| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Paul Thibodeau" |
| Date: |
06 Jun 2004 12:51:26 PM |
| Object: |
Hume and the Being of God |
Hume argued that the being of God was too certain for dispute (that is, the
self-evident supreme being perceived in and beyond creation), but that the
nature of this being was entirely problematic. If there is any being, there
is a supreme being (if anything exists, God exists). Is Being beyond all we
say or think worthy to be called God?
Paul Thibodeau
---------------------
COMEOFAGE.NET
Humankind Come of Age: The Reconciliation of Heaven and Earth
.
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
06 Jun 2004 01:20:14 PM |
|
|
"Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote in
news:yQIwc.54680$OI5.1213@edtnps84:
Hume argued that the being of God was too certain for dispute (that
is, the self-evident supreme being perceived in and beyond creation),
but that the nature of this being was entirely problematic. If there
is any being, there is a supreme being (if anything exists, God
exists). Is Being beyond all we say or think worthy to be called God?
Isn't it funny how we can never find any evidence of any "supreme being"?
Nothing about this god is distinquishable from imaginary.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Thibodeau" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
08 Jun 2004 10:35:04 AM |
|
|
That is because that god is imaginary. Every god is imaginary, indeed, every
God. But, when we say 'God', we are talking about why something exists
instead of nothing, and if there is any being, then whatever this being is
we call God. The question is: Is the fundamental reality which we all
experience, by which we appear to be on any scale of our choosing but an
atom's atom, the glory, glory, glory, is there a basis by which to say that
this being which we all perceive by the very fact we believe ourselves to be
and to live and more and have our being ''in' something, this is God. Is
this in all and beyond all worthy to be called God in a theistic sense? I
think with important qualifications yes.
Paul Thibodeau
---------------------
COMEOFAGE.NET
Humankind Come of Age: The Reconciliation of Heaven and Earth
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns950092369DA55wodencharternet@216.168.3.44...
"Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote in
news:yQIwc.54680$OI5.1213@edtnps84:
Hume argued that the being of God was too certain for dispute (that
is, the self-evident supreme being perceived in and beyond creation),
but that the nature of this being was entirely problematic. If there
is any being, there is a supreme being (if anything exists, God
exists). Is Being beyond all we say or think worthy to be called God?
Isn't it funny how we can never find any evidence of any "supreme being"?
Nothing about this god is distinquishable from imaginary.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
08 Jun 2004 01:39:13 PM |
|
|
"Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote in
news:I0lxc.6$8R6.0@clgrps12:
(top posting moved)
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns950092369DA55wodencharternet@216.168.3.44...
"Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote in
news:yQIwc.54680$OI5.1213@edtnps84:
Hume argued that the being of God was too certain for dispute (that
is, the self-evident supreme being perceived in and beyond
creation), but that the nature of this being was entirely
problematic. If there is any being, there is a supreme being (if
anything exists, God exists). Is Being beyond all we say or think
worthy to be called God?
Isn't it funny how we can never find any evidence of any "supreme
being"? Nothing about this god is distinquishable from imaginary.
That is because that god is imaginary. Every god is imaginary, indeed,
every God. But, when we say 'God', we are talking about why something
exists instead of nothing, and if there is any being, then whatever
this being is we call God. The question is: Is the fundamental reality
which we all experience, by which we appear to be on any scale of our
choosing but an atom's atom, the glory, glory, glory, is there a basis
by which to say that this being which we all perceive by the very fact
we believe ourselves to be and to live and more and have our being
''in' something, this is God. Is this in all and beyond all worthy to
be called God in a theistic sense? I think with important
qualifications yes.
Ah, new age hogwash instead of ancient xian hogwash. If we are talking
about "why" things exist, then talk about the science behind it. Hiding
in "god" mumbo-jumbo doesn't solve anything, doesn't answer any
questions, and just serves to inhibit understanding and communication.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Thibodeau" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
08 Jun 2004 02:26:12 PM |
|
|
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9502955DA4636wodencharternet@216.168.3.44...
"Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote in
news:I0lxc.6$8R6.0@clgrps12:
(top posting moved)
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns950092369DA55wodencharternet@216.168.3.44...
"Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote in
news:yQIwc.54680$OI5.1213@edtnps84:
Hume argued that the being of God was too certain for dispute (that
is, the self-evident supreme being perceived in and beyond
creation), but that the nature of this being was entirely
problematic. If there is any being, there is a supreme being (if
anything exists, God exists). Is Being beyond all we say or think
worthy to be called God?
Isn't it funny how we can never find any evidence of any "supreme
being"? Nothing about this god is distinquishable from imaginary.
That is because that god is imaginary. Every god is imaginary, indeed,
every God. But, when we say 'God', we are talking about why something
exists instead of nothing, and if there is any being, then whatever
this being is we call God. The question is: Is the fundamental reality
which we all experience, by which we appear to be on any scale of our
choosing but an atom's atom, the glory, glory, glory, is there a basis
by which to say that this being which we all perceive by the very fact
we believe ourselves to be and to live and more and have our being
''in' something, this is God. Is this in all and beyond all worthy to
be called God in a theistic sense? I think with important
qualifications yes.
Ah, new age hogwash instead of ancient xian hogwash.
See the Hume quote I provided in another response, The Perennial Philosophy
for example by Aldous Huxley, Eastern Philosophy, etc.
If we are talking
about "why" things exist, then talk about the science behind it.
That depends on what you mean by science. Science as it is typically meant
doesn't have an explanation for everything because its means and methods are
not suited. For example logic, fundamental intuition (perception), and
intentionality. Do you mean empiricism, and which particular methodological
approach? What are its assumptions? Many scientists, philosophers, and even
indeed atheists, accept the proposition of God as the ground of being
without its theistic content.
Hiding
in "god" mumbo-jumbo doesn't solve anything, doesn't answer any
questions, and just serves to inhibit understanding and communication.
Anyone can wave a wand and pronounce 'Science' and think he has said
something when he has said nothing. Science becomes the God of the gaps.
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
Every religion was once a science. Everything you say about religion is also
true of science, it just depends how quickly science is able to move beyond
its own disproven facts, paradigms and conventions and props itself up as
the only door to understanding, rightness, and infinity. Science 'as the
answer to everything' you seem to be espousing is a religion.
Please make your next contribution more substantive than your last.
Paul Thibodeau
---------------------
COMEOFAGE.NET
Humankind Come of Age: The Reconciliation of Heaven and Earth
--
Woden
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
08 Jun 2004 06:24:57 PM |
|
|
"Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote in
news:opoxc.58$cS.37@edtnps89:
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9502955DA4636wodencharternet@216.168.3.44...
"Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote in
news:I0lxc.6$8R6.0@clgrps12:
(top posting moved)
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns950092369DA55wodencharternet@216.168.3.44...
"Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote in
news:yQIwc.54680$OI5.1213@edtnps84:
Hume argued that the being of God was too certain for dispute
(that is, the self-evident supreme being perceived in and beyond
creation), but that the nature of this being was entirely
problematic. If there is any being, there is a supreme being (if
anything exists, God exists). Is Being beyond all we say or
think worthy to be called God?
Isn't it funny how we can never find any evidence of any "supreme
being"? Nothing about this god is distinquishable from imaginary.
That is because that god is imaginary. Every god is imaginary,
indeed, every God. But, when we say 'God', we are talking about why
something exists instead of nothing, and if there is any being,
then whatever this being is we call God. The question is: Is the
fundamental reality which we all experience, by which we appear to
be on any scale of our choosing but an atom's atom, the glory,
glory, glory, is there a basis by which to say that this being
which we all perceive by the very fact we believe ourselves to be
and to live and more and have our being ''in' something, this is
God. Is this in all and beyond all worthy to be called God in a
theistic sense? I think with important qualifications yes.
Ah, new age hogwash instead of ancient xian hogwash.
See the Hume quote I provided in another response, The Perennial
Philosophy for example by Aldous Huxley, Eastern Philosophy, etc.
If we are talking
about "why" things exist, then talk about the science behind it.
That depends on what you mean by science. Science as it is typically
meant doesn't have an explanation for everything because its means and
methods are not suited. For example logic, fundamental intuition
(perception), and intentionality. Do you mean empiricism, and which
particular methodological approach? What are its assumptions? Many
scientists, philosophers, and even indeed atheists, accept the
proposition of God as the ground of being without its theistic
content.
And a lot of people realize that "god" is simply a verbal abstraction,
with no meaning in the real world. Why do you find a need to call what
you don't understand a "god"? There is already too much baggage and
misperception with the term "god".
Hiding
in "god" mumbo-jumbo doesn't solve anything, doesn't answer any
questions, and just serves to inhibit understanding and
communication.
Anyone can wave a wand and pronounce 'Science' and think he has said
something when he has said nothing. Science becomes the God of the
gaps.
I think you have it backwards. Science has forced "god" into the gaps
and as science keeps looking, the gaps keep getting smaller and smaller.
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's
thoughts, lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions,
perpetrated through generations of subtle yet pervasive
brainwashing."
Every religion was once a science. Everything you say about religion
is also true of science, it just depends how quickly science is able
to move beyond its own disproven facts, paradigms and conventions and
props itself up as the only door to understanding, rightness, and
infinity. Science 'as the answer to everything' you seem to be
espousing is a religion.
No, I see science as continuing to question and continuing to look for
new answers. It's quite interesting how science continually redefines its
basic "paradigms and conventions" as we learn more and more about
reality. Where does the need for any god come into that?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Ricker" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
07 Jun 2004 07:03:49 AM |
|
|
In article <yQIwc.54680$OI5.1213@edtnps84>,
"Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote:
Hume argued that the being of God was too certain for dispute (that is, the
self-evident supreme being perceived in and beyond creation), but that the
nature of this being was entirely problematic. If there is any being, there
is a supreme being (if anything exists, God exists). Is Being beyond all we
say or think worthy to be called God?
But what precisely constitutes a "supreme" anything? Maybe human beings
are the "supreme beings" in this universe. Maybe there are alien races,
as yet undiscovered, who will turn out to be the "supreme" beings. Does
"supreme" mean most adaptable, most creative, most dominant, most
long-lived? Maybe the best view of a supreme being is presented in
"Venus on the half-shell" by Kilgore Trout (a.k.a. Kurt Vonnegut). :-)
No doubt Hume was a brilliant man who said some brilliant things.
However, the argument you have attributed to him here (Can you point me
in the direction of the original source wherein he made this
proclamation?) sounds like one of those glib generalities with which
philosophers hopefully confuse the subjects they are trying to explain
and, thereby, confound those to whom they are attempting to explain them.
--
George Ricker
"Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally
complete. At last it has a global village idiot." John O'Farrell, on
the inauguration of George W. Bush, The Guardian, 1/20/2001
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Thibodeau" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
08 Jun 2004 10:35:07 AM |
|
|
Please see my other replies. Undoubtedly there are beings that are and will
be to us as God.
Paul Thibodeau
---------------------
COMEOFAGE.NET
Humankind Come of Age: The Reconciliation of Heaven and Earth
"George Ricker" <gSPAMFREEricker@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gSPAMFREEricker-D06C93.08040607062004@newsr1.tampabay.rr.com...
In article <yQIwc.54680$OI5.1213@edtnps84>,
"Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote:
Hume argued that the being of God was too certain for dispute (that is,
the
self-evident supreme being perceived in and beyond creation), but that
the
nature of this being was entirely problematic. If there is any being,
there
is a supreme being (if anything exists, God exists). Is Being beyond all
we
say or think worthy to be called God?
But what precisely constitutes a "supreme" anything? Maybe human beings
are the "supreme beings" in this universe. Maybe there are alien races,
as yet undiscovered, who will turn out to be the "supreme" beings. Does
"supreme" mean most adaptable, most creative, most dominant, most
long-lived? Maybe the best view of a supreme being is presented in
"Venus on the half-shell" by Kilgore Trout (a.k.a. Kurt Vonnegut). :-)
No doubt Hume was a brilliant man who said some brilliant things.
However, the argument you have attributed to him here (Can you point me
in the direction of the original source wherein he made this
proclamation?) sounds like one of those glib generalities with which
philosophers hopefully confuse the subjects they are trying to explain
and, thereby, confound those to whom they are attempting to explain them.
--
George Ricker
"Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally
complete. At last it has a global village idiot." John O'Farrell, on
the inauguration of George W. Bush, The Guardian, 1/20/2001
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Ricker" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
09 Jun 2004 07:22:16 AM |
|
|
In article <L0lxc.9$8R6.4@clgrps12>,
"Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote:
Please see my other replies. Undoubtedly there are beings that are and will
be to us as God.
Paul Thibodeau
I've seen your other replies. They don't impress.
Attempts to define "God" into existence always fail the coherence test.
Why not just cut to the chase and say "if gibberish can be invented by
the mind of man, we'll call it 'God' and pretend it corresponds to
something that really exists."
You may believe it's true that "Undoubtedly there are beings that are
and will be to us as God." You may even say it with conviction.
Unfortunately, that's not good enough.
--
George Ricker
"Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally
complete. At last it has a global village idiot." John O'Farrell, on
the inauguration of George W. Bush, The Guardian, 1/20/2001
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Thibodeau" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
09 Jun 2004 09:05:59 AM |
|
|
"George Ricker" <gSPAMFREEricker@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gSPAMFREEricker-81D606.08223209062004@newsr3.tampabay.rr.com...
In article <L0lxc.9$8R6.4@clgrps12>,
"Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote:
Please see my other replies. Undoubtedly there are beings that are and
will
be to us as God.
Paul Thibodeau
I've seen your other replies. They don't impress.
Attempts to define "God" into existence always fail the coherence test.
Why not just cut to the chase and say "if gibberish can be invented by
the mind of man, we'll call it 'God' and pretend it corresponds to
something that really exists."
By your definition, nothing exists.Something exists. All philosophers and
theolgians through the ages and even today, minds quite greater than yours,
say that something exists. This great totality they call God. It is being
that is asserted, not the nature of being.
You may believe it's true that "Undoubtedly there are beings that are
and will be to us as God." You may even say it with conviction.
Unfortunately, that's not good enough.
Unfortunately, your mind is so trapped in theism this went over your head.
--
George Ricker
"Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally
complete. At last it has a global village idiot." John O'Farrell, on
the inauguration of George W. Bush, The Guardian, 1/20/2001
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Ricker" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
10 Jun 2004 08:05:20 AM |
|
|
In article <bPExc.1482$8R6.768@clgrps12>,
"Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote:
"George Ricker" <gSPAMFREEricker@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:gSPAMFREEricker-81D606.08223209062004@newsr3.tampabay.rr.com...
In article <L0lxc.9$8R6.4@clgrps12>,
"Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote:
Please see my other replies. Undoubtedly there are beings that are and
will
be to us as God.
Paul Thibodeau
I've seen your other replies. They don't impress.
Attempts to define "God" into existence always fail the coherence test.
Why not just cut to the chase and say "if gibberish can be invented by
the mind of man, we'll call it 'God' and pretend it corresponds to
something that really exists."
By your definition, nothing exists.Something exists. All philosophers and
theolgians through the ages and even today, minds quite greater than yours,
say that something exists. This great totality they call God. It is being
that is asserted, not the nature of being.
Of course something exists. All that exists exists. If what you mean by
the word "God" is "all that exists" then I suppose, from that
perspective, at least, "God" exists. If you think "God" means something
more than "all that exists" you have some work to do. The truth of the
matter is that you are attempting to define "God" into existence. If all
you mean by "God" is "all that exists," the word is superfluous.
If you get some satisfaction out of this sort of circumlocution, have a
ball. Just don't get offended if most of us don't take you seriously.
You may believe it's true that "Undoubtedly there are beings that are
and will be to us as God." You may even say it with conviction.
Unfortunately, that's not good enough.
Unfortunately, your mind is so trapped in theism this went over your head.
Since "theism" is "god-belief" I'd say you're the one in the trap.
Apparently you believe in a god, which you define as "all that exists"
or something like that. That makes you a theist. It may not make you a
religionist, but it definitely makes you a theist.
Then again, you've already defined "God" into existence in your private
lexicon, so I suppose you may have redefined theism so it no longer
applies to you. That sort of thing can make communication difficult.
--
George Ricker
"Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally
complete. At last it has a global village idiot." John O'Farrell, on
the inauguration of George W. Bush, The Guardian, 1/20/2001
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
06 Jun 2004 08:31:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:51:26 GMT, "Paul Thibodeau"
<pthibode@telus.net> wrote:
Hume argued that the being of God was too certain for dispute (that is, the
self-evident supreme being perceived in and beyond creation), but that the
nature of this being was entirely problematic. If there is any being, there
is a supreme being (if anything exists, God exists). Is Being beyond all we
say or think worthy to be called God?
How is the "Supremeness" of something defined?
Is Icecream more Supreme than Cheese?
Or is it the other way around?
I know what mass is and how to measure it - how do you measure
relative divineness?
Supreme or divine are not properties inhent in any thing - they are
subjective personal opinions a concious being has *about* something.
To be fair to Hume (who may have said the above - you didn't give a
quote) he also said a lot of very clever things
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Thibodeau" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
08 Jun 2004 10:35:05 AM |
|
|
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:e3h7c09cjgqls24mafq5821eeavruutb6s@4ax.com...
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:51:26 GMT, "Paul Thibodeau"
<pthibode@telus.net> wrote:
Hume argued that the being of God was too certain for dispute (that is,
the
self-evident supreme being perceived in and beyond creation), but that
the
nature of this being was entirely problematic. If there is any being,
there
is a supreme being (if anything exists, God exists). Is Being beyond all
we
say or think worthy to be called God?
How is the "Supremeness" of something defined?
Is Icecream more Supreme than Cheese?
Or is it the other way around?
Supreme is the relative term we use to describe the experience that anything
exits at all, and what this existence must be or mean for us. Up to now,
this has been answered prematurely, unscientifically. Religion pretended to
an absolute knowledge of this being that we all experience, we all believe
we exist. Now that we are moving past religion, it is another fundamentalism
to say that science will now provide the metaphors that approximate all
being.
I know what mass is and how to measure it - how do you measure
relative divineness?
We do not measure relative divineness. We acutely and perceptively examine
experience. Is it above all, beyond all? Is there glory, glory, glory? Is it
utterly ineffable? Are we an atom's atom, or something more?
Supreme or divine are not properties inhent in any thing - they are
subjective personal opinions a concious being has *about* something.
Yes, we describe experience, so?
To be fair to Hume (who may have said the above - you didn't give a
quote) he also said a lot of very clever things
Here is one quote I have in mind from Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:
I must own, CLEANTHES, said DEMEA, that nothing can more surprise me, than
the light in which you have all along put this argument. By the whole tenor
of your discourse, one would imagine that you were maintaining the Being of
a God, against the cavils of Atheists and Infidels; and were necessitated to
become a champion for that fundamental principle of all religion. But this,
I hope, is not by any means a question among us. No man, no man at least of
common sense, I am persuaded, ever entertained a serious doubt with regard
to a truth so certain and self-evident. The question is not concerning the
being, but the nature of God. This, I affirm, from the infirmities of human
understanding, to be altogether incomprehensible and unknown to us. The
essence of that supreme Mind, his attributes, the manner of his existence,
the very nature of his duration; these, and every particular which regards
so divine a Being, are mysterious to men. Finite, weak, and blind creatures,
we ought to humble ourselves in his august presence; and, conscious of our
frailties, adore in silence his infinite perfections, which eye hath not
seen, ear hath not heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to
conceive. They are covered in a deep cloud from human curiosity. It is
profaneness to attempt penetrating through these sacred obscurities. And,
next to the impiety of denying his existence, is the temerity of prying into
his nature and essence, decrees and attributes.
But lest you should think that my piety has here got the better of my
philosophy, I shall support my opinion, if it needs any support, by a very
great authority. I might cite all the divines, almost from the foundation of
Christianity, who have ever treated of this or any other theological
subject; But I shall confine myself, at present, to one equally celebrated
for piety and philosophy. It is Father MALEBRANCHE, who, I remember, thus
expresses himself. "One ought not so much," says he, "to call God a spirit,
in order to express positively what he is, as in order to signify that he is
not matter. He is a Being infinitely perfect: Of this we cannot doubt. But
in the same manner as we ought not to imagine, even supposing him corporeal,
that he is clothed with a human body, as the ANTHROPOMORPHITES asserted,
under colour that that figure was the most perfect of any; so, neither ought
we to imagine that the spirit of God has human ideas, or bears any
resemblance to our spirit, under colour that we know nothing more perfect
than a human mind. We ought rather to believe, that as he comprehends the
perfections of matter without being material... he comprehends also the
perfections of created spirits without being spirit, in the manner we
conceive spirit: That his true name is, He that is; or, in other words,
Being without restriction, All Being, the Being infinite and universal."
After so great an authority, DEMEA, replied PHILO, as that which you have
produced, and a thousand more which you might produce, it would appear
ridiculous in me to add my sentiment, or express my approbation of your
doctrine. But surely, where reasonable men treat these subjects, the
question can never be concerning the Being, but only the Nature, of the
Deity. The former truth, as you well observe, is unquestionable and
self-evident. Nothing exists without a cause; and the original cause of this
universe (whatever it be) we call God; and piously ascribe to him every
species of perfection. Whoever scruples this fundamental truth, deserves
every punishment which can be inflicted among philosophers, to wit, the
greatest ridicule, contempt, and disapprobation. But as all perfection is
entirely relative, we ought never to imagine that we comprehend the
attributes of this divine Being, or to suppose that his perfections have any
analogy or likeness to the perfections of a human creature. Wisdom, Thought,
Design, Knowledge; these we justly ascribe to him; because these words are
honourable among men, and we have no other language or other conceptions by
which we can express our adoration of him. But let us beware, lest we think
that our ideas anywise correspond to his perfections, or that his attributes
have any resemblance to these qualities among men. He is infinitely superior
to our limited view and comprehension; and is more the object of worship in
the temple, than of disputation in the schools.
Paul Thibodeau
---------------------
COMEOFAGE.NET
Humankind Come of Age: The Reconciliation of Heaven and Earth
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Richardson" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
08 Jun 2004 07:08:31 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:35:05 GMT, "Paul Thibodeau"
<pthibode@telus.net> wrote:
"Mark Richardson" <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:e3h7c09cjgqls24mafq5821eeavruutb6s@4ax.com...
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:51:26 GMT, "Paul Thibodeau"
<pthibode@telus.net> wrote:
Hume argued that the being of God was too certain for dispute (that is,
the
self-evident supreme being perceived in and beyond creation), but that
the
nature of this being was entirely problematic. If there is any being,
there
is a supreme being (if anything exists, God exists). Is Being beyond all
we
say or think worthy to be called God?
How is the "Supremeness" of something defined?
Is Icecream more Supreme than Cheese?
Or is it the other way around?
Supreme is the relative term we use to describe the experience that anything
exits at all, and what this existence must be or mean for us.
Well I don't use the word this way.
If you are to assign supremeness to something you need to supply the
measure used for comparison or the word has no meaning (to me and
people who think similarly).
Up to now,
this has been answered prematurely, unscientifically. Religion pretended to
an absolute knowledge of this being that we all experience, we all believe
we exist. Now that we are moving past religion, it is another fundamentalism
to say that science will now provide the metaphors that approximate all
being.
I dont think science can supply *all* the answers a human needs -
important though it is.
I know what mass is and how to measure it - how do you measure
relative divineness?
We do not measure relative divineness. We acutely and perceptively examine
experience. Is it above all, beyond all? Is there glory, glory, glory? Is it
utterly ineffable? Are we an atom's atom, or something more?
Everyone must decide for themselves - I regard nothing as divine - I
have no god.
Other people can and do worship many things - both real and imagined.
I don't see that as wisdom or virtue.
Supreme or divine are not properties inhent in any thing - they are
subjective personal opinions a concious being has *about* something.
Yes, we describe experience, so?
So you may descibe an experience as being divine and I may not.
Therefore the very idea of divinity is personal and subjective.
Divinity is a little like beauty - we may both agree a particular
object exists but you may think it beautiful and I may think it ugly.
To be fair to Hume (who may have said the above - you didn't give a
quote) he also said a lot of very clever things
Here is one quote I have in mind from Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:
I must own, CLEANTHES, said DEMEA, that nothing can more surprise me, than
the light in which you have all along put this argument. By the whole tenor
of your discourse, one would imagine that you were maintaining the Being of
a God, against the cavils of Atheists and Infidels; and were necessitated to
become a champion for that fundamental principle of all religion. But this,
I hope, is not by any means a question among us. No man, no man at least of
common sense, I am persuaded, ever entertained a serious doubt with regard
to a truth so certain and self-evident. The question is not concerning the
being, but the nature of God. This, I affirm, from the infirmities of human
understanding, to be altogether incomprehensible and unknown to us.
<snip>
Thanks for the quote.
I still respect Hume - even though I obviously dont believe what he
said through the voice of DEMEA.
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Lias" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
07 Jun 2004 08:00:13 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:51:26 GMT, "Paul Thibodeau"
<pthibode@telus.net> wrote:
Hume argued that the being of God was too certain for dispute (that is, the
self-evident supreme being perceived in and beyond creation), but that the
nature of this being was entirely problematic. If there is any being, there
is a supreme being (if anything exists, God exists). Is Being beyond all we
say or think worthy to be called God?
I think that it's another attemp to create God by semantic
permutation.
Note that the term "supreme" is left perfectly undefined. Without a
clear understanding of what is meant by "supreme", any claims
regarding the necessity of a supreme being are unwarranted.
Further note that no consideration is given to the possibility that
there isn't a single "supreme" criteria to measure entities by
(perhaps there's only a multitude of dimensions such as intelligence,
strength, knowledge, height, etc). As such, we may posit a smartest
being, a strongest being, a most knowledgable being, a tallest being,
etc, without there being any necessity that they are the same being.
Finally note the equivocation between presuming that some entity is
the best being that exists and the presumption that this being is God
and, thus, must have the sorts of attributes that we normally
associate with God. This is a rather tremendous leap. Even if we can
pin down some gauge of supremecy, we might well suppose that it is
possible that humans are at the pinnacle (yes, I would consider it
unlikely, but the possibility cannot be dismissed on an a priori
basis) and that, thus, some human is "God".
The bottom line is that you can't define God into existence. It
didn't work for Anselm and it doesn't work for Hume.
--
Andrew Lias
http://andrewlias.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Thibodeau" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
08 Jun 2004 10:35:11 AM |
|
|
Thanks for your thoughtful reply Andrew, I believe I answer your objections
in my other replies. Could you please see them before responding?
Thanks,
Paul Thibodeau
---------------------
COMEOFAGE.NET
Humankind Come of Age: The Reconciliation of Heaven and Earth
"Andrew Lias" <anrwlias@gmail.com.spamkill> wrote in message
news:2ap8c0t9gtmfnusd39iubjtrtamj19hcqh@4ax.com...
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:51:26 GMT, "Paul Thibodeau"
<pthibode@telus.net> wrote:
Hume argued that the being of God was too certain for dispute (that is,
the
self-evident supreme being perceived in and beyond creation), but that
the
nature of this being was entirely problematic. If there is any being,
there
is a supreme being (if anything exists, God exists). Is Being beyond all
we
say or think worthy to be called God?
I think that it's another attemp to create God by semantic
permutation.
Note that the term "supreme" is left perfectly undefined. Without a
clear understanding of what is meant by "supreme", any claims
regarding the necessity of a supreme being are unwarranted.
Further note that no consideration is given to the possibility that
there isn't a single "supreme" criteria to measure entities by
(perhaps there's only a multitude of dimensions such as intelligence,
strength, knowledge, height, etc). As such, we may posit a smartest
being, a strongest being, a most knowledgable being, a tallest being,
etc, without there being any necessity that they are the same being.
Finally note the equivocation between presuming that some entity is
the best being that exists and the presumption that this being is God
and, thus, must have the sorts of attributes that we normally
associate with God. This is a rather tremendous leap. Even if we can
pin down some gauge of supremecy, we might well suppose that it is
possible that humans are at the pinnacle (yes, I would consider it
unlikely, but the possibility cannot be dismissed on an a priori
basis) and that, thus, some human is "God".
The bottom line is that you can't define God into existence. It
didn't work for Anselm and it doesn't work for Hume.
--
Andrew Lias
http://andrewlias.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
07 Jun 2004 12:46:38 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:51:26 GMT, "Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
Hume argued that the being of God was too certain for dispute (that is, the
self-evident supreme being perceived in and beyond creation), but that the
nature of this being was entirely problematic.
If there is any being, there
is a supreme being (if anything exists, God exists).
This is exactly as facile, and as necessary, as "if anything is horseshit,
deities are horseshit." It's the persistent homily-spinning habit of confusing
a turn of phrase or a striking image with a persuasive argument. Perhaps
it can be, if you squeeze your eyes shut and don't let yourself think about it.
Is Being beyond all we
say or think worthy to be called God?
Hard to say, after such a dizzy-making locution. 'Course, "worthy to be
called God" doesn't have a unique, universally-held value. But you knew that.
Paul Thibodeau
--
/Apostate
atheist #(e^7.5657933) I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; billions served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Thibodeau" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
08 Jun 2004 10:35:06 AM |
|
|
"Apostate" <Apostate.invalid@yeehaw.org> wrote in message
news:oev7c09igri8sm20sll8fbjtem8brsdvtc@4ax.com...
On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 17:51:26 GMT, "Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net>
wrote in alt.atheism:
Hume argued that the being of God was too certain for dispute (that is,
the
self-evident supreme being perceived in and beyond creation), but that
the
nature of this being was entirely problematic.
If there is any being, there
is a supreme being (if anything exists, God exists).
This is exactly as facile, and as necessary, as "if anything is
horseshit,
deities are horseshit." It's the persistent homily-spinning habit of
confusing
a turn of phrase or a striking image with a persuasive argument.
Perhaps
it can be, if you squeeze your eyes shut and don't let yourself think
about it.
No. We believe that something exists that constitutes the totality of
existence. That is a given of human thinking and perception. This we call
God. Is it a God in the commonly accepted religious sense? Depending on how
you understand this, probably not. But it is not superfluous to call ALL
THAT IS, Being, the conception that has been hinted at by the finest
geniuses of any persuasion our species has produced, God. BUT, of course,
this fundamental perception has been used, abused, and distorted to
humankind's great detriment. But we grow. Is this concept important, true,
and useful now? I think so. This is because I believe it has finally
achieved scientfic status. That is because, humankind can now, because of
its infintessimality, see God more than at any time in its history.
Humankind can actually see that it is but an atom's atom on the universal
scale of things, that God is the God of a trillion billion species on a
trillion billion planets (this is the most reasonable expectation), that God
in no wise resembles humanity in any of the more crude anthorpomorphic
religious formulations.
Is Being beyond all we
say or think worthy to be called God?
Hard to say, after such a dizzy-making locution. 'Course, "worthy to
be
called God" doesn't have a unique, universally-held value. But you
knew that.
It is not a circumlocution. Many minds before ours great and small have
called this perception God:
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior
spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive
with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the
presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the
incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
Albert Einstein
Please see my other replies before you respond.
Paul Thibodeau
---------------------
COMEOFAGE.NET
Humankind Come of Age: The Reconciliation of Heaven and Earth
Paul Thibodeau
--
/Apostate
atheist #(e^7.5657933) I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; billions served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Hume and the Being of God |
08 Jun 2004 02:54:20 PM |
|
|
n Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:35:06 GMT, "Paul Thibodeau" <pthibode@telus.net> wrote in alt.atheism:
Please see my other replies before you respond.
No need to worry about that.
<cue "Twilight Zone" theme music>
Paul Thibodeau
--
/Apostate
atheist #(e^7.5657933) I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; billions served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Brit Hume Concerned That Walter Reed Makes Bush Look Bad
Re: Why NeoCons Can't Get Laid, And Have to Jerk Off to Brit Hume
Fox's Hume and Cheney's "Tivo Moments"
NY Factory To Lay Off 114 workers. NeoCons Celebrate By Sucking off Brit Hume
Abramoff Also Tied to... Chris Matthews and Brit Hume!
Re: The Problem Of Induction / Hume, Popper & The Price Of Tea In China
Why NeoCons Can't Get Laid, And Have to Jerk Off to Brit Hume
Re: Why NeoCons Can't Get Laid, And Have to Jerk Off to Brit Hume
| Anybody know if this is David Hume's theory of social control?
Proofs of LORD Almighty GOD: Pastorio died on April Fool's day, diabetic FR's delusion of grandeur that he is now a psychiatrist is being fed by satan's sockpuppets, and onlookers are starting to accept the truth, Who is LORD Jesus Christ.
Proofs of LORD Almighty GOD: Pastorio died on April Fool's day, diabetic FR is now satan's sockpuppet, and satan tries to keep type-2 diabetics from being cured.
Proof by LORD Almighty GOD: a rebuked satan pretends at being adoctor and fails.
Re: The Bible's ruthless God and European Christianity's rise by tyranny
God and the Universe, in perspective
Evil Bible Quote of the Day for July 10 (God Assists Rape and Plunder)
|
|
|
