| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
| Date: |
08 Apr 2005 05:01:16 PM |
| Object: |
Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
The main argument:
The Universe cannot be the source of its own existence because it is
mutable. Therefore there must be a Supreme Being whose Essence is
Existence who causes the Universe to exist.
To understand why the Universe cannot be the source of its own
existence consider what would be the case if it were. For the Universe
to be the source of its own existence, Existence (the act which causes
things to exist) must be part of its Essence.
Since, by assumption, Existence is part of the Essence of the
Universe, then the Universe must always be the way it is now. After
all, Existence is part of the Essence of the Universe, therefore
Existence forces the Universe to Be what it is forever. IOW, because
the Universe has Existence as part of its Essence, it cannot be
something other than that which it is.
Therefore, by assumption, the Universe is immutable. But that is not
what we observe. Physicists observe a mutable Universe. Therefore the
Universe cannot have Existence as part of its Essence, and therefore
it cannot be the source of its own existence. Therefore there must be
a Supreme Being whose Essence is Existence and is the source of the
existence of the Universe.
===
One of the surest ways to start a big argument in philosophy is for
two people to adopt different Worldviews. According to Webster, the
Worldview (aka " Weltanschauung") is
Worldview: a comprehensive conception or apprehension of the world
especially from a specific standpoint
More specifically the Worldview is the epistemological basis, plus its
supporting ontology, for your rational system. It is the set of axioms
about how you view reality. It should be obvious that if your view of
reality is fundamentally different from my view of reality, we can
never argue our points to one another even though we may adhere to
rational arguments within the framework of our separate systems.
The two most promiment Worldview can be understood in terms of
"objectivity" and "subjectivity". We call the Worldview that claims
reality is objective by the name Realism. We call the Worldview that
claims reality is subjective by the name Idealism. I do not pretend to
know everything about Worldviews so I am not going to go any further
with this. But I do know enough to point out that certain rational
systems of thought are based on an objective Realist Worldview (eg,
Physics) and some are based on a subjective Idealist Worldview (eg,
Mathematics).
Physics is based on the Worldview of Objective Realism. There is no
doubt in the mind of the Physicst that electrons actually do exist in
objective reality. If you don't believe that - if you think electrons
are subjective constructs like the tooth fairy, then you will allow
yourself to be hooked up to a high voltage source. After about 1
millisecond you will decidethat electrons are very real.
Mathematics is based on the Worldview of Subjective Idealism. There
are no such things as "numbers" in objective reality. There is no such
thing as a circle in objective reality. If you don't agree, then I
will let you connect me to a number or to a circle. I guarantee that
nothing will happen, because numbers, circles and everything in
Mathematics are subjective constructs that reside completely in the
mind of the Mathematician.
One of the most fundamental axioms of Objective Realism (aka
"Existential Realism") is the Principle of Apprehension of Being. This
is also known as the Authority of the Senses. Something exists in
objective reality precisely because there is something out there that
can affect your senses - like the shock from a high voltage source.
The Apprehension of Being - the awareness of something out there - is
very primitive. A new born infant puts his hand on a hot stove burner
and immediately becomes aware of "something out there". He does not
know what it is, but he definitely knows it is there.
This Principle is not found in Mathematics. There is no "thing out
there" in Mathematics. Everything in Mathematics is contained in your
mind, subjectively. So the very first distinction between Objective
Realism and Subjective Idealism is that Realism adopts the Principle
of Apprehension of Being, and Subjective Idealism does not. This is
critical to deciding on which Worldview you must adopt for any
particular rational system.
Next there is the Principle of Consistency. This is Aristotle's
terminology for the notion of Non-Contradiction. This principle states
that there cannot be both "A" and "Not-A" in existence at the same
time. Either "A" exists or "Not-A" exists. Remember we are talking
about things out there - what we apprehend as Being. Something can
either Be or Not-Be. It cannot both exist and not exist at the same
time.
The third fundamental principle of Existential Realism is the
Principle of Causality. In Physics we realize that without Causality
there could be no Order. The reason is simple - for you to describe
the Order inherent in something, you must connect the ojects by
Causality. If you merely describe objects without connecting them
Causally, then you cannot describe the Order they exhibit because
there is no heirarchy to provide the disctinctions needed to describe
the Order.
Try describing an atom without invoking Causality. You will not be
able to talk about the Order inherent in an atom, in which case you
are forced to describe as a glob of amorphous matter. But we know
better than that because we know that an atom is a highly ordered
entity capable of doing very ordered things, like emitting a photon of
very precise wavelength. That can happen only if an atom is Ordered,
and it can be Ordered only if there is Causality with which to create
the Order based on the heirarchy of cause and effect.
From here we move on to Metaphysics, which is the Science that
explains Being. That is what Aristotle meant by it - the Science of
Existence. But whatever it is, it is critical to realize that it is
based on Physics ("Meta-Physics", after Physics, about Physics) - and
that Physics is based on the Worldview of Existential Realism.
Assuming that you adopt the Worldview of Existential Realism, we can
now present the argument that the Supreme Being exists. In fact we
will also show that the Supreme Being *must* exist or reality would
not exist.
This argument was first given by Thomas Aquinas in his book on
Metaphysics entitled "On Being and Essence". This argument is not
taken from his religious book entitled "Summa Theologica". The famous
"five-fold ways" from the Summa are religious arguments. The arguments
we give below are based on Existential Metaphysics and not on faith.
The Universe is mutable. Not only is that intuitively obvious but it
is codified in Physics. Physics is the science which explains how
physical objects can exist at one moment and can cease to exist at
another. That's what is meant by "mutable" in Existential Metaphysics.
Mutable objects cannot be the cause of their own existence. The reason
requires some thinking, so either put away whatever is distracting you
and pay close attention - or this will go completely over your head.
There are several kinds of causes in Aristotle's Metaphysics. Here we
are talking about the "Efficient Cause", the one which is responsible
for an object to exist in an essential way. If I hit a baseball with a
bat, the bat is the efficient cause of the baseball flying thru the
air.
The baseball cannot spontaneously fly - it does not possess "Flying
Thru The Air" as part of its Essence (its Nature, its Design, its
Internal Construction, its Intrinsic Behavior, etc.). If it did
possess Flying Thru The Air as part of its Essence, then it would
always be Flying Thru The Air - it could never stop Flying Thru The
Air because that is its Nature.
Therefore in order for the baseball to Fly Thru The Air, some separate
object which possesses the Efficient Cause to make the ball Fly Thru
The Air must act on the ball - like a bat. This relationship between
the bat (Cause) and the ball Flying Thru The Air (Effect) is what we
call Causality.
The critical point here is to understand that mutable objects cannot
be the source of their own Existence, because if they were, they would
be forced for all time to be the same thing they were when they were
created.
---
Consider what it means "To Be". Don't get bogged down in what it means
to be a particular kind of being, just focus on the "Act of Being",
the "Act of Existence".
One way to do that is to consider what it means not To Be. You as a
person were once non-existent. What was it like? Of course if you did
not exist you did not have an essence therefore you can't consider
what kind of being you were not. You were not any kind of being when
you did not exist.
OK, now that you have had time to consider Being and NonBeing, do you
get the idea that there must be some kind of entity that has always
existed in order to explain how you and the whole Universe can exist?
You cannot possibly be the cause of your own existence because before
you existed, you did not exist. It would be absurd to claim that a
nonexistent could cause itself to exist.
But even if you existed for all eternity, you still cannot be the
source of your own existence or else you would always be the same kind
of being that you were for all eternity. You could not die, for
example. You could not grow, for example. But that is not how it works
- you will die one day, you did grow from an embryo to an adult.
Therefore you cannot be the source of your own existence.
The same kind of reasoning applies to the Universe as a whole. Whether
the Universe came into being at a moment in time or whether it has
always existed, it is a mutable entity and therefore cannot be the
source of its own existence. If it makes a transition to a new state,
which according to Physics it does constantly, how is this new state
going to be if it was not before? How can this new state come into
existence if it had no existence prior to its coming into existence?
---
Mutable objects cannot have Existence as part of their Essence. Their
Existence must come from a separate entity, one which is the cause of
their existence. This entity causes mutable objects to exist since
mutable objects cannot be the cause of their own existence - or else
they would not be mutable.
The entity that causes mutable objects to exist must itself possess
Existence as its Essence. It is fundamentally different from all other
entities in objective reality. It is the one and only entity that has
Existence as its Essence. If it did not have Existence as part of its
Essence, it would not be able to cause the existence of mutable
objects.
This entity that causes the existence of mutable objects does not
require a cause of its existence because IT IS EXISTENCE. That's what
is meant by saying that its Essence is Existence.
No where in this argument have I mentioned anything about this entity
other than that its Essence is Existence, because we need to have an
entity that causes the existence of mutable objects. No where have I
referred to this entity as God or Supreme Being. Therefore I have not
gone in circles, I have not begged any question.
I started with the Worldview of Existential Realism and a few of its
most fundamental axioms. Then I argued that the mutable objects of
physical reality (the Universe) could not be the cause of their own
existence. Then I argued that some entity must exist that causes these
mutable objects to exist, and that the Essence of this entity must be
Existence itself. This entity is immutable because its Essence is to
Be only one kind of entity, namely Existence. Furthermore, this entity
- called the Supreme Being - *must* exist, or else nothing in reality
would exist. The Supreme Being is known as the Necessary Being.
No real event in Physics has ever violated Causality because it is
literally built in to the laws of Physics. If Causality were violated,
all of Physics as we know it would be invalid and then we would be in
a lot of trouble because all those predicitions we made using that
invalid Physics would also be invalid. That means the world as we
lived in it was one huge lucky happening. Clearly that is absurd.
The first man to walk on the Moon or the first man to build a fission
reactor did not accomplish those tasks by blind luck. They were
carefully planned using the accurate predictions of Physics. Those
predictions were valid because it would be absurd to claim things just
happened that way. Therefore Causality is here to stay - there can be
no extension of Physics where Causality is not valid.
If you want you can claim that the reason the existence of the Supreme
Being is contained in the Worldview of Existential Realism is because
of the Order inherent in the objective world. That Order - Symmetry
-causes objective reality to be a certain kind of reality, one with
the constraints that are imposed by Existential Realism.
The Principle of Apprehension of Being, the Principle of Consistency
and the Principle of Causality all result in constraints on objective
reality. That's what separates the ordered objective world from the
chaotic subjective world. Things in objective reality are constrained
to behave in an Orderly manner - in a Symmetric manner. It is the
Supreme Being who enforces those laws because they are part of what is
meant by Existence. Existence is Ordered, Symmetric.
OK, there you have it - the argument for the necessary existence of
the Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics. And all it required was
for you to adopt the same Worldview that scientists must adopt to be
productive, such as when they put men on the Moon and build nuclear
reactors without vaporizing half of Chicago in the process.
===
Definitions
realism: Belief that universals exist independently of the particulars
that instantiate them. Realists hold that each general term signifies
a real feature or quality, which is numerically the same in all the
things to which that term applies.
metaphysics: Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a
comprehensive account of the most general features of reality as a
whole; the study of being as such. Questions about the existence and
nature of minds, bodies, god, space, time, causality, unity, identity,
and the world are all metaphysical issues.
ontology: Branch of metaphysics concerned with identifying, in the
most general terms, the kinds of things that actually exist. Thus, the
"ontological commitments" of a philosophical position include both its
explicit assertions and its implicit presuppositions about the
existence of entities, substances, or beings of particular kinds.
The Four Causes: Causes of all four sorts are necessary elements in
any adequate account of the existence and nature of the thing,
Aristotle believed, since the absence or modification of any one of
them would result in the existence of a thing of some different sort.
Moreover, an explanation that includes all four causes completely
captures the significance and reality of the thing itself.
The material cause is the basic stuff out of which the thing is made.
The material cause of a house, for example, would include the wood,
metal, glass, and other building materials used in its construction.
All of these things belong in an explanation of the house because it
could not exist unless they were present in its composition.
The formal cause is the pattern or essence in conformity with which
these materials are assembled. Thus, the formal cause of our exemplary
house would be the sort of thing that is represented on a blueprint of
its design. This, too, is part of the explanation of the house, since
its materials would be only a pile of rubble (or a different house) if
they were not put together in this way.
The efficient cause is the agent or force immediately responsible for
bringing this matter and that form together in the production of the
thing. Thus, the efficient cause of the house would include the
carpenters, masons, plumbers, and other workers who used these
materials to build the house in accordance with the blueprint for its
construction. Clearly the house would not be what it is without their
contribution.
The final cause is the end or purpose for which a thing exists, so the
final cause of our house would be to provide shelter for human beings.
This is part of the explanation of the house's existence because it
would never have been built unless someone needed it as a place to
live.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
An atheist visited Isaac Newton and noticed his new toy,
a mechanical model of the Solar System.
"Who made this?", asked the atheist.
"No one", replied Newton.
"But somebody MUST have made it - it couldn't make itself",
said the atheist.
"Why do you believe that about the model, but not about the
real thing?", asked Newton.
.
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
14 Apr 2005 07:00:22 AM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:uMudnS_nXdIsu8PfRVn-gQ@comcast.com...
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On 13 Apr 2005 13:53:02 -0700, "Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
Do you see the Universe? What is the cause of its
existence? [...]
Why do you insist there must be a cause?
Because the essence of the Universe is not Existence. If it were, the
Universe would be immutable. But that is not the case, so the source
of Existence of the Universe must be some other entity, one whose
Essence is Existence.
You've said this countless times before, but you've not explained why
you consider the "essence" of "Existence" as immutability.
So, basically, what you're saying is that because the Universe is
mutable, it cannot have the essence of Existence. Why?
There is a more serious hole in SOB's "arguments" that has been put to him a
few times but he has obviously ignored: There is no such thing as "essence".
You can talk about the properties and nature of things, but "essence" is a
forsaken notion that belongs in the dustbin of the history of philosophy.
Therefore the statements "the essence of the supreme being is existence" and
"the essence of the universe is not existence" are meaningless. And whatever
you may try to infer from such meaningless statements is therefore
meaningless as well.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
12 Apr 2005 09:19:06 AM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
I stated up front that I could prove the necessary existence of the
Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics if and only if you adopt the
Worldview of Existential Realism.
And if we don't?
The Goddess is one alternative. St Ramprasad said that everything which
you see is a projected matrix out of the mind of Kali.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
12 Apr 2005 11:39:20 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:19:06 -0500, Day Brown <daybrown@artelco.com>
wrote:
The Goddess is one alternative. St Ramprasad said that everything which
you see is a projected matrix out of the mind of Kali.
And Hindu mysticism maintains that "mind" is part of the cosmic
illusion, Maya.
Beyond the cosmic illusion, Maya, there is only Self, Atman.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
14 Apr 2005 01:03:42 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 09:19:06 -0500, Day Brown <daybrown@artelco.com>
wrote:
The Goddess is one alternative. St Ramprasad said that everything which
you see is a projected matrix out of the mind of Kali.
And Hindu mysticism maintains that "mind" is part of the cosmic
illusion, Maya.
Beyond the cosmic illusion, Maya, there is only Self, Atman.
Which is a reasonably rational position that the atheists choose to
ignore because the Levantine strawman is so easy to defeat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
14 Apr 2005 04:35:16 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:03:42 -0500, Day Brown <daybrown@artelco.com>
wrote:
And Hindu mysticism maintains that "mind" is part of the cosmic
illusion, Maya.
Beyond the cosmic illusion, Maya, there is only Self, Atman.
Which is a reasonably rational position that the atheists choose to
ignore because the Levantine strawman is so easy to defeat.
I would not go so far as to claim that Hindu Mysticism is "rational".
It is more psychoanalytical than anything.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Incubus" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
11 Apr 2005 03:08:56 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 22:09:08 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Lots of luck with getting people to adopt your Weltanschauung just so you
can prove a case
Does it look like I really give a *****.
you have a priori decided.
Is Physics a priori decided?
It uses the same Worldview, namely Existential Realism.
Science (the science of physics included) is not a worldview, moron, it is
simply any reasonable systematic, logical method of investigation anyone can
come up with to produce proof some statement is true, where proof is simply
the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of a truth, or the process of
establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other statements
in accordance with principles of reasoning.
See www.m-w.com
A correct analysis of Physics lays the foundation for the necessary
existence of the Supreme Being.
Correct analysis of physics? So you are right and the resto of the world is
wrong? If it is in fact correct, then why is it that you have not been awarded
a Nobel Prize for this amazing discovery of the necessity of a Supreme Being
using a correct analysis of physics? Wouldn't this be Earth-shaking news?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
10 Apr 2005 04:32:13 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 04:36:34 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Problem One: Is there really a Universe as it relates to Perception? Or
are
there a Multiverse? In other words, consider the parable of the blind men
and the elephant.
Problem Two: The stated dichotomy between Physics and Mathematics, in
realtion to these examples, theoretically disappears if mathematical
analysis were carried far enough. Both are subjective tools for predicting
causality which is also a subjective concept. (So call me a solipsist as
though that were a refutation.)
Problem Three: So he says, but existence and non-existence are both ideas
of
the same thing. The thing and the idea are not the same. This has been
debated over and over again. But something can exist and not exist at the
same time, because time is a vector.
Problem Four. Since Time is a Vector, how can it be proved that the
moments
of my existence were discrete fom the moments of my non-existence?
Problem Five: How can you assume that I as an psychological entity have a
physical relationship to existence and non-existence? The embryo is a
physical object. Time is a vector that when parsed, modulates a
description
of different aspects of the same phenomenon.
Problem Six: There is no proof being offered that the Universe is a
discrete
Entity.
Problem Seven: I ran out of time to deal with this psuedo-philosophical
argument.
That's because you wasted so much time in pseudo(sic)-philosophical
arguments.
You won't address the caveats because you don't have the intellectual
capacity. All you can do is make fun of the semantics.
I won't address the caveats because none of them apply to my case. I
stated up front that you must adopt the Worldview of Existential
Realism or else I could not prove anything to you. These caveats fail
to meet that requirement, so they are irrelevant to my case.
The concept of Existential Realism do not apply to my case. Therefore,
it is irrelevant.
Wow! Sure is easy to debate with you, SOB! Whatever you don't want to
discuss, you don't. Why the need to talk to you at all if you're not
willing to discuss anything? :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Holbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
18 Apr 2005 04:23:55 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob SOB wrote:
The Universe cannot be the source of its own existence because it is
mutable. Therefore there must be a Supreme Being
whose Essence is
Existence who causes the Universe to exist.
I=B4m not sure whether you regard your "Supreme Being" as something
personal, but, anyway, contemporary scientific cosmology teaches us
that the universe has begun to exist, i.e. it has not always existed.
Causing the universe to exist must have induced some kind of
(non-essential) alteration in the causer, because he/it has not always
had the (historical) property of having created the universe.
So your Supreme Being is not immutable, since what acquires new
properties alters!
This means that your Supreme Being cannot be the source of its own
existence either, because it is mutable too!
Regards
PH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Holbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
18 Apr 2005 04:37:17 PM |
|
|
Paul Holbach wrote:
Sweet Ol' Bob SOB wrote:
The Universe cannot be the source of its own existence
because it is
mutable. Therefore there must be a Supreme Being
whose Essence is
Existence who causes the Universe to exist.
Causing the universe to exist must have induced some kind of
(non-essential) alteration in the causer, because he/it
has not always had the (historical) property of
having created the universe.
And he/it has not always had the property of being the creator of the
universe, since before the act of creation the "Supreme Being" wasn't
the creator of universe.
Definition:
"x is immutable"
:<->
"For all properties P, if a (now) has P, then it has always been the
case that a has P."
"AP(Px -> HPx)" <-> "~EP(Px & ~HPx)"
#PH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
18 Apr 2005 07:35:41 PM |
|
|
On 18 Apr 2005 14:23:55 -0700, "Paul Holbach"
<paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> wrote:
contemporary scientific cosmology teaches us
that the universe has begun to exist, i.e. it has not always existed.
You sound just like one of those experts.
Please tell us your scientific credentials so we can accept your
wisdom without question. How many refereed journal articles have you
published on the topic of "contemporary scientific cosmology"? How
many on the topic of "contemporary unscientific cosmology"?
This means that your Supreme Being cannot be the source of its own
existence either, because it is mutable too!
If you say so, Only problem is that if the Supreme Being does not
exist, neither do you.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel T." |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
11 Apr 2005 06:50:21 AM |
|
|
In article <4256ff1b.33863473@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
(Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote:
The Universe cannot be the source of its own existence because it is
mutable. Therefore there must be a Supreme Being whose Essence is
Existence who causes the Universe to exist.
To understand why the Universe cannot be the source of its own
existence consider what would be the case if it were. For the Universe
to be the source of its own existence, Existence (the act which causes
things to exist) must be part of its Essence.
Universe: the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated.
<www.m-w.com>
God is a thing or phenomena that has been postulated, therefore (by
definition) God is part of the universe. To say that God created the
Universe is to say that He created himself. Nothing can cause itself to
come into being therefore God did not create the universe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
11 Apr 2005 08:37:54 AM |
|
|
Daniel T. wrote:
God is a thing or phenomena that has been postulated, therefore (by
definition) God is part of the universe. To say that God created the
Universe is to say that He created himself. Nothing can cause itself to
come into being therefore God did not create the universe.
Maybe the universe always existed.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
11 Apr 2005 10:23:17 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:37:54 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Maybe the universe always existed.
I believe it did. Aquinas said he had no problem with an eternal
Universe.
I find problems at the Metaphysical level with the Universe if it did
not exist forever. For example, as has been pointed out God cannot act
in time because to do so would be mutable. Therefore since God is the
cause of existence of the Universe, that act of causing the existence
of the Universe would be eternal.
That does not mean that the Universe is immutable. It would, however,
seem to indicate that there is a most fundamental level where the
Universe is a component of Existence - an interface with God - an
immutable substrate.
But that's speculation.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Day Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
12 Apr 2005 09:24:25 AM |
|
|
Daniel T. wrote:
God is a thing or phenomena that has been postulated, therefore (by
definition) God is part of the universe. To say that God created the
Universe is to say that He created himself. Nothing can cause itself to
come into being therefore God did not create the universe.
This is close to the Native European myth in which Chaos is the
primordial substance, and Gaia emerged out of Chaos as a
self-replicating form which evolved to achieve sentience.
At which point She differentiated Herself from Chaos, creating
Maya, the phenomena we see.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
11 Apr 2005 10:19:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:50:21 GMT, "Daniel T."
<postmaster@earthlink.net> wrote:
God is a thing or phenomena that has been postulated, therefore (by
definition) God is part of the universe. To say that God created the
Universe is to say that He created himself. Nothing can cause itself to
come into being therefore God did not create the universe.
You almost had it but then you succumbed to your anti-religious
bigotry.
Leave religion at the doorstep when you engage in Metaphysical
specualtion.
"God is part of the Universe". Two comments:
1) God is not the entire Universe or vice versa. That would be
Pantheism which we reject for any number of reasons.
2) At the most fundamental level of the Universe, where Existence
resides, there has to be some kind of interface with God. I believe
that Existence has a material component built into it and it connects
to the Universe at this level. But that is pure speculation on my
part.
For example, what causes the existence of the Zero Point fluctuations
of the Vacuum? All the particles and their forces are created from
those fluctuations, so we have a workable model of all the real
particles and forces. But what about the Vacuum itself?
Is there a more fundamental level than the Vacuum? Very likely. But
eventually we have to come to the most fundamental level, the one we
cannot go beyond because it is the most fundamental. What is the cause
of that level? The answer is that God causes it and therefore I
believe that the interface between God and that level is a
manifestation of Existence. IOW built into Existence is this level
that causes the Universe to exist and that level has divine components
precisely because it has components of Existence. This is the
Supernatural Order which is characterized by Symmetry - the place
where "It's are bits".
End of speculation.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
11 Apr 2005 10:33:13 AM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
1) God is not the entire Universe or vice versa. That would be
Pantheism which we reject for any number of reasons.
Any number? Can you provide 57 reasons for rejected Pantheism.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
11 Apr 2005 03:27:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:33:13 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
1) God is not the entire Universe or vice versa. That would be
Pantheism which we reject for any number of reasons.
Any number? Can you provide 57 reasons for rejected Pantheism.
The number is uncomputable which makes it unknowable and random.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
11 Apr 2005 03:34:32 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
The number is uncomputable which makes it unknowable and random.
You said "any number". I gave you the number 57. Now provide 57 reasons
or admit that what you said was in error.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
11 Apr 2005 04:08:43 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:34:32 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
The number is uncomputable which makes it unknowable and random.
You said "any number". I gave you the number 57. Now provide 57 reasons
or admit that what you said was in error.
That's your number, you give the reasons.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
12 Apr 2005 10:17:06 AM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob SOB wrote:
[...]
2) At the most fundamental level of the Universe,
where Existence resides, there has to be some kind
of interface with God. [...]
Why?
I believe that Existence has a material component
built into it and it connects to the Universe at this
level. But that is pure speculation on my part. [...]
Yes, pure speculation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
12 Apr 2005 11:36:17 AM |
|
|
On 12 Apr 2005 08:17:06 -0700, "Dave" <galt_57@hotmail.com> wrote:
2) At the most fundamental level of the Universe,
where Existence resides, there has to be some kind
of interface with God. [...]
Why?
Existence is an Act. It acts on the Universe to cause it to exist. I
believe that this action occurs at the most fundamental level of the
Universe.
I believe that Existence has a material component
built into it and it connects to the Universe at this
level. But that is pure speculation on my part. [...]
Yes, pure speculation.
Indeed.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
12 Apr 2005 12:47:38 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
Existence is an Act. It acts on the Universe to cause it to exist. I
believe that this action occurs at the most fundamental level of the
Universe.
It would seem to make more sense that existence is a state, rather than an
act. A change of state from non-existence to existence would be an event.
If at least some events can be uncaused then there is no obvious reason to
conclude that the existence of the universe requires a cause.
So, do you have any reason to suppose that all events require a cause?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
12 Apr 2005 02:56:00 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:47:38 +0100, "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com>
wrote:
Existence is an Act. It acts on the Universe to cause it to exist. I
believe that this action occurs at the most fundamental level of the
Universe.
It would seem to make more sense that existence is a state, rather than an
act.
You will have to describe what you mean by "state". What is it a state
of? How can a state be the source of existence of something?
A change of state from non-existence to existence would be an event.
If at least some events can be uncaused then there is no obvious reason to
conclude that the existence of the universe requires a cause.
So, do you have any reason to suppose that all events require a cause?
All events involving finite mutable objects require a cause. Otherwise
events would not exhibit Order.
Existential Metaphysics is the science which analyses and describes
concrete existence as the act of a freedom which constitutes itself by
asserting itself.
When you apprehend Being, it manifests itself by asserting itself - it
acts on your senses.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
12 Apr 2005 03:03:43 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
Existential Metaphysics is the science which analyses and describes
concrete existence as the act of a freedom which constitutes itself by
asserting itself.
When you apprehend Being, it manifests itself by asserting itself - it
acts on your senses.
You are typing in Tongues.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
12 Apr 2005 06:45:16 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:03:43 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Existential Metaphysics is the science which analyses and describes
concrete existence as the act of a freedom which constitutes itself by
asserting itself.
When you apprehend Being, it manifests itself by asserting itself - it
acts on your senses.
You are typing in Tongues.
An infant touches a hot stove burner. Immediately he knows there is
"something out there" (Being). That's because the burner asserted
itself by acting on the infant's senses.
The infant apprehends Being ("something out there") without the use of
intellect. He does not know what it is - only that there is "something
out there".
This is the simplest way to describe the apprehension of Being. No
complex theoretical constructs that only half a dozen academics know
or care about. Everyone can relate to this meaning of Being - even an
infant.
No tongues involved.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
12 Apr 2005 10:55:30 PM |
|
|
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:03:43 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
<nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote:
Existential Metaphysics is the science which analyses and describes
concrete existence as the act of a freedom which constitutes itself by
asserting itself.
When you apprehend Being, it manifests itself by asserting itself - it
acts on your senses.
You are typing in Tongues.
An infant touches a hot stove burner. Immediately he knows there is
"something out there" (Being). That's because the burner asserted
itself by acting on the infant's senses.
How can the burner assert itself? Are you anthropomorphizing the
burner? The burner is not alive. It has no sentience. It cannot
distinguish between right and wrong. There is no "Morality of the Burner".
The infant was burned because the burner was hot. Hot causes a chemical
reaction with the infant's skin. It causes the skin to blister and it
sends electrical signals up the infant's arm and into his brain. The
brain then responds with a pain reflex and the infant yanks hand hand away.
There is no "assertion" going on here. There is no "Being". There is
only a chemical and electrical reaction.
The infant apprehends Being ("something out there") without the use of
intellect. He does not know what it is - only that there is "something
out there".
Yeah, because the hot burned his hand. Hot = Pain. Pain = Not nice.
This is the simplest way to describe the apprehension of Being. No
complex theoretical constructs that only half a dozen academics know
or care about. Everyone can relate to this meaning of Being - even an
infant.
Well, if you term "Being" as anything out there, then yes, it's a
"Being". But that doesn't mean anything... AT ALL. You're just
clouding it with your theistic mumbo jumbo.
No tongues involved.
Unless the infant touched his tongue to the burner. YEOWCH!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
13 Apr 2005 09:34:19 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:55:30 -0700, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
An infant touches a hot stove burner. Immediately he knows there is
"something out there" (Being). That's because the burner asserted
itself by acting on the infant's senses.
How can the burner assert itself?
By transferring heat.
Are you anthropomorphizing the
burner? The burner is not alive. It has no sentience. It cannot
distinguish between right and wrong. There is no "Morality of the Burner".
Geeezuz Fucking H Cheeerist! How ***** moronic.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
13 Apr 2005 12:17:25 PM |
|
|
(Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote in
news:425d2cf5.6367716@news-server.houston.rr.com:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:55:30 -0700, DanielSan
<daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote:
An infant touches a hot stove burner. Immediately he knows there is
"something out there" (Being). That's because the burner asserted
itself by acting on the infant's senses.
How can the burner assert itself?
By transferring heat.
So it's not "Apprehension of Being" after all, it's "Transfer of Heat".
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sweet Ol Bob SOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
13 Apr 2005 01:52:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:17:25 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
An infant touches a hot stove burner. Immediately he knows there is
"something out there" (Being). That's because the burner asserted
itself by acting on the infant's senses.
How can the burner assert itself?
By transferring heat.
So it's not "Apprehension of Being" after all, it's "Transfer of Heat".
The statement for Physics is "transfer of heat"
The statement for Metaphyics is "apprehension of being".
Metaphysics is based on Physics.
--
Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable
one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-- George Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Supreme Being of Existential Metaphysics |
13 Apr 2005 02:34:04 PM |
|
|
(Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB)) wrote in
news:425d6a0f.22010229@news-server.houston.rr.com:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:17:25 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
An infant touches a hot stove burner. Immediately he knows there
is "something out there" (Being). That's because the burner
asserted itself by acting on the infant's senses.
How can the burner assert itself?
By transferring heat.
So it's not "Apprehension of Being" after all, it's "Transfer of
Heat".
The statement for Physics is "transfer of heat"
The statement for Metaphyics is "apprehension of being".
Metaphysics is based on Physics.
Nice weasel you got there.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
