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 seer View Post
    Element, why do you encourage his insanity by responding?
    Honestly I don't know. Probably because I am stubborn.

    However, I also find it intriguing that someone can be so blind and ignorant without realizing it.

    I will stop now as I fear that I am annoying the crap out of everyone else.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by element771 View Post
      Honestly I don't know. Probably because I am stubborn.

      However, I also find it intriguing that someone can be so blind and ignorant without realizing it.

      I will stop now as I fear that I am annoying the crap out of everyone else.
      Yeah, I know, listening to Shuny has the same kind of sick fascination as seeing a car accident. For a moment you are stunned into unbelief of what is happening.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        Element, why do you encourage his insanity by responding?
        It chimes in with your religious agenda. No insanity here.
        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


        • Originally posted by element771 View Post
          You realize that possible and likely are two different things correct.

          I said it is possible.
          Actually, by the fact that there is no objective verifiable evidence that could justify the conclusion that our physical existence and natural laws are eternal or not you would have to justify your ambiguous use of 'likely' based on some other standard other than the evidence or science.

          It demonstrates your lack thought and the ability to adequately communicate them which speaks to the issue at hand.
          No it demonstrates your continued to raze the fog index of our disagreements with fallacies such as: Playing grammar Nazi.

          Ad Hominem (Personal Attack or Attacking the Person)

          The fallacy of responding to an opponent's argument by changing the subject to the person who gave the subject, introducing the false assumption that a person of this sort cannot offer an argument worth considering. One can deflect attention from the arguer's position by shifting to discussion of the arguer's personality, character, associates, motives, intentions, qualifications, and so on.

          . . . and this questionable behavior continues:

          Originally posted by Element771
          However, I also find it intriguing that someone can be so blind and ignorant without realizing it.
          Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-01-2018, 08:50 PM.
          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


          • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
            So something, rather than nothing exists, is self existent and is uncaused. The idea that a self existent God, or a self existent Universe (in whatever form), as illogical as it may be, by necessity must be.

            I haven't had time to begin the next part of my question, but plan to work on it later on this evening. Thank you to all contributors.
            The God Who is self-existent, is not at all comparable to a self-existent universe. Because:
            1. God is Unique and Incomparable - nothing can be compared to God, certainly not the universe, because
            2. the universe is changing, subject to corruption; whereas God is Changeless; this is not Divine stagnation, but Divine fullness of Being.

            St Thomas Aquinas, On the Eternity of the World: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basi...s-eternity.asp

            What is illogical about the One (not “a”) self-existent God ?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Rushing Jaws View Post
              The God Who is self-existent, is not at all comparable to a self-existent universe. Because:
              1. God is Unique and Incomparable - nothing can be compared to God, certainly not the universe, because
              2. the universe is changing, subject to corruption; whereas God is Changeless; this is not Divine stagnation, but Divine fullness of Being.

              St Thomas Aquinas, On the Eternity of the World: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basi...s-eternity.asp

              What is illogical about the One (not “a”) self-existent God ?
              An unchanging creator is a contradiction in terms. He's either unchanging, or he creates!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                An unchanging creator is a contradiction in terms. He's either unchanging, or he creates!
                No Jim, unchanging means that 1: His moral character does not change, 2:He is not subject to corruption.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  No Jim, unchanging means that 1: His moral character does not change, 2:He is not subject to corruption.
                  No seer, unchanging means unchanging, static, not just in character, but in all aspects of being, and if a thing can not change, it's a contradiction to claim it can act, or create. An eternal universe differs in that it suggests itself to be a substance of change.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    No seer, unchanging means unchanging, static, not just in character, but in all aspects of being, and if a thing can not change, it's a contradiction to claim it can act, or create. An eternal universe differs in that it suggests itself to be a substance of change.
                    Jim, this is what RJ said:the universe is changing, subject to corruption; whereas God is Changeless; this is not Divine stagnation, but Divine fullness of Being.

                    He is comparing a universe that is subject to corruption, change through corruption. Where God is not changeable in that sense. And I would add that His moral character is also immutable.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Jim, this is what RJ said:the universe is changing, subject to corruption; whereas God is Changeless; this is not Divine stagnation, but Divine fullness of Being.

                      He is comparing a universe that is subject to corruption, change through corruption. Where God is not changeable in that sense. And I would add that His moral character is also immutable.
                      So you are saying that an infinite being, or entity, can infinitely act?

                      Comment


                      • One problem is that no one, as far as I know, has a very good understanding of the concept of "cause," and whether uncaused events are possible. The question is whether this universe resulted from such an event.

                        That being said, only God would have aseity, that is, have existence in, by, and through himself. No universe or multiverse would have aseity.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                          One problem is that no one, as far as I know, has a very good understanding of the concept of "cause," and whether uncaused events are possible. The question is whether this universe resulted from such an event.

                          That being said, only God would have aseity, that is, have existence in, by, and through himself. No universe or multiverse would have aseity.
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • 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.
                            There doesn't seem to be any compelling reasons to ascribe aseity to the universe, or any potential multi-verse. There is nothing about what we currently know about the universe that would lead to the conclusion that it's a necessary existence.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                              There doesn't seem to be any compelling reasons to ascribe aseity to the universe, or any potential multi-verse. There is nothing about what we currently know about the universe that would lead to the conclusion that it's a necessary existence.
                              There is nothing about what we currently know about god that would lead to the conclusion that one exists.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                                One problem is that no one, as far as I know, has a very good understanding of the concept of "cause," and whether uncaused events are possible. The question is whether this universe resulted from such an event.

                                That being said, only God would have aseity, that is, have existence in, by, and through himself. No universe or multiverse would have aseity.
                                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.
                                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