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

The Divine Non-Contradiction Principle and Why it Fails-Refuted

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    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.

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

    Source: Edward Feser

    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.)

    © Copyright Original Source

    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
      The bolded above is incorrect. See Edward Feser's blog.

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

      Source: Edward Feser

      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.)

      © Copyright Original Source

      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.
      Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-19-2015, 12:12 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


      • #93
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        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.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
          ... infallibly demonstrates thereby that he simply doesn’t know what he is talking about.)[/cite]
          Indeed.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Doug Shaver View Post
            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.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-19-2015, 12:38 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


            • #96
              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
              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.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-19-2015, 12:56 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


              • #97
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                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.
                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


                • #98
                  [QUOTE=robrecht;219900]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.


                  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.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-19-2015, 01:11 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


                  • #99
                    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.
                    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 TimelessTheist View Post
                      http://www.strongatheism.net/library...ion_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.
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        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.

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        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.

                        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        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.
                        Last edited by robrecht; 07-19-2015, 07:51 PM.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          <snip>None of the above is related to philosophical arguments and presumptions for or against the existence of God.
                          OFF TOPIC

                          Start a thread elsewhere and I will respond.
                          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 shunyadragon View Post
                            OFF TOPIC

                            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.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              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.


                              Originally posted by Shunyadragon
                              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.


                              Originally posted by Shunyadragon
                              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.
                              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                                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?
                                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
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                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