Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

New member question about philosophy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    That means nothing more than "necessary existence". So why can't a universe, that is an infinite substance, out of which multiple universes arise, have what you call aseity? What title you give it, whether god or universe seems to me to be irrelevant.
    What would give this infinite substance necessity or aseity? If it were infinite and it existed eternally or unbounded by temporal limits, that would just be a brute fact. If there's something answering the definition of "God" though, necessity/aseity would be essential to that defintion. Without those properties, that thing wouldn't be God, imho.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Problem, science does not propose that there is a concept of the possibility of 'uncaused events.' Science does propose the possibility that the Quantum World is an uncaused existence, and all cause and effect events arise from the Quantum World the realm of Quantum Mechanics.
      Right you are. Properties or texture of the quantum vacuum...

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
        What would give this infinite substance necessity or aseity? If it were infinite and it existed eternally or unbounded by temporal limits, that would just be a brute fact. If there's something answering the definition of "God" though, necessity/aseity would be essential to that defintion. Without those properties, that thing wouldn't be God, imho.
        Not following. Perhaps you mean something different regarding necessity and aseity. Necessity and aseity of any infinite and eternal thing, whether it be called god or universe, would be just brute facts.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          Not following. Perhaps you mean something different regarding necessity and aseity. Necessity and aseity of any infinite and eternal thing, whether it be called god or universe, would be just brute facts.
          Not the way I understand them, Jim. They have been traditionally attributed to God, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition, precisely to avoid the charge of bruteness or arbitrariness. God carries within himself his own reason for being. This is what would make God necessary and set God apart from anything that merely happens to exist, such as a universe/multiverse, even if it is infinite and/or eternal.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
            Not the way I understand them, Jim. They have been traditionally attributed to God, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition, precisely to avoid the charge of bruteness or arbitrariness. God carries within himself his own reason for being. This is what would make God necessary and set God apart from anything that merely happens to exist, such as a universe/multiverse, even if it is infinite and/or eternal.
            Whatever the eternal, uncaused, and infinite thing is, it is by definition necessary existence, a brute fact as you say. To have existence in, by, and through itself, what you call aseity, is just another way of saying necessary, or brute fact.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              Whatever the eternal, uncaused, and infinite thing is, it is by definition necessary existence, a brute fact as you say. To have existence in, by, and through itself, what you call aseity, is just another way of saying necessary, or brute fact.
              "Necessary" and "brute" are mutually exclusive terms, the way I understand them. "Necessary" means "it has to be." "Brute" means "it happens to be."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                "Necessary" and "brute" are mutually exclusive terms, the way I understand them. "Necessary" means "it has to be." "Brute" means "it happens to be."
                But if the universe necessarily exists, then, that it exists necessarily, is just a brute fact, No? I'm thinking though that what you mean is that it is necessary in the sense that existing forms within it are dependent upon it for their existence. If so, and the universe is determined, then those temporal forms within it would still be brute facts, no? But regardless, even if the universe is not determined, it being necessary doesn't mean it has aseity in the sense of being a god, or a thinking creator. It would just mean that it is eternal, uncaused, and the random, or unitentional cause of the temporal forms that arise of, and through, it. In other words the eternal and necessary existence, and the temporal forms it takes, would just be of one and the same substance. I think Spinoza it was who put it something like this. "The forms are temperal with respect to themselves, but eternal with respect to their cause."
                Last edited by JimL; 05-28-2019, 04:29 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  But if the universe necessarily exists, then, that it exists necessarily, is just a brute fact, No? I'm thinking though that what you mean is that it is necessary in the sense that existing forms within it are dependent upon it for their existence. If so, and the universe is determined, then those temporal forms within it would still be brute facts, no? But regardless, even if the universe is not determined, it being necessary doesn't mean it has aseity in the sense of being a god, or a thinking creator. It would just mean that it is eternal, uncaused, and the random, or unitentional cause of the temporal forms that arise of, and through, it. In other words the eternal and necessary existence, and the temporal forms it takes, would just be of one and the same substance. I think Spinoza it was who put it something like this. "The forms are temporal with respect to themselves, but eternal with respect to their cause."
                  The only thing I serious question here is the use of 'random' in this context. Randomness would only refer to the outcome of individual events, and not the cause of the events from the scientific perspective.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                  160 responses
                  507 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post JimL
                  by JimL
                   
                  Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                  88 responses
                  354 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                  21 responses
                  133 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post shunyadragon  
                  Working...
                  X