|
Post by Satori on Mar 22, 2005 16:48:38 GMT -5
Bob, I may start believing in miracles because you have posted something there that I agree with 100%: That pretty much sums up the Buddhist viewpoint. I think I'll have to disagree with the dash in the middle of that sentence as I'm not sure my reputation could take it if word got out that we'd totally agreed on something. JIt is interesting that you raise the question of imagination in conjecturing a straight line. As an empiricist, I think you would find it nearly impossible to show how through the senses we can ever come up with an idea of a straight line -- there are no straight lines in the world sensible to us. I mean no real, geometrically straight lines. How did this knowledge come to us? Er, through thought and imagination Bob. Just because a perfect straight line doesn't exist in reality it doesn't mean that we can't conceive of one. Authors, for example, conceive of things that don't exist for a living. I agree (again!) but probably not for the same reasons you do. Perfection - in the universal sense - is already here because nothing else can possibly be here except for what is. We see it when we stop craving for things to be different than they are.
|
|
|
Post by Electron on Mar 23, 2005 15:42:23 GMT -5
You cannot use the ontological argument to prove anything other than God because God is mutually exclusive -- there is no one or nothing else that is perfect in every way. Anything made of matter is imperfect - at some point I can find a setback with it. Electron - same applies with your unicorn analysis. One unicorn just isn't enough. Hold on a minute - one eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent Unicorn isn't enough? I can see what you're thinking, but it's no use at all in dispelling the IPU - she shares all the properties of god, except for her all edged appearance and preferences. How can you counter that I wonder? Instead of being worshiped or feared it is known that she likes effigies to be made of her and... (insert any number of one-for-one corresponding egotistical attributes ascribed to Yahweh in here). The IPU reminds us that Yahweh is an arbitrary personification of a mental concept of something that cannot exist in reality i.e. perfection. Neither personification lends any credence to the notion of god, neither is more valid - irrespective of unsupported testimony offered by the faithful.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Mar 23, 2005 21:10:59 GMT -5
I agree with Electron.
And one other thing. Bob: you seem to have completely ignored my post in which I said that it is irrelevant whether or not the unicorn is "perfect" (whatever that means); the original argument was that we are capable of imagining things which aren't real (such as unicorns, as one example); therefore, we could also imagine an imaginary god. That was the argument.
You have now switched your course and started to talk about the unicorn analogy as if it is perfection that was the issue. It isn't. And even if it was, Electron's answer refutes this as well, so you no longer have a case.
|
|
jtoro
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Post by jtoro on Mar 24, 2005 16:56:52 GMT -5
have Jtoro, I don't care how nice your island is, if its too small you can't fit as many people on it as I could on my infinite-sized island = an infinite # of people. In other words, if I have something that is good, then more of that good is more good = i.e., more perfect. The island is not the greatest good because an infinite-sized island cannot exist. Thus, I can postulate (as did Socrates) that there exists a perfect Good by which we can know all "lesser" goods. You cannot use the ontological argument to prove anything other than God because God is mutually exclusive -- there is no one or nothing else that is perfect in every way. Anything made of matter is imperfect - at some point I can find a setback with it. Bobarian, you have yet to show me why my island is not perfect just because it can, in theory, grow. What is your evidence for believing that bigger is necessarilly more perfect. Who says (besides you-you absurd man) that having an infinite number of people is better or more pefect? What if one of the people that YOU add to my isalnd is a serial killer who disrupts the status quo of MY PERFECT island? As to your claim,"if I have something that is good, then more of that good is more good," this is simply an oversimplification. You are analyzing good in the wrong way as you do so in a quantitative sense, while you should analyze the good in a qualitative sense. Why? because claiming something is good is essentially a value statement. More good (quantity) does not necessarilly lead to more good (quality). E.g., I like red wine- it is GOOD(quality). This red wine provides salutory benefits as well as many others, but if I drink too much of it (quantity) then I end up with an array of problems such as brain and liver damage. So, see, more of a good thing isn't necessarilly still good. Focus on quality, not quantity. In sum, just because my island could get bigger, hold more people, etc, doesn't necesarilly mean that enlarging it makes it more perfect; infact, as I've said, it could degenerate it.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Mar 28, 2005 22:07:08 GMT -5
Jtoro- No. Your island is still less than perfect because if I have all entirely good people who will only live in harmony (which I can postulate in philosophy and I have to tell them, "I'm sorry, but the island's not big enough", then I can see a way to make your island better: increase its size. Here's the thing: (I am responding to Shiggy here too). I am arguing simply that the reason you cannot cross-apply the analogy of God to any imaginative thing is because the definition of the ontological argument is simply that God is perfect and no greater being than Him can be conceived. I am saying that you cannot say that of anythin else, because at the point that you postulate anything, I can imagine something better. Electron- The problem with your omnipresent unicorn is that I assume that since it is made of matter, and omnipresent, then there would be no room for us to exist, and I would personally have a problem with that. The only way to make your ominipresent and eternal unicorn "perfect" would be to make it invisible, as well -- and voila, we are back at the definition of God (except that God in your book is a unicorn-type of being. Fine. Whatever.) I personally don't really like this argument very much, I am much more in favor of Aquinas' first cause argument, it makes much more sense and is easier to define. But I think this argument makes a valid point: where could we have gotten the knowledge of God outside of God? (that's essentially the whole argument in a nutshell. See Descarte's Discourse on Method.)
|
|
|
Post by Electron on Mar 31, 2005 12:26:02 GMT -5
Electron- The only way to make your ominipresent and eternal unicorn "perfect" would be to make it invisible, as well -- and voila, we are back at the definition of God (except that God in your book is a unicorn-type of being. Fine. Whatever.) Indeed, she is invisible: www.invisiblepinkunicorn.com/ So according to you she is just as valid in playing the role of god as Yahweh or any other diety. So are we agreed that the personification of god is an arbitrary human construct? I personally don't really like this argument very much, I am much more in favor of Aquinas' first cause argument, it makes much more sense and is easier to define. Aquinas' argument is flawed... (from members.aol.com/kiekeben/firstcause.html)But I think this argument makes a valid point: where could we have gotten the knowledge of God outside of God? (that's essentially the whole argument in a nutshell. See Descarte's Discourse on Method.) So is Descartes. Because he can think of something more perfect than himself (i.e. God), he concludes that God exists and put the idea in his head... (from: easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/prel1.htm)
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Mar 31, 2005 13:10:42 GMT -5
Aquinas ... Descartes ... philosophers from the 13th and 16th/17th centuries respectively.
I think we have to take a lot of their philosophy in the context of the era in which it was written. I'm not sure of it's usefulness now. What might have seemed like a good idea to them at the time most probably wouldn't today.
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Mar 31, 2005 16:42:01 GMT -5
Electron -
You are absolutely right. Apart from special revelation, I have no way of knowing what kind of God God is (well, at least with the ontological argument.) He could be a God with the personality of Bing Crosby for all I know. In philosophy, you cannot prove that the Christian God exists. You can only prove that there something out there independent of natural phenomena who is the reason for natural phenomena. We can't really say what or who it is.
Aquinas' argument does go further, but he does start from a different base - a posteriori argument. Basically, his argument relies on evidence, as opposed to Descartes, who relied on his own brain. Sidenote - I don't really understand what that abstract from the philosophy text is about. If you could give a commentary on the actual text it would be more interesting. What Descartes actually says is that he can sure that everything he knows is imperfect because he can find something wrong with it -- regardless of how the ideas were implanted in his mind. But he cannot explain, then, how he got the idea of perfection - or the ultimate Good, if you will.
That objection doesn't do justice to Aquinas' argument. I would recommend reading Summa Contra Gentiles to get the real thing yourself (and a commentary on the text would be probably very helpful.) Aquinas actually doesn't say that God is the first cause, he says that God is the first mover. If motion exists, then there had to be something that caused that motion. An infinite chain of causes cannot exist (for many reasons. just think about it.) Thus there had to an original unmoved mover. In the words of Aquinas, "this we call God." So, using Aquinas' argument, the Big Bang would be merely God's way of creating the world. Also, God would have to be intelligent, etc. because if there were two objects acting on another, the first would have to be greater then the second (the law of entropy.) So, if intelligent beings exist, such as us, then God would have to be the Supreme Intelligent being.
Aquinas postulates a lot of stuff from his motion-motion argument. Its really quite interesting.
But that does not take the place of faith, which Aquinas regards very highly. Reason is limited, and it can only prove certain things. But it can defend objections to faith.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Apr 1, 2005 1:45:45 GMT -5
Reason is limited, and it can only prove certain things. But it can defend objections to faith. Although not successfully from what I've seen.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Apr 1, 2005 19:36:54 GMT -5
In my experience reason only ever seems to seriously discredit faith. That's the whole reason I no longer believe in Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Apr 2, 2005 4:26:03 GMT -5
In my experience reason only ever seems to seriously discredit faith. That's the whole reason I no longer believe in Christianity. Well my own views on that depend upon what one means by ' believe in Christianity'. Taken from a literalist point of view, I'd have to agree that I ' don't believe' in it as such and I guess many people would say that there's no other way to 'believe' in Christianity. But from what I can gather, the message Jesus himself tried to portray was a good one - it focussed beyond the craving for material possessions, generally preached a peaceful existence, seemed to preach equality and, I think, it was generally a good, wholesome message. I think that a lot of the 'bad things' that Christianity has done are the work of people abusing their power within the church and simply not following the message of Jesus. If more people had followed the so-called 'Golden Rule' of ' whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them' then I think the world would be a better place.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Apr 2, 2005 8:32:00 GMT -5
I agree with you, I guess, but lately I feel a bit more relativist than to go so far as to call anything "good" (and thereby conveying the idea of absolute good/evil actually existing, as I'm not sure I believe it does).
Yeah, Jesus was ok, but then so are lots of other people. I don't know if he was really that special.
|
|
|
Post by Electron on Apr 3, 2005 11:58:04 GMT -5
Bobarian > Descartes idea boils down to saying nothing more than "for something to pop into my mind means that it must exist beforehand". You'll have to pardon me for viewing this as a non-sequiter. The human imagination is credited with being the vital evolutionary step which propelled us towards becoming a technologically adept species. The ability to model "what might be" in our minds gives us the power to plan and take action to achieve an obective. It is nonsense to suggest that we could not conceive of perfection if perfection was non-existent anywhere. As it happens electrons are all perfect - they are completely indistinguishable from each other. Indeed some have pondered whether they might all be the same one
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Apr 4, 2005 22:30:01 GMT -5
No, Descartes did not say that. What he said was that he could doubt all else except the ideas in his mind; however, he could not even be sure of them. They could have been implanted by an evil genius, and so everything he knows could be wrong. Except, of course, the idea of perfection could not come from any source other than God, because perfection is something other than what is found in the material world, or any imperfect thing (such as an evil genius.) Thus, if he has the idea of perfection (or infinity), it could only be a God-given concept, because there is no other way it could be conceived.
Evolution does not produce the idea of perfection. In fact, the idea of perfection is fundamentally opposed to a naturalistic evolution, because if we did merely evolve from matter, then we would have to accept matter as all that there is. Yet few (if any) people (with the exception of Satori and his Buddhist comrades) would say that the now is perfect - instead they look to the future, to possible change, the ideal. Nothing in evolution suggests an ideal - in fact, it is an entirely unrealistic prospect evolutionally and thus those who believe in it should have been killed off by now.
|
|
|
Post by Satori on Apr 5, 2005 2:50:17 GMT -5
No, Descartes did not say that. What he said was that he could doubt all else except the ideas in his mind; however, he could not even be sure of them. They could have been implanted by an evil genius, and so everything he knows could be wrong. Except, of course, the idea of perfection could not come from any source other than God, because perfection is something other than what is found in the material world, or any imperfect thing (such as an evil genius.) Thus, if he has the idea of perfection (or infinity), it could only be a God-given concept, because there is no other way it could be conceived. It's a strange hypothesis and no mistake, riddled with holes don't you think? I mean, the idea that perfection could only come from God could have been implanted by the 'evil genius' to fool him into thinking there's something other than the material world. Descartes' flaw - in terms of logic - is in making an exception to the rule of what could and could not have implanted by the evil genius. That makes it inconsistent and open to more than just philosophical criticism. Interesting though. That's a very good summary of one of the major causes of craving Bob. I really ought to clarify this 'perfect' that we bandy about so that there's no confusion. I don't mean that there's no room for improvement in social structures, peoples lives, law, justice, distribution of wealth, loving-kindness and all the other human perceptions about how things can be improved. The point is that the universe itself has none of the concepts we do - they're merely human conceptualisations and labels. The idea of perfection from a human point of view will never be achieved and we know that from experience: no matter what we acquire or gain, the goalposts shift and something else becomes the next thing to crave. But the universe - existence - is simply what it is; it can be nothing else other than what it is at the moment; the universe is perfect because it can be nothing else; it can be nothing 'less' or 'more' than it is at this moment. Perception and reality are often two very different things.
|
|