide direction to and the beginnings of structure for, a movement that had been growing since the mid teens. Some saw in its tenets, the future of the American Unitarian Association, others undoubtedly saw the beginnings of a completely new direction. With its interchanging use of the terms “Religious humanism” and “Humanism,” the document proclaimed both a break from, and a progressive continuation and remaking of, traditional religion. Though it has been rewritten and re-issued twice (1973 and 2002) the Manifesto remains one of the clearest statements of that trend in religious and ethical thought proudly carried by the title of this publication.

the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values… Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

It is basically a document endorsing 'Philosophical Naturalism.'

Carrikature
06-12-2014, 06:58 AM
Please not I used Naturalist Humanism, and referred to the Humanist Manifesto, which are at the foundation of atheism/agnostic belief as in the Unitarian Universalist view. Yes, there other uses and meanings for humanism. If you read my posts carefully I absolutely do not conflate my use of the concept of humanism with others you may refer to.

Are you familiar with the Humanist Manifesto?

What you did was claim that the UUA was based on agnostic/atheist principles. The Humanist Manifesto is not at the foundation of atheism/agnostic belief, nor is it the basis of the UUA. Regardless, your initial claim that "churches and institutions such as the Unitarian Universalist Church that have atheist/agnostic principles at their foundation" remains in error, as even a little effort to actually read their own information (http://www.uua.org/beliefs/history/151249.shtml) makes apparent. The UUA has as its foundation Judeo-Christian principles.

Of course, I readily acknowledge that UUA draws heavily from humanism. That is still not the same thing as 'atheist/agnostic principles'. Atheists and agnostics can be humanists, but it's not required. UUA principles draw from humanism, but the two are not nearly identical.

There's already a term for "Naturalist Humanism". It's called secular humanism.

shunyadragon
06-12-2014, 02:36 PM
What you did was claim that the UUA was based on agnostic/atheist principles. The Humanist Manifesto is not at the foundation of atheism/agnostic belief, nor is it the basis of the UUA. Regardless, your initial claim that "churches and institutions such as the Unitarian Universalist Church that have atheist/agnostic principles at their foundation" remains in error, as even a little effort to actually read their own information (http://www.uua.org/beliefs/history/151249.shtml) makes apparent. The UUA has as its foundation Judeo-Christian principles.

Of course, I readily acknowledge that UUA draws heavily from humanism. That is still not the same thing as 'atheist/agnostic principles'. Atheists and agnostics can be humanists, but it's not required. UUA principles draw from humanism, but the two are not nearly identical.

There's already a term for "Naturalist Humanism". It's called secular humanism.

Naturalist Humanism or Secular Humanism they both embrace philosophical Naturalism, so does the Humanist Manifesto.

The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.[

Your objection is without references to back it. Please provide references not opinions. I provided a sound reference published by a UU publication. There are of course a diversity of believers in different UU congregations, and UU does not restrict membership based on belief. I have been friends of UUs in many cities in the US, and the by far the predominante belief was a foundation of secular humanism, with various alternative beliefs, but I have never meet a traditional theist that is associated as a member of a UU congregation.

One of the most outstanding 'humanist' aspects of UU is that every individual finds their own belief system, and not a 'Source' of Revelation as in theism. Any sort of enlightenment or discovery of our nature. is individual.

Doug Shaver
06-12-2014, 07:19 PM
There is nothing foundational about atheism in the principles of Unitarianism.


Are you familiar with the Humanist Manifesto???
Yes. I first learned of its existence when the pastor of the Unitarian church that I attended discussed it in a sermon.


It is fundamentally an atheist/agnostic statement of human morals and ethics.
I could quibble over the characterization "fundamentally," but I'll stipulate it for the time being.


The Unitarians dominated the formation of the document.
Maybe they did, but that doesn't make humanism foundational to Unitarianism. If anything, it could possibly make Unitarianism foundational to humanism.

shunyadragon
06-13-2014, 06:25 AM
Yes. I first learned of its existence when the pastor of the Unitarian church that I attended discussed it in a sermon.


I could quibble over the characterization "fundamentally," but I'll stipulate it for the time being.


Maybe they did, but that doesn't make humanism foundational to Unitarianism. If anything, it could possibly make Unitarianism foundational to humanism.

In all my contacts and affiliation with UUs since the 1960's the independent individual expression and search for truth and knowledge is an underlying principle of UU, and expressed in the Humanists Manifesto. This highly individual view of 'truth and knowledge is in it self a contrad'iction with Theism where the search for truth and knowedge is in a 'higher Divine power. This is distinctly a humanist view regardless of whether individual UU members believe totally in 'all aspects of 'secular humanism.'

In actuallity I have the greatest respect for UU and the experiences I have had with their members over the years, but none the less views like 'everyone is welcome regardless of what one believes,' is an illusion in UU as well as virtually all other religious institution unless one endorses some kind of chaotic antidisestablishment institutional anarchy

Also the importance of science whether Philosophical or Methodological Naturalism is essential. Most if not all UU members I have known endorse the independence of science without question whether any Divne 'Source(s)' exist or not.

robrecht
06-13-2014, 07:17 AM
In all my contacts and affiliation with UUs since the 1960's the independent individual expression and search for truth and knowledge is an underlying principle of UU, and expressed in the Humanists Manifesto. This highly individual view of 'truth and knowledge is in it self a contrad'iction with Theism where the search for truth and knowedge is in a 'higher Divine power. This is distinctly a humanist view regardless of whether individual UU members believe totally in 'all aspects of 'secular humanism.'

In actuallity I have the greatest respect for UU and the experiences I have had with their members over the years, but none the less views like 'everyone is welcome regardless of what one believes,' is an illusion in UU as well as virtually all other religious institution unless one endorses some kind of chaotic antidisestablishment institutional anarchy

Also the importance of science whether Philosophical or Methodological Naturalism is essential. Most if not all UU members I have known endorse the independence of science without question whether any Divne 'Source(s)' exist or not.
These views may be contradictory for some theists, but certainly not all. I have no data to support the following, but I would not be surprised if the majority of theists would disagree with your dichotomy.

shunyadragon
06-13-2014, 12:27 PM
These views may be contradictory for some theists, but certainly not all. I have no data to support the following, but I would not be surprised if the majority of theists would disagree with your dichotomy.

I am not sure where they would disagree. Yes, many in fact many people also believe that some knowledge, revelation and beliefs are individually discovered or revealed, but what unites theists is the fundamental belief in some unifying revelation from God through one or more mediators reveals knowledge that humans must believe in to be somehow saved. This type of belief is absent from UU theology. In fact variations of naturalist or secular humanism without a specific belief in a God(s) or a mediator is what unites Unitarian Universalists.

Another very important point in UU beliefs in general is: What is the source of human morality and ethics. I believe it is pretty much universal among UU believers that morality and ethics are basically naturally human attributes.

Doug Shaver
06-13-2014, 08:46 PM
In all my contacts and affiliation with UUs since the 1960's the independent individual expression and search for truth and knowledge is an underlying principle of UU, and expressed in the Humanists Manifesto.
Now you're talking about freethought. That is not the same thing as either atheism or humanism, and so you're changing the subject.


This highly individual view of 'truth and knowledge is in it self a contrad'iction with Theism where the search for truth and knowedge is in a 'higher Divine power.
Theism is the belief that at least one god exists. There is no necessary contradiction between freethought the existence of a god. There is a contradiction between freethought and the God affirmed by historically orthodox Christianity and its Abrahamic kin, but the Abrahamic religions don't get to tell the rest of the world what kinds of gods there might be.


Most if not all UU members I have known endorse the independence of science without question whether any Divne 'Source(s)' exist or not.
It's one thing to endorse the independence of science. It's another to be committed to a scientific worldview. In the UU church I attended, I didn't see much of that commitment. It's one reason I decided I was wasting my time hanging around those people on Sunday mornings.

shunyadragon
06-14-2014, 05:22 AM
Now you're talking about freethought. That is not the same thing as either atheism or humanism, and so you're changing the subject.

No, the type of free thought advocated in UU is distinctly humanist, but not necessarily atheist. I never claimed that UUs were all atheist. I do believe that the atheist/agnostic view is predominant in the UU.



Theism is the belief that at least one god exists. There is no necessary contradiction between freethought the existence of a god. There is a contradiction between freethought and the God affirmed by historically orthodox Christianity and its Abrahamic kin, but the Abrahamic religions don't get to tell the rest of the world what kinds of gods there might be.

Correct, free thought is not a contradiction with the existence of God, I never made such a claim. Actually free thought and will has quite a range of beliefs in traditional theism. It is true that in almost all theistic religions limit the possible choices of valid free thought. In the variations of humanism of UU such choices are not so limited.



It's one thing to endorse the independence of science. It's another to be committed to a scientific worldview. In the UU church I attended, I didn't see much of that commitment. It's one reason I decided I was wasting my time hanging around those people on Sunday mornings.

I consider the UU to be overwhelmingly commited to a scientific worldview as far as the physical nature of our existence. What people 'see' in one particular church and other setting may vary greatly.

Doug Shaver
06-14-2014, 11:46 PM
Now you're talking about freethought. That is not the same thing as either atheism or humanism, and so you're changing the subject.


No, the type of free thought advocated in UU is distinctly humanist, but not necessarily atheist.
You're supposed to be defending the claim that humanism is foundational to Unitarian-Universalism. Humanists are not necessarily freethinkers, and freethinkers are not necessarily humanists.


I do believe that the atheist/agnostic view is predominant in the UU.
Whether they are or not is irrelevant to your claim about UU foundations.


I consider the UU to be overwhelmingly commited to a scientific worldview as far as the physical nature of our existence.

So what? I do not accept the Humanist Manifesto, but I feel committed to a scientific worldview and to a physicalist explanation of human existence.

shunyadragon
06-15-2014, 04:38 AM
You're supposed to be defending the claim that humanism is foundational to Unitarian-Universalism. Humanists are not necessarily freethinkers, and freethinkers are not necessarily humanists.

Never said humanists are necessarily freethinkers, nor free thinkers are necessarily humanists.


So what? I do not accept the Humanist Manifesto, but I feel committed to a scientific worldview and to a physicalist explanation of human existence.

Important questions:

What specifically do you not accept about the Humanist Manifesto?

Do you believe morals and ethics are of natural human attributes, or a source, ie Divine, outside the natural evolution of human nature?

Your overstating an emphasis that 'humanism' as expressed in UU is atheist. I believe humanism has a range of expression in UU and yes, stands at the foundation of UU as to why most believers in UU believe what they do. Yes, diversity is very much a part of UU, but I believe the foundation remains humanism. Polls of UU support my view:



Whereas "human reason and knowledge" was called very important by 96 percent of UU congregational leaders who took part in the multidenominational Faith Communities Today (FACT) survey released early this year, the Bible was termed only "somewhat important" by 50 percent and had little or no importance to 48 percent as a source for worship and teaching. God's presence, at best, was sensed significantly by only 25 percent in church and somewhat by another 36 percent.

As for a preferred theological label, among respondents in the FACT survey and in two other polls previously cited, "humanist" always got the most votes. The UUA's in-house survey four years ago asked church members to chose only one label (though some chose more). The top choices were humanist (46 percent), earth/nature centered (19 percent), theist (13 percent), Christian (9.5 percent), with mystic, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu and Muslim in ever-smaller percentages. Another 13 percent picked "other."

Even within the diversity of UU believers 'human reason and knowledge' is overwhelming dominate.

A side comment on why you no longer attend UU. It is best to support institutions such as UU for unselfish reasons of support the ideals and asperations of the institution, and not for reasons of what one personally gets from this affiliation. I am a Baha'i, and not Unitarian, but I often attend and find fellowship with the group.

Doug Shaver
06-15-2014, 09:11 PM
You're supposed to be defending the claim that humanism is foundational to Unitarian-Universalism. Humanists are not necessarily freethinkers, and freethinkers are not necessarily humanists.


Never said humanists are necessarily freethinkers, nor free thinkers are necessarily humanists.
Then why even bring freethought into the discussion?


What specifically do you not accept about the Humanist Manifesto?
My responding to that query would constitute a serious derailment of this thread.


Yes, diversity is very much a part of UU, but I believe the foundation remains humanism.
You've made it clear enough that you believe it. You have not made it clear that you have a good reason to believe it.


Polls of UU support my view:
You don't need polls to discover the foundations of any religion. You need facts about the historical origins of that religion.


Even within the diversity of UU believers 'human reason and knowledge' is overwhelming dominate.
Support for gun control legislation is dominant among American Democrats. That doesn't make gun control foundational to the Democratic Party.

shunyadragon
06-16-2014, 05:31 AM
Then why even bring freethought into the discussion?

Degree and role of free thought is an important issue in humanism as differenciated from theism. Theism in one way or another discourages free thought.



My responding to that query would constitute a serious derailment of this thread.

I do not believe so. If you insist I will start another thread on this topic and ask you to respond.



You've made it clear enough that you believe it. You have not made it clear that you have a good reason to believe it.

Huh?!?!?!!??



You don't need polls to discover the foundations of any religion. You need facts about the historical origins of that religion.

The polls are direct reflection of what UUs believe and why. If you took polls of traditional Christian churches, and other religions the results would clearly reflect the doctrines, dogmas and foundation beliefs represented in the majority of the believers.



Support for gun control legislation is dominant among American Democrats. That doesn't make gun control foundational to the Democratic Party.

Completely different issue and changing the subject big time. DERAILING big time.

Your responses here are genuinely dismal.

robrecht
06-16-2014, 06:24 AM
Degree and role of free thought is an important issue in humanism as differenciated from theism. Theism in one way or another discourages free thought. Please be more specific. It may be that you are using an overly narrow definition of theism. For those of us who do not believe that God can or should be defined and who thus appreciate apophatic theology, I think theism, if it is not too narrowly defined, is extremely liberating of the mind from unwarranted opinions. I also don't think humanism should always or necessarily be differentiated from theism. Witness, for example, the Christian personalism of someone like Jacques Maritain and his role in the development of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It may be that those who are bound by their own or others' categorization of too many 'isms' are actually themselves more limited by a desire or compulsion to restrict the free thought of others and thus restrict themselves as well.


Completely different issue and changing the subject big time. DERAILING big time. I think Doug was merely illustrating a logical point.

shunyadragon
06-16-2014, 06:42 PM
Please be more specific. It may be that you are using an overly narrow definition of theism. For those of us who do not believe that God can or should be defined and who thus appreciate apophatic theology, I think theism, if it is not too narrowly defined, is extremely liberating of the mind from unwarranted opinions.

The problem is the cataphatic theology of traditional theism, not the apophatic theology you are referring to. It is the Cataphatic theology that defines traditional Christian theism.


I also don't think humanism should always or necessarily be differentiated from theism. Witness, for example, the Christian personalism of someone like Jacques Maritain and his role in the development of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. It may be that those who are bound by their own or others' categorization of too many 'isms' are actually themselves more limited by a desire or compulsion to restrict the free thought of others and thus restrict themselves as well.

First let's back up. You have not been following my posts well, or selectively, maybe not at all. I made it clear the 'humanism' I was referring to was the variations of secular humanism, naturalist humanism, also as reflected in the Humanist Manifesto reflecting in one way or another our human will is natural and the source of our morals and ethics. I also acknowledged there were other uses of humanism not related to the specific references I was using.

Are you actually reading my posts!?!?!?!?! . . . or may be just accusing me of generalizing in a shotgun approach to the discussion.


I think Doug was merely illustrating a logical point.

Not remotely related to the topic.

robrecht
06-16-2014, 08:05 PM
The problem is the cataphatic theology of traditional theism, not the apophatic theology you are referring to. It is the Cataphatic theology that defines traditional Christian theism. As I suspected, your point might have relevance with an overly narrow definition of theism, pertaining only to some forms of kataphatic theology. In my opinion, apophatic theology is a very important part of traditional theism, at least as can be seen very early in Judaism, in Christianity in the East especially, and in early and decisive figures in the Western Christianity.


First let's back up. You have not been following my posts well, or selectively, maybe not at all. I made it clear the 'humanism' I was referring to was the variations of secular humanism, naturalist humanism, also as reflected in the Humanist Manifesto reflecting in one way or another our human will is natural and the source of our morals and ethics. I also acknowledged there were other uses of humanism not related to the specific references I was using.

Are you actually reading my posts!?!?!?!?! . . . or may be just accusing me of generalizing in a shotgun approach to the discussion. Accusing you? Seriously. Take a deep breath. Let's back up a little further. You divided my post and then seem to have taken what I said about humanism out of context. My point is not about the various forms of humanism, but the effect of differentiating humanism from theism and thus another narrowing of the definition of theism. Jacques Maritain could be described as a very traditional Thomistic theist, and his form of theism should not be excluded from an understaning of theism.


Not remotely related to the topic.Illustrating the logic of his point, which he apparently thinks you are missing, is centrally related to the discussion. Logic is always of great importance to Doug's manner of proceeding and I appreciate his careful thought process. The subject matter of an illustration need not be related to a specific topic; in fact, it is sometimes very helpful to use an illustration from another field.

shunyadragon
06-17-2014, 05:17 AM
As I suspected, your point might have relevance with an overly narrow definition of theism, pertaining only to some forms of kataphatic theology. In my opinion, apophatic theology is a very important part of traditional theism, at least as can be seen very early in Judaism, in Christianity in the East especially, and in early and decisive figures in the Western Christianity.

The cataphatic theology of traditional theism narrowly defines what one 'must' believe, and thus limits free thought as predominately believed by UUs. Again, Traditional Judism is more more strongly rooted (anchored) culture and tradition, and not apophatic theology. In Judaism this not much of a concern to the average Jew.


Accusing you? Seriously. Take a deep breath. Let's back up a little further. You divided my post and then seem to have taken what I said about humanism out of context. My point is not about the various forms of humanism, but the effect of differentiating humanism from theism and thus another narrowing of the definition of theism. Jacques Maritain could be described as a very traditional Thomistic theist, and his form of theism should not be excluded from an understaning of theism.

Again, the type of humanism I am referring to is specific related to the question of what and why UUs believe what they do, and you missed it. We are dealing with average people making choices between churches and why they make these choices. The above is a bit over the head of most believers. To the believers of UU and the humanist preference (94%) as well as the degree of diversity allowed in free thought of UU it is the constraints of kataphatic traditional theism and the exclusive belief you must believe or your not saved that leads many to UU. In the reference cited there is testimony to this effect.


Illustrating the logic of his point, which he apparently thinks you are missing, is centrally related to the discussion. Logic is always of great importance to Doug's manner of proceeding and I appreciate his careful thought process. The subject matter of an illustration need not be related to a specific topic; in fact, it is sometimes very helpful to use an illustration from another field.

I am fully aware of what he was trying to do. The problem is not whether it is related to the specific topic, the problem is that is so far off that it does not relate at all to the logic involved.

As to the logic involved in his example. I have acknowledged that all believers do not always share the same views, especially on specific issues as his example cited. The issue is what forms the basic foundation of a belief system and why 'MOST' believers believe as they do and why.

robrecht
06-17-2014, 05:22 AM
The cataphatic theology of traditional theism narrowly defines what one 'must' believe, and thus limits free thought as predominately believed by UUs. Again, I never stated Never stated what?


Again, the type of humanism I am referring to is specific related to the question of what and why UUs believe what they do, and you missed it. We are dealing with average people making choices between churches and why they make these choices. The above is a bit over the head of most believers. To the believers of UU and the humanist preference (94%) as well as the degree of diversity allowed in free thought of UU it is the constraints of kataphatic traditional theism and the exclusive belief you must believe or your not saved that leads many to UU. In the reference cited there is testimony to this effect. Again, this is only important to me as it relates to an overly narrow definition of theism.


I am fully aware of what he was trying to do. The problem is not whether it is related to the specific topic, the problem is that is so far off that it does not relate at all to the logic involved. Again, as an illustration of his logic it is of central importance. The subject matter of the illustration is irrelevant.

Carrikature
06-17-2014, 06:40 AM
Naturalist Humanism or Secular Humanism they both embrace philosophical Naturalism, so does the Humanist Manifesto.

The philosophy or life stance of secular humanism (alternatively known by some adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.[

You seem to have problems figuring out that people from different belief systems can agree on the same topic without the topic necessarily being foundational to either system. Even if the topic is foundational to one system (it's not, in this case), that does not require that someone from a different belief system accept it as foundational.



Your objection is without references to back it. Please provide references not opinions. I provided a sound reference published by a UU publication.

All of this is a lie. You linked to a wikipedia article and a humanist website. I linked to the UUA's origin story (as presented by them), and that link is in the very post you quoted accusing me of providing no references.



There are of course a diversity of believers in different UU congregations, and UU does not restrict membership based on belief. I have been friends of UUs in many cities in the US, and the by far the predominante belief was a foundation of secular humanism, with various alternative beliefs, but I have never meet a traditional theist that is associated as a member of a UU congregation.

The actual or supposed predominance of members who accept secular humanism is irrelevant to whether or not secular humanism is a foundational aspect of UU. In fact, you could take out 'secular humanism' here and replace it with pretty much anything. You're just making one big argumentum ad populum.



One of the most outstanding 'humanist' aspects of UU is that every individual finds their own belief system, and not a 'Source' of Revelation as in theism. Any sort of enlightenment or discovery of our nature. is individual.

As robrecht has correctly pointed out time and again, your view of theism is faulty. Not every form of theism believes in a source of revelation, even if they believe in an ultimate source.

Doug Shaver
06-17-2014, 08:25 AM
You're supposed to be defending the claim that humanism is foundational to Unitarian-Universalism. Humanists are not necessarily freethinkers, and freethinkers are not necessarily humanists.


Never said humanists are necessarily freethinkers, nor free thinkers are necessarily humanists.

Then why even bring freethought into the discussion?

Degree and role of free thought is an important issue in humanism as differenciated from theism. Theism in one way or another discourages free thought.
I've known a few freethinking theists. Whether belief in God is consistent with freethought depends on what the person believes about God. The evangelical Christian God obviously doesn't tolerate freethought, but that isn't the only God on the theological menu.


What specifically do you not accept about the Humanist Manifesto?


My responding to that query would constitute a serious derailment of this thread.

I do not believe so.
Then you don't know what a derailment is.


If you insist I will start another thread on this topic and ask you to respond.
If I see a new thread asking people what they don't like about the Humanist Manifesto, I'll check it out. If I were a forum administrator, I would question its appropriateness, but since I'm not an administrator, it's not my call to make.


You don't need polls to discover the foundations of any religion. You need facts about the historical origins of that religion.


The polls are direct reflection of what UUs believe and why.
Not necessarily both, and usually not both. Polls usually ask people what they believe. They don't often ask why. And there is not any necessary connection between what members of a group believe and the foundational beliefs of that group.


If you took polls of traditional Christian churches, and other religions the results would clearly reflect the doctrines, dogmas and foundation beliefs represented in the majority of the believers.
Doctrines and dogmas, yes. Foundational beliefs, no. For that, you need history.


Support for gun control legislation is dominant among American Democrats. That doesn't make gun control foundational to the Democratic Party.


Completely different issue and changing the subject big time. DERAILING big time.
Baloney. Yes, it's a different issue, but no, it's not a derailment nor a change of subject. You are claiming in effect that any belief that is prevalent within a certain ideological group must be foundational to that group's ideology. I gave you a patently obvious counterexample, and because it is a counterexample, it is entirely relevant to this discussion.

shunyadragon
06-17-2014, 01:28 PM
Never stated what?

corrected.


Again, this is only important to me as it relates to an overly narrow definition of theism.

No overtly narrow definition of theism present.


Again, as an illustration of his logic it is of central importance. The subject matter of the illustration is irrelevant.

I already agreed the subject matter is irrelevant, but the illustration does not work. A picture of a duck cannot be used to illustrate an elephant.

shunyadragon
06-17-2014, 01:44 PM
I've known a few freethinking theists. Whether belief in God is consistent with freethought depends on what the person believes about God. The evangelical Christian God obviously doesn't tolerate freethought, but that isn't the only God on the theological menu.

True, so what!?!?!!?!?!?!!?!?!?!? Please reread, I did not say theists were not free thinkers.

You know a few . . . . big deal. They still carry around a bag full of cannon balls defining what is necessary to believe . . . or else.



Then you don't know what a derailment is.

I know very well. I will start a thread and ask you specifically on topic if you choose to split frog hairs.



If I see a new thread asking people what they don't like about the Humanist Manifesto, I'll check it out. If I were a forum administrator, I would question its appropriateness, but since I'm not an administrator, it's not my call to make.

Your stretching the gooses neck. I did not specify the thread topic or how it would be worded.



Not necessarily both, and usually not both. Polls usually ask people what they believe. They don't often ask why. And there is not any necessary connection between what members of a group believe and the foundational beliefs of that group.


Doctrines and dogmas, yes. Foundational beliefs, no. For that, you need history.

No problem, Doctrines and Dogmas could not be used to define UU. UU is a consensus belief system, based more on the collective of independent thinkers that associate in a faith. This is the polls of belief work well defining the foundation of UUs, because it shows what and why they believe as UU evolved over its history.



Baloney. Yes, it's a different issue, but no, it's not a derailment nor a change of subject. You are claiming in effect that any belief that is prevalent within a certain ideological group must be foundational to that group's ideology. I gave you a patently obvious counterexample, and because it is a counterexample, it is entirely relevant to this discussion.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Cool Hand Luke.

robrecht
06-17-2014, 05:24 PM
corrected.

No overtly narrow definition of theism present.

I already agreed the subject matter is irrelevant, but the illustration does not work. A picture of a duck cannot be used to illustrate an elephant. Logic is logic, there is no duck logic or elephant logic. But, apparently, some things will remain covert and hidden, like God.

shunyadragon
06-17-2014, 06:52 PM
Logic is logic,

The sky is Carolina Blue on a clear day at noon on the 4th of July too.



there is no duck logic or elephant logic.



You need the testimony of the elephants and ducks to confirm this.

OingoBoingo
06-17-2014, 08:09 PM
The sky is Carolina Blue on a clear day at noon on the 4th of July too.




You need the testimony of the elephants and ducks to confirm this.

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

Doug Shaver
06-17-2014, 08:32 PM
I've known a few freethinking theists.


You know a few . . . . big deal. They still carry around a bag full of cannon balls defining what is necessary to believe . . . or else.
Oh, you know that, do you? Can you give me a for-instance? I'm thinking now of some clergymen I was friends with several years ago. Can you tell me what they thought it was necessary for me to believe, and what they thought was going to happen to me if I didn't believe those things?


If I see a new thread asking people what they don't like about the Humanist Manifesto, I'll check it out. If I were a forum administrator, I would question its appropriateness, but since I'm not an administrator, it's not my call to make.


Your stretching the gooses neck. I did not specify the thread topic or how it would be worded.

You can word it as you wish, but if you want me to answer the question, I'll have to recognize it as that same question, and you'll have to put it someplace where I'll see it.

shunyadragon
06-18-2014, 04:19 AM
Oh, you know that, do you? Can you give me a for-instance? I'm thinking now of some clergymen I was friends with several years ago. Can you tell me what they thought it was necessary for me to believe, and what they thought was going to happen to me if I didn't believe those things?

What I know is what the Doctrine and Dogma of the traditional theists churches is, and what is taught and consistently believed by most believers. Again it is too vague to 'think of some clergymen,' to be relevant. Like robercht referred to what 'some people' believe, dialogue in this context is too slippery, because 'some people and some clergy' could potentially believe anything.

The Doctrine and Dogma of the traditional Christian churches is basically set and unchangeable common set of required beliefs for salvation in the Apostles Creed: '1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: 2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: 4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell: 5. The third day he rose again from the dead: 6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: 7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: 8. I believe in the Holy Ghost: 9. I believe in the holy catholic [refers to the universal church of those that believe, and not necessarily the Roman Church when used in other churches then the Roman Church like the Methodists] church: the communion of saints: 10. The forgiveness of sins: 1l. The resurrection of the body: 12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

Some churches like the Roman Church narrow the field in the Salvation game defining it within the one True Church' only, with only exceptions 'knowledge, sincerity, desire,' outside the church.

If you do not sincerely believe you are BBQ for Satan.


You can word it as you wish, but if you want me to answer the question, I'll have to recognize it as that same question, and you'll have to put it someplace where I'll see it.

I will let you know personally.

robrecht
06-18-2014, 04:30 AM
So are speaking of 'traditional theism' or creedal formulas? If you really do want to avoid being vague, please name at least one actual person that you consider representative of your understanding of your so-called 'traditional theism'.

shunyadragon
06-18-2014, 04:44 AM
So are speaking of 'traditional theism' or creedal formulas? If you really do want to avoid being vague, please name at least one actual person that you consider representative of your understanding of your so-called 'traditional theism'.

Again and again, naming 'some persons' is too vague and actually a fallacy of logical arguments. If you are not aware of the 'Doctrine, Dogma and Creeds' of the traditional Christian Churches you need to do some homework.

It would be more relevant if you could show that any one of the traditional Christian churches does not believe and teach the necessity of sincere belief the Apostles (or Nicene Creed) for Salvation.

The Nicene Creed (Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νίκαιας, Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) is the profession of faith or creed that is most widely used in Christian liturgy. It forms the mainstream definition of Christianity for most Christians.[1]

It is called Nicene /ˈnaɪsiːn/ because, in its original form, it was adopted in the city of Nicaea (present day Iznik in Turkey) by the first ecumenical council, which met there in the year 325.[2]

The Nicene Creed has been normative for the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion, and Protestant denominations. It forms the mainstream definition of Christianity itself in Nicene Christianity.[1]

The Apostles' Creed, which in its present form is later, is also broadly accepted in the West, but is not used in the Eastern liturgy.[3] One or other of these two creeds is recited in the Roman Rite Mass directly after the homily on all Sundays and solemnities (Tridentine feasts of the first class). In the Roman Catholic Church, the Nicene Creed is part of the profession of faith[4] required of those undertaking important functions within the Church.

robrecht
06-18-2014, 05:08 AM
Again and again, naming 'some persons' is too vague and actually a fallacy of logical arguments. If you are not aware of the 'Doctrine, Dogma and Creeds' of the traditional Christian Churches you need to do some homework.
I will ask you again: Are you no longer speaking of 'traditional theism'? Do you now merely want to speak of creedal formulas?

shunyadragon
06-18-2014, 05:11 AM
I will ask you again: Are you no longer speaking of 'traditional theism'? Do you now merely want to speak of creedal formulas?

I am specifically referring to the foundation of 'traditional Christian theism.' As the reference states accurately, the Creeds 'form the mainstream definition of Christianity for Christians.'

Again and again, naming 'some persons' is too vague and actually a fallacy of logical arguments. If you are not aware of the 'Doctrine, Dogma and Creeds' of the traditional Christian Churches you need to do some homework.

It would be more relevant if you could show that any one of the traditional Christian churches does not believe and teach the necessity of sincere belief the Apostles (or Nicene Creed) for Salvation.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
The Nicene Creed (Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νίκαιας, Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) is the profession of faith or creed that is most widely used in Christian liturgy. It forms the mainstream definition of Christianity for most Christians.[1]

It is called Nicene /ˈnaɪsiːn/ because, in its original form, it was adopted in the city of Nicaea (present day Iznik in Turkey) by the first ecumenical council, which met there in the year 325.[2]

The Nicene Creed has been normative for the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion, and Protestant denominations. It forms the mainstream definition of Christianity itself in Nicene Christianity.[1]

The Apostles' Creed, which in its present form is later, is also broadly accepted in the West, but is not used in the Eastern liturgy.[3] One or other of these two creeds is recited in the Roman Rite Mass directly after the homily on all Sundays and solemnities (Tridentine feasts of the first class). In the Roman Catholic Church, the Nicene Creed is part of the profession of faith[4] required of those undertaking important functions within the Church.

robrecht
06-18-2014, 05:25 AM
I am specifically referring to the foundation of 'traditional Christian theism.'

Again and again, naming 'some persons' is too vague and actually a fallacy of logical arguments. If you are not aware of the 'Doctrine, Dogma and Creeds' of the traditional Christian Churches you need to do some homework.

It would be more relevant if you could show that any one of the traditional Christian churches does not believe and teach the necessity of sincere belief the Apostles (or Nicene Creed) for Salvation.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
The Nicene Creed (Greek: Σύμβολον τῆς Νίκαιας, Latin: Symbolum Nicaenum) is the profession of faith or creed that is most widely used in Christian liturgy. It forms the mainstream definition of Christianity for most Christians.[1]

It is called Nicene /ˈnaɪsiːn/ because, in its original form, it was adopted in the city of Nicaea (present day Iznik in Turkey) by the first ecumenical council, which met there in the year 325.[2]

The Nicene Creed has been normative for the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion, and Protestant denominations. It forms the mainstream definition of Christianity itself in Nicene Christianity.[1]

The Apostles' Creed, which in its present form is later, is also broadly accepted in the West, but is not used in the Eastern liturgy.[3] One or other of these two creeds is recited in the Roman Rite Mass directly after the homily on all Sundays and solemnities (Tridentine feasts of the first class). In the Roman Catholic Church, the Nicene Creed is part of the profession of faith[4] required of those undertaking important functions within the Church.It seems as if you are perhaps confusing matters of Christian faith and philosophical thought. Do you not want to speak of theism in a philosophical sense?

shunyadragon
06-18-2014, 05:43 AM
It seems as if you are perhaps confusing matters of Christian faith and philosophical thought. Do you not want to speak of theism in a philosophical sense?

No confusion on my part. My posts are specific and to the point, the theological Doctrine, Dogmas and Creeds which form the foundation of belief and define theism in 'traditional Christian churches. Your not responding to the posts. Your preference appears to address confusing vagueness of some underlying philosophical concepts.

robrecht
06-18-2014, 05:48 AM
No confusion on my part. My posts are specific and to the point, the theological Doctrine, Dogmas and Creeds which form the foundation of belief and define theism in 'traditional Christian churches. Your not responding to the posts. Your preference appears to address confusing vagueness of some underlying philosophical concepts.So that seems to be a 'no', ie, you do not want to speak of philosophical theism apart from creeds. Is that correct?

Carrikature
06-18-2014, 05:59 AM
No problem, Doctrines and Dogmas could not be used to define UU. UU is a consensus belief system, based more on the collective of independent thinkers that associate in a faith. This is the polls of belief work well defining the foundation of UUs, because it shows what and why they believe as UU evolved over its history.

No. Polls can indicate what the majority of adherents currently believe. They can NOT be used to determine what is the foundation of a belief system.

shunyadragon
06-18-2014, 06:19 AM
No. Polls can indicate what the majority of adherents currently believe. They can NOT be used to determine what is the foundation of a belief system.

Actually this is a contradiction. There are many UU polls, conducted by UUs that do exactly that, 'They indicate what the majority of the adherents of UU currently believe as described in the reference I gave.

In terms of UU where the belief system is based on the consensus of believers without specific doctrines and dogmas as in traditional Christian theism this is the best way.

If you disagree, bell the cat, explain how you would do this?

shunyadragon
06-18-2014, 06:25 AM
So that seems to be a 'no', ie, you do not want to speak of philosophical theism apart from creeds. Is that correct?

If you wish to discuss the philosophical? basis theism concepts, please start a thread on this topic. The topic I am addressing is what are the foundation beliefs that define traditional Christian theism and what the majority of Christians believe define Christianity as clearly stated in the reference I cited. These foundation concepts are clearly defined in the Creeds which every adult Christian who are church believers ''MUST' commit to sincerely as absolutely necessary when they become members of the church.

If you wish to discuss the philosophical why? again start a thread and I will gladly participate.

Doug Shaver
06-19-2014, 05:48 AM
The Doctrine and Dogma of the traditional Christian churches is basically set and unchangeable common set of required beliefs for salvation in the Apostles Creed
That is what some Christians believe. I was responding to a claim you made about theists. Is it so hard for you to distinguish between theism and Christianity?

Carrikature
06-19-2014, 07:01 AM
Actually this is a contradiction. There are many UU polls, conducted by UUs that do exactly that, 'They indicate what the majority of the adherents of UU currently believe as described in the reference I gave.

In terms of UU where the belief system is based on the consensus of believers without specific doctrines and dogmas as in traditional Christian theism this is the best way.

If you disagree, bell the cat, explain how you would do this?

There is no contradiction. You have claimed (but not shown) that the UU belief system is based on a consensus of believers. I see no reason to accept this, and it lies in direct conflict with what the UUA says about itself. The UUA specifically states the seven principles (http://www.uua.org/beliefs/principles/index.shtml) that are at the heart of the belief system. The origin story (http://www.uua.org/beliefs/history/151249.shtml) I have linked to previously.

The predominance or acceptance of certain beliefs may change. This is different from those beliefs relying upon a consensus of believers. This is also different from the beliefs set into the foundation of the belief system. You continue to conflate these three things, and it is there that your error lies.

robrecht
06-19-2014, 03:29 PM
If you wish to discuss the philosophical? basis theism concepts, please start a thread on this topic. The topic I am addressing is what are the foundation beliefs that define traditional Christian theism and what the majority of Christians believe define Christianity as clearly stated in the reference I cited. These foundation concepts are clearly defined in the Creeds which every adult Christian who are church believers ''MUST' commit to sincerely as absolutely necessary when they become members of the church.

If you wish to discuss the philosophical why? again start a thread and I will gladly participate.Before I abandon this philosophical thread, I would still like to understand why this discussion has changed from a philosophical one to a specific religious discussion. This seems to have come about for a few potential and successive reasons: 1) your view that atheism is a belief, 2) your introduction of Baha'i Faith cosmogony, 3) your introduction of the foundational beliefs of Unitarian Universalist religion or movement, and finally, 4) your desire to further limit the previous discussion of theism to Christian theism. Is this really a rationale or straighforward course for a philosophical discussion to take or are there perhaps other reasons for your desire to move the discussion in this particular direction? I have my own hypothesis, but I would prefer to hear your own explanation first, if you please.

shunyadragon
06-19-2014, 06:17 PM
That is what some Christians believe. I was responding to a claim you made about theists. Is it so hard for you to distinguish between theism and Christianity?

Not hard to differentiate at all, but I never referred to any other theists other then traditional Christian theists.

robrecht
06-19-2014, 07:22 PM
Not hard to differentiate at all, but I never referred to any other theists other then traditional Christian theists.Untrue. You did not begin to focus only on Christian thesists until after your view of theism brgan to be questioned:

So what's new? theists use premises in their argument that atheists don't accept.
Correct, I was just asked for 'some' of the assumptions theists make for their arguments for God that atheists do not make, and of course 'some' atheists make 'some' assumption that theists do not make.
Most Christians and Muslims assume our physical existence is temporal and finite. The Baha'i Faith cosmogony is the only theist view that believes in an infinite and eternal physical existence.

Pretty much all cosmological arguments from the Christian and Islamic perspective assume that our everything in our physical existence had a beginning, therefore the necessity of a Source outside our physical existence, ie God(s).
Assumptions in logical arguments, particularly in this instance cosmological arguments, are not the content of the belief. The assumptions of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas are not inferences, but assumptions of logical arguments to support the existence of God.

In all my contacts and affiliation with UUs since the 1960's the independent individual expression and search for truth and knowledge is an underlying principle of UU, and expressed in the Humanists Manifesto. This highly individual view of 'truth and knowledge is in it self a contrad'iction with Theism where the search for truth and knowedge is in a 'higher Divine power.

Yes, many in fact many people also believe that some knowledge, revelation and beliefs are individually discovered or revealed, but what unites theists is the fundamental belief in some unifying revelation from God through one or more mediators reveals knowledge that humans must believe in to be somehow saved.

Actually free thought and will has quite a range of beliefs in traditional theism. It is true that in almost all theistic religions limit the possible choices of valid free thought.

Degree and role of free thought is an important issue in humanism as differenciated from theism. Theism in one way or another discourages free thought.

Again, Traditional Judism is more more strongly rooted (anchored) culture and tradition, and not apophatic theology. In Judaism this not much of a concern to the average Jew.

Doug Shaver
06-19-2014, 09:58 PM
Not hard to differentiate at all, but I never referred to any other theists other then traditional Christian theists.
If you intend to talk only about Christians, why don't you consistently call them Christians? Are you trying to be ambiguous?

shunyadragon
06-21-2014, 02:44 PM
Before I abandon this philosophical thread, I would still like to understand why this discussion has changed from a philosophical one to a specific religious discussion. This seems to have come about for a few potential and successive reasons: 1) your view that atheism is a belief, 2) your introduction of Baha'i Faith cosmogony, 3) your introduction of the foundational beliefs of Unitarian Universalist religion or movement, and finally, 4) your desire to further limit the previous discussion of theism to Christian theism. Is this really a rationale or straighforward course for a philosophical discussion to take or are there perhaps other reasons for your desire to move the discussion in this particular direction? I have my own hypothesis, but I would prefer to hear your own explanation first, if you please.

This thread has become muddled. A lot of the above came about by a series of questions. As far as UU goes I started a thread in apologetics. I will start a thread soon on Genesis 2 the Fall and Original Sin there too.

shunyadragon
06-21-2014, 02:45 PM
Untrue. You did not begin to focus only on Christian thesists until after your view of theism brgan to be questioned:

The thread has become muddled. As far as UU and it's issues concerning God(s) and theism I prefer the thread in Apologetics.

robrecht
07-14-2015, 06:31 AM
If you intend to talk only about Christians, why don't you consistently call them Christians? Are you trying to be ambiguous?

This thread has become muddled. A lot of the above came about by a series of questions. As far as UU goes I started a thread in apologetics. I will start a thread soon on Genesis 2 the Fall and Original Sin there too.

The thread has become muddled. As far as UU and it's issues concerning God(s) and theism I prefer the thread in Apologetics. I think this thread became muddled because of your desire to change a philosophical discussion of philosophical theism into your own critique of an overly limited view of Christian theism.

shunyadragon
07-18-2015, 04:32 AM
I think this thread became muddled because of your desire to change a philosophical discussion of philosophical theism into your own critique of an overly limited view of Christian theism.


Simply passing the buck on baseless assertions is living in glass houses and throwing stones.

MaxVel
07-18-2015, 08:42 AM
Assumptions in logical arguments, particularly in this instance cosmological arguments, are not the content of the belief. The assumptions of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas are not inferences, but assumptions of logical arguments to support the existence of God. The assumption 'everything in our physical existence has a beginning' cannot remotely be inferred from the evidence. It is weakly possible to infer that our physical existence (the greater cosmos including all possible universes based on the math and cosmological models) is infinite and eternal, but because of the limits of our ability to comprehend our physical existence beyond our universe it remains more an assumption in philosophical naturalism that our physical existence is infinite and eternal and there is no 'Source' beyond our physical existence some call God(s).

The bolded above is incorrect. See Edward Feser's blog (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html#more).

Cosmological arguments (notably Aquinas', but also other versions) don't assume the universe / everything physical had a beginning.

3. “Why assume that the universe had a beginning?” is not a serious objection to the argument.

The reason this is not a serious objection is that no version of the cosmological argument assumes this at all. Of course, the kalām cosmological argument does claim that the universe had a beginning, but it doesn’t merely assume it. Rather, the whole point of that version of the cosmological argument is to establish through detailed argument that the universe must have had a beginning. You can try to rebut those arguments, but to pretend that one can dismiss the argument merely by raising the possibility of an infinite series of universes (say) is to miss the whole point.

The main reason this is a bad objection, though, is that most versions of the cosmological argument do not even claim that the universe had a beginning. Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic, Thomistic, and Leibnizian cosmological arguments are all concerned to show that there must be an uncaused cause even if the universe has always existed. Of course, Aquinas did believe that the world had a beginning, but (as all Aquinas scholars know) that is not a claim that plays any role in his versions of the cosmological argument. When he argues there that there must be a First Cause, he doesn’t mean “first” in the order of events extending backwards into the past. What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment, whether or not the series of moments extends backwards into the past without a beginning.

In fact, Aquinas rather famously rejected what is now known as the kalām argument. He did not think that the claim that the universe had a beginning could be established through philosophical arguments. He thought it could be known only via divine revelation, and thus was not suitable for use in trying to establish God’s existence. (Here, by the way, is another basic test of competence to speak on this subject. Any critic of the Five Ways who claims that Aquinas was trying to show that the universe had a beginning and that God caused that beginning – as Richard Dawkins does in his comments on the Third Way in The God Delusion – infallibly demonstrates thereby that he simply doesn’t know what he is talking about.)

shunyadragon
07-19-2015, 09:55 AM
The bolded above is incorrect. See Edward Feser's blog (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html#more).

Cosmological arguments (notably Aquinas', but also other versions) don't assume the universe / everything physical had a beginning.

3. “Why assume that the universe had a beginning?” is not a serious objection to the argument.

The reason this is not a serious objection is that no version of the cosmological argument assumes this at all. Of course, the kalām cosmological argument does claim that the universe had a beginning, but it doesn’t merely assume it. Rather, the whole point of that version of the cosmological argument is to establish through detailed argument that the universe must have had a beginning. You can try to rebut those arguments, but to pretend that one can dismiss the argument merely by raising the possibility of an infinite series of universes (say) is to miss the whole point.

The main reason this is a bad objection, though, is that most versions of the cosmological argument do not even claim that the universe had a beginning. Aristotelian, Neo-Platonic, Thomistic, and Leibnizian cosmological arguments are all concerned to show that there must be an uncaused cause even if the universe has always existed. Of course, Aquinas did believe that the world had a beginning, but (as all Aquinas scholars know) that is not a claim that plays any role in his versions of the cosmological argument. When he argues there that there must be a First Cause, he doesn’t mean “first” in the order of events extending backwards into the past. What he means is that there must be a most fundamental cause of things which keeps them in existence at every moment, whether or not the series of moments extends backwards into the past without a beginning.

In fact, Aquinas rather famously rejected what is now known as the kalām argument. He did not think that the claim that the universe had a beginning could be established through philosophical arguments. He thought it could be known only via divine revelation, and thus was not suitable for use in trying to establish God’s existence. (Here, by the way, is another basic test of competence to speak on this subject. Any critic of the Five Ways who claims that Aquinas was trying to show that the universe had a beginning and that God caused that beginning – as Richard Dawkins does in his comments on the Third Way in The God Delusion – infallibly demonstrates thereby that he simply doesn’t know what he is talking about.)

As far as I am concerned the 'claim' the universe has a beginning is not more than an assumption, because there is no evidence that the universe has a beginning.

OK, Aquinas apparently did not claim that the universe necessarily had a beginning. What then would Aquinas argument rest on for an argument outside those who do not believe? If it can only be known through Divine Revelation, than there is not an adequate argument for those who do not believe in Divine Revelation.

My problem with all these arguments is that they are too circular, and based on the assumption that God, and Divine Revelation exists as premises of the arguments. The above justifies the problem.

robrecht
07-19-2015, 10:06 AM
Simply passing the buck on baseless assertions is living in glass houses and throwing stones.
Why do you say 'baseless'? You yourself have claimed (somewhat falsely) that you were only speaking of traditional Christian theists. Why limit a philosophical discussion to your critique of traditional Christian belief? Especially after you initially referred to theism (in a philosophy thread) without any reference to religious theism and then also referred to Aristotle and Islamic theists. And then you refused to answer Doug's question about why you did not simply explicitly refer to Christians if you only intended to speak of traditional Christian theism. Note also that there is no monolithic approach to theistic philosophical positions within the various Christian traditions and schools of thought so your attempt to lump them all together, in a philosophy thread, no less, is ignorant at best.

robrecht
07-19-2015, 10:14 AM
... infallibly demonstrates thereby that he simply doesn’t know what he is talking about.)[/cite]Indeed.

shunyadragon
07-19-2015, 10:33 AM
That is what some Christians believe. I was responding to a claim you made about theists. Is it so hard for you to distinguish between theism and Christianity?

No problem, specify the specific Theist belief and I will address that. The Unitarian Universalists, though variable in their individual beliefs, by Cred are predominantly Humanist, and do not believe in a specific Revelation from God (Theist definition #1). There are some that may as individuals hold to a modern Deist or Monist, polytheist ? or maybe Pagan with no specific Revelation from God.

shunyadragon
07-19-2015, 10:41 AM
So are speaking of 'traditional theism' or creedal formulas? If you really do want to avoid being vague, please name at least one actual person that you consider representative of your understanding of your so-called 'traditional theism'.

No problem and nothing vague with understanding Traditional Theism. It represents the institutions of Traditional Christianity, Islam and Judaism in the western sense, and believe and teach a personal Revelation in scripture.

There is no 'one actual person that is representative of any belief system', but there are specific doctrines, dogmas and beliefs that individual religions and churches believe and teach to those that ascribe to tht belief system. I cannot attest to individual preferences of beliefs, because individuals may believe in anything.

Unitarian Universalists teach a Humanist approach where the individual seeks their own individual spirituality or lack thereof in their independent search for belief.

shunyadragon
07-19-2015, 10:55 AM
It seems as if you are perhaps confusing matters of Christian faith and philosophical thought. Do you not want to speak of theism in a philosophical sense?

No I am not confusing matters of Christian faith and philosophical thought. I am specifically addressing what Traditional Theist Christian churches believe and teach concerning the doctrines and dogmas of the Institutions.

shunyadragon
07-19-2015, 11:06 AM
Why do you say 'baseless'? You yourself have claimed (somewhat falsely) that you were only speaking of traditional Christian theists. Why limit a philosophical discussion to your critique of traditional Christian belief? Especially after you initially referred to theism (in a philosophy thread) without any reference to religious theism and then also referred to Aristotle and Islamic theists. [quote]

First it is not a specific philosophical discussion. The discussion thread title 'The Divine Non-Contradiction Principle and Why it Fails-Refuted' This thread addresses Theism and Divine Revelation, which is ok with me. If you object, you may want to move the thread.


[quote] And then you refused to answer Doug's question about why you did not simply explicitly refer to Christians if you only intended to speak of traditional Christian theism.

Doug's question was specifically answered if you have any further problems please cite my response and provide your question concerning my answer.


Note also that there is no monolithic approach to theistic philosophical positions within the various Christian traditions and schools of thought so your attempt to lump them all together, in a philosophy thread, no less, is ignorant at best.

There are specific Doctrines and Dogmas of Christian beliefs and teachings of the Traditional Churches that are what I am referring to.

Again . . .

What I know is what the Doctrine and Dogma of the traditional theists churches is, and what is taught and consistently believed by most believers. Again it is too vague to 'think of some clergymen,' to be relevant. Like robercht referred to what 'some people' believe, dialogue in this context is too slippery, because 'some people and some clergy' could potentially believe anything.

The Doctrine and Dogma of the traditional Christian churches is basically set and unchangeable common set of required beliefs for salvation in the Apostles Creed: '1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: 2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: 4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell: 5. The third day he rose again from the dead: 6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: 7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: 8. I believe in the Holy Ghost: 9. I believe in the holy catholic [refers to the universal church of those that believe, and not necessarily the Roman Church when used in other churches then the Roman Church like the Methodists] church: the communion of saints: 10. The forgiveness of sins: 1l. The resurrection of the body: 12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

Some churches like the Roman Church narrow the field in the Salvation game defining it within the one True Church' only, with only exceptions 'knowledge, sincerity, desire,' outside the church.

If you do not sincerely seek and believe you are BBQ for Satan.

shunyadragon
07-19-2015, 02:55 PM
Robrecht

Actually we have pretty much dived off topic. I would be willing to continue this in another thread if you like. is not a reason to change anything I have posted.

JimL
07-19-2015, 03:02 PM
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/divine_non_contradiction_principle/

The problems come from, again, the arguments are based on unsubstantiated premises that basically amount to question begging, such as:


and this:



Eh, Francois, you 'do' know that theists aren't materialists, right? So we have literally, no reason to accept either of those premises. :doh:

What I think he is trying to express here is that though some believe in the supernatural, even they have only empirical evidence of one existence, the material world.

robrecht
07-19-2015, 05:49 PM
First it is not a specific philosophical discussion. The discussion thread title 'The Divine Non-Contradiction Principle and Why it Fails-Refuted' This thread addresses Theism and Divine Revelation, which is ok with me. If you object, you may want to move the thread.You were the one who perverted a philosophical thread about theism and presuppositions of the philosophical arguments of theists and atheists into your all too familiar religious polemic. You were the first to bring up religious theism (of Christians, Muslims, and Baha'i) and the idea of atheism as a matter of belief (#16) with a misunderstanding of some philosophical arguments of theists (Aristotle, Thomas, Kalam), ie, that they assumed beliefs of revelation in their philosophical arguments, which they do not do.


Doug's question was specifically answered if you have any further problems please cite my response and provide your question concerning my answer.My issue is the same, namely that your religious polemicism degrades philosophical debate. This thread began about philosophical arguments about the existence of God and not about revelation.


There are specific Doctrines and Dogmas of Christian beliefs and teachings of the Traditional Churches that are what I am referring to.

Again . . .

What I know is what the Doctrine and Dogma of the traditional theists churches is, and what is taught and consistently believed by most believers. Again it is too vague to 'think of some clergymen,' to be relevant. Like robercht referred to what 'some people' believe, dialogue in this context is too slippery, because 'some people and some clergy' could potentially believe anything.

The Doctrine and Dogma of the traditional Christian churches is basically set and unchangeable common set of required beliefs for salvation in the Apostles Creed: '1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: 2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: 4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell: 5. The third day he rose again from the dead: 6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: 7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: 8. I believe in the Holy Ghost: 9. I believe in the holy catholic [refers to the universal church of those that believe, and not necessarily the Roman Church when used in other churches then the Roman Church like the Methodists] church: the communion of saints: 10. The forgiveness of sins: 1l. The resurrection of the body: 12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

Some churches like the Roman Church narrow the field in the Salvation game defining it within the one True Church' only, with only exceptions 'knowledge, sincerity, desire,' outside the church.

If you do not sincerely seek and believe you are BBQ for Satan.None of the above is related to philosophical arguments and presumptions for or against the existence of God.

shunyadragon
07-19-2015, 06:26 PM
<snip>None of the above is related to philosophical arguments and presumptions for or against the existence of God.

OFF TOPIC :offtopic:

Start a thread elsewhere and I will respond.

robrecht
07-19-2015, 06:39 PM
OFF TOPIC :offtopic:

Start a thread elsewhere and I will respond.
Glad you agree. I like this topic. If you are able to discuss philosophical arguments and presuppositions for and against philosophical theism without religious polemics, let us know.

MaxVel
07-19-2015, 08:28 PM
As far as I am concerned the 'claim' the universe has a beginning is not more than an assumption, because there is no evidence that the universe has a beginning.

OK, Aquinas apparently did not claim that the universe necessarily had a beginning.

Right. So please don't repeat your false assertion next time the topic comes up.



What then would Aquinas argument rest on for an argument outside those who do not believe? If it can only be known through Divine Revelation, than there is not an adequate argument for those who do not believe in Divine Revelation.

I don't think Aquinas is at all concerned with convincing anyone that the universe has a beginning. You've misunderstood his arguments. AFAIK he doesn't use that as a premise anywhere, nor does he argue for it as a conclusion.



My problem with all these arguments is that they are too circular, and based on the assumption that God, and Divine Revelation exists as premises of the arguments. The above justifies the problem.

Again with this. Aquinas doesn't do this anywhere, as we've already discussed. Circular arguments are ones that include he conclusion among the premises. Aquinas doesn't do that, and you have been asked before to substantiate your claim, and failed to do so.

shunyadragon
08-03-2015, 06:27 AM
Right. So please don't repeat your false assertion next time the topic comes up.

I don't think Aquinas is at all concerned with convincing anyone that the universe has a beginning. You've misunderstood his arguments. AFAIK he doesn't use that as a premise anywhere, nor does he argue for it as a conclusion.

I believe the physical universe is eternal and infinite. Is there any problem with this view and these arguments for the existence of God?

shunyadragon
08-03-2015, 06:34 AM
Again with this. Aquinas doesn't do this anywhere, as we've already discussed. Circular arguments are ones that include he conclusion among the premises. Aquinas doesn't do that, and you have been asked before to substantiate your claim, and failed to do so.



I. Thomas' Argument from Efficient Cause begins with the empirical observation of causal sequence in the world. Hence, this argument is an à posteriori argument, and the conclusion is not claimed to follow with certainty. A. The Argument from Efficient Cause: 1.There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
2.It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
3.To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
4.If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
5.Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

B. The nature of causality is a difficult field of study. Centuries after Thomas, David Hume raises serious objections to cogency of the concept of causality. Examples illustrating a few of difficulties of the concept of causality which are missed by Thomas' notion of the efficient cause of factor are as follows: 1.Problem of Accidental Correlation. How can a distinction be maintained between a universal accidental correlation and a necessary connection? Simply because substances or events of the kind B always follow substances or events of the kind A does not imply that A caused B. Cf., the variety of the informal fallacy of False Cause called post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is conceivable that such a sequence of generally occurring states of affairs is attributable to an improbable accidental or chance series of occurrences or is attributable to factors other than causality.

2. Problem of Simultaneous Causation If actual causal relations are examined closely, any supposed causal connection would be seen to be instantaneous.

a. Immanuel Kant cites these examples: If I view as a cause a ball which impresses a hollow as it lies on a stuffed cushion, the cause is simultaneous with the effect. Critique of Pure Reason (A203=B248) … A glass [filled with water] is the cause of the rising of the water above its horizontal surface, although both appearances are simultaneous. Critique of Pure Reason (A204=B249).

b. Note that if the coupling of the cars of a train to the locomotive are rigid and the parts of the train are not elastic, as soon as the engine moves, the caboose moves. There would be no gap in time.

c. We say the vibration of a string on a musical instrument causes a sound, but the string does not vibrate first followed later by the sound.

d. Consider the striking of a match causes the match to light. If we look closely, there are actually an indefinite number of sequences of causes as friction of the striking causes the rapid vibration of red phosphorus atoms which in turn are transferred individually to the sulphur compounds and then individually to the molecules of wood. The sequential agitation of chemicals may be analyzed as moving at the speed of light among an indefinite number of points of ignition—which, from an Einsteinian point of view, can be seen as instantaneous.

e. Finally, consider how old the universe would be if causes are simultaneous with their effects. Time would seem to be an illusion.

3.Problem of Uncaused Events. Consider Thomas' sequence of causes. The cement of the universe (to use David Hume's phrase) is not just a linear sequence. If the sequence of causes were infinite, there would be no cause which was " taken away." a.Causality can be seen as a web of interrelated events whereby each event is connected to each and every other event directly or remotely. (Any loose end or non-connected event would count as an event not subject to the laws of nature and so would be a miracle.)

b. To list all of the conditions for the occurrence of an event would be to include a description of the state of the universe down to the location and momentum of each and every elementary bit of physical substance.

c. There might be different lines of webs of causality leadings to multiple first causes.

4.Finally, of course, there is no proof that a First Cause is the same entity as the beings noted in the conclusion of the other Five Ways.


II. Summary list of common objections to Thomas' Argument from Cause: A.There seems to be a contradiction in the argument. The first premise states, "There is an efficient cause for everything, nothing can be the efficient cause of itself." Is, then, God something or nothing? If God is something, then we can ask the question of children, "What caused God?" If God is nothing, then God's existence is not proven. If God is claimed to have a privileged status, then the argument becomes viciously circular.

B. Thomas oversimplifies the nature of causality in terms of a temporal sequence of causes. Contemporary physics (as the best epistemological result to date) has many different notions of relations of events—including no causality (only correlations between events), simultaneous causation, backward causation, causation at a distance (cf., Bell's Theorem or quantum entanglement), or merely mathematical description.

C. By Occam's Razor, (the principle of simplicity or the principle of parsimony), we cannot assume that time has a beginning, middle, and end as assumed by Thomas' argument on the historical basis of Aristotle's description of plot in his Poetics,. If we assume that the universe was always existent, we do not have to account for a beginning. The early Greek philosophers, for example, did not assume there was a beginning of time.As Isaac Newton points out in his "Rules for Reasoning in Philosophy": Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.

D. By the principle of simplicity, it is arguable that an infinite regress in causes is more reasonable than the notion of an infinite, all powerful God who created a world with non-moral evil (i.e., "acts of God" such as flood, hurricane, earthquake, or plague). If God is perfect as a cause, so must be the effects of that cause. And, as well, since causes are proportioned to the effect, the Deity must be as finite as the universe is finite. Again, as Isaac Newton points out in his "Rules for Reasoning in Philosophy": Rule II. Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones [meteorites) in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.

E. If the first premise "There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself" is true, then the occurrence of miracles is ruled out. A miracle is a violation of a law of nature. Ruling out miracles is not something Thomas would want to do.

F. One can envision many possibilities. Even if there were a first cause, it would not necessarily follow that this first cause was God any more than the second cause in the sequence is God. It could be that there are many gods as first causes. It could be that the universe of causes circle back on itself so that there is no first cause, but every effect has a cause.

G. Also, it does not follow that the first cause would be the same entity as the conclusion of the other arguments: Unmoved Mover, Necessary Being, Greatest Good, or Great Designer. A separate argument would be necessary to show that all these "gods" are the same God.

H. Fallacy of Composition. Simply because causality occurs within the universe, it does not logically follow there must be a grand cause for the existence of all of the separate causes in the whole universe. Moreover, Thomas' assertion that "To take away the cause is to take away the effect" would not hold for an infinite regress of causes since there is no cause taken away.