(Originally written May 8, 2007 in Book 25)
Soul
There are many theories about the soul that are dualistic, but there are a few that are not.
Thomas Hobbes believed that man was purely physical.
Bishop Berkeley believed that the physical nature was essentially soul.
Plato - essence of man is his soul, which is trapped in the body
Descartes
- Dualist, but not as strict as Plato
- Believed the soul and body interacted
Problems: implied that there is a specific center between physical and soul
How can extended and unextended substances interact?
Augustine
- Soul and physical men make up whole man
- somewhat Platonic
- Believed the soul was immortal
- Soul gives life to the body
Nemesius
- Platonic
- Soul not just a part of a composite man
- Soul is an intelligible substance, incorporeal substance
Problem: if man is a soul that uses the body, what is the body?
Bible rules out some theories:
1. Materialism (Hobbes)
2. Spiritualism (Berkeley) [Not Really]
3. Strict Dualism
Aristotle
- Everything has four causes:
1. Final
2. Material
3. Formal
4. Efficient
Man:
- Soul is the formal Cause
- Mom and Dad is the efficient cause
- Flesh & bones is the material cause
- Happiness is the final cause
Soul is the form of man. Soul is inextricable from the body.
Aristotle's theory allows for a separation of mind and body
Aristotle's theory allows for a separation of mind and body
Does not have the Cartesian problems.
Allows man to be physical and spiritual
His theory is Biblically justifiable
Thomas Aquinas
Soul is the form of man, but differed from Aristotle
God: Ideals -> Exemplar Cause:
- Efficient
- Formal
- Material
- Final
Soul distinguish us from animals.
Soul is not the motor of the body
Soul is indestructible (similar to Plato)
Antony Flew objected:
Why is the new Flew better than the original Flew (post-return of Christ/resurrection of the body)?
Thomas' questions
1. Is the soul a body?
2. Is the soul a man or is the man composite of body and soul?
3. Is the soul composed of matter and form?
4. Is the intellectual principle united to the body as a form?
5. Is the intellectual principle multiplied according to the bodies or a single collective mind?
The soul is moved accidentally, but the body is moved essentially.
The soul is the first principle of life.
The soul is not a body, but is the act of a body.
The intellect is the form of the body. It is separate, but it still exists in matter. The intellect can be united with the body but not an act of the body.
How can the soul influence the body?
Way of power relation:
How does the pot hold the clay together? Power relation. There is no mechanism that holds it together, but it does. So it is how the soul influences the body.
Man: Shape, vegetative soul, sensitive soul and rational soul are the form of man
The soul and body are aspects of the single substance that is man.
String Theory?
Showing posts with label Flew. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Flew. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Bliks & Other such things
(Originally written April 26, 2007 in Book 25)
Class Notes
Plantinga views this problem as a purely logical inconsistency. Thus, any coherent dissolving of the apparent inconsistency is sufficient. Plantinga uses transworld depravity to dissolve the inconsistency.
Verification principle: a sentence is only meaningful if and only if a sentence, in principle, is verifiable by empirical evidence.
Falsification: (Antony Flew) in order to be a meaningful statement, a statement must be, at least in principle, falsifiable.
God loves us as a Father loves his children. According to Flew this is a meaningless statement because we have many experiences that do not fit nicely with this statement.
The fact that believers allow nothing to count against God's love shows that their language is unfalsifiable and therefore, meaningless.
R. M. Hare
Blik - an unfalsifiable statement that is an assumption that you cannot change.
Hare asserts that Flew is correct on the grounds that he states, but has completely misunderstood religious language.
Hare asserts that when Christians hold that God loves us as a Father they are not making factual assertions, they are assuming bliks.
Basil Mitchell
The parable of the stranger: the leader of the resistance movement will sometimes be seen resisting and sometimes fighting against the resistance. We have to assume that no matter what, the stranger knows best.
Mitchell asserts that God loves us as a Father despite events that seem to contradict that statement.
Thus, what he believes is in principle, falsifiable. He simply does not allow the events to falsify his beliefs.
Mitchell concedes to Flew that believers normally do not allow evidence to falsify their beliefs, but they do feel the tension of the seeming inconsistency between evil and a loving God.
Class Notes
Plantinga views this problem as a purely logical inconsistency. Thus, any coherent dissolving of the apparent inconsistency is sufficient. Plantinga uses transworld depravity to dissolve the inconsistency.
Verification principle: a sentence is only meaningful if and only if a sentence, in principle, is verifiable by empirical evidence.
Falsification: (Antony Flew) in order to be a meaningful statement, a statement must be, at least in principle, falsifiable.
God loves us as a Father loves his children. According to Flew this is a meaningless statement because we have many experiences that do not fit nicely with this statement.
The fact that believers allow nothing to count against God's love shows that their language is unfalsifiable and therefore, meaningless.
R. M. Hare
Blik - an unfalsifiable statement that is an assumption that you cannot change.
Hare asserts that Flew is correct on the grounds that he states, but has completely misunderstood religious language.
Hare asserts that when Christians hold that God loves us as a Father they are not making factual assertions, they are assuming bliks.
Basil Mitchell
The parable of the stranger: the leader of the resistance movement will sometimes be seen resisting and sometimes fighting against the resistance. We have to assume that no matter what, the stranger knows best.
Mitchell asserts that God loves us as a Father despite events that seem to contradict that statement.
Thus, what he believes is in principle, falsifiable. He simply does not allow the events to falsify his beliefs.
Mitchell concedes to Flew that believers normally do not allow evidence to falsify their beliefs, but they do feel the tension of the seeming inconsistency between evil and a loving God.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Philosophy of Religion - Hick: Ch. 7
(Originally written April 19, 2007 in Book 7)
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
Chapter 7 - The Problem of Verification
The Question of Verifiability
Christianity and Judaism have always assumed that their assertions have a cognitive, factual basis.
According to logical positivism, to be able to be either true or false a statement must be meaningful. A statement is meaningful if it has a factual or cognitive meaning. It is meaningful if it is, at least in principle, verifiable.
John Wisdom held that the atheist and theist do not disagree about the empirical facts, but react in different ways to the facts. Under this method, Wisdom held that it is wrong-headed to claim that either is right or wrong.
Santayana held that religions are not true or false, but better or worse.
Wisdom points out that neither theism nor atheism is verifiable.
Antony Flew posed the question, "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?"
Two Suggested Solutions:
R.M. Hare introduced the notion of bliss in response to Flew. Hare claims that a blink is an unverifiable and non-falsifiable interpretation of one's experience.
A blik is not open to question. It is accepted no matter what the evidence is.
Hare distinguishes between a sane black and an insane blink.
A problem with this is that if bliss are by nature non-verifiableand unfalsifiable they cannot be distinguished from one another.
Basil Mitchell answered Flew that religious beliefs are genuinely factual in nature, but not straight-forwardly verifiable or falsifiable.
While Hare states that nothing can count against a blink, Mitchell maintains that things may count against a religious belief, but that faith bridges the gap.
Mitchell focuses on the similarity between religious and ordinary beliefs.
Mitchell uses the idea of eschatological verification.
The Idea of eschatological verification:
A verification of a factual assertion is different than a logical demonstration of it.
Just because a proposition is in principal verifiable, it does not follow that it will ever be verified.
A proposition may be in principle verifiable, but not in principle falsifiable.
The idea of a continued conscious existence after bodily death is a proposition that is verifiable in principal, but not falsifiable in principle. It may be false, but it cannot be known as a false statement via experience.
The universe as seen by the theists is totally different as the universe the atheists sees because of the notion of eschatological verification.
Some Difficulties and Complications
The notion that it makes sense to speak of continued existence after death is not rendered verifiable by a belief in God.
The continued existence of a dead man in a new universe in a new body does not prove the existence of a loving God.
Our present environment is religiously ambiguous.
There are difficulties in a finite creature claiming to have seen and recognized an infinite creature.
"Exists", "Fact", and "Real"
What does it mean to ask, Does God exist?
This is not a problem for any proponent of non cognitive religious language.
For the theist, the notion of God's existence is factual and thus, problematic.
Philosophy of Religion
John H. Hick
Chapter 7 - The Problem of Verification
The Question of Verifiability
Christianity and Judaism have always assumed that their assertions have a cognitive, factual basis.
According to logical positivism, to be able to be either true or false a statement must be meaningful. A statement is meaningful if it has a factual or cognitive meaning. It is meaningful if it is, at least in principle, verifiable.
John Wisdom held that the atheist and theist do not disagree about the empirical facts, but react in different ways to the facts. Under this method, Wisdom held that it is wrong-headed to claim that either is right or wrong.
Santayana held that religions are not true or false, but better or worse.
Wisdom points out that neither theism nor atheism is verifiable.
Antony Flew posed the question, "What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or the existence of, God?"
Two Suggested Solutions:
R.M. Hare introduced the notion of bliss in response to Flew. Hare claims that a blink is an unverifiable and non-falsifiable interpretation of one's experience.
A blik is not open to question. It is accepted no matter what the evidence is.
Hare distinguishes between a sane black and an insane blink.
A problem with this is that if bliss are by nature non-verifiableand unfalsifiable they cannot be distinguished from one another.
Basil Mitchell answered Flew that religious beliefs are genuinely factual in nature, but not straight-forwardly verifiable or falsifiable.
While Hare states that nothing can count against a blink, Mitchell maintains that things may count against a religious belief, but that faith bridges the gap.
Mitchell focuses on the similarity between religious and ordinary beliefs.
Mitchell uses the idea of eschatological verification.
The Idea of eschatological verification:
A verification of a factual assertion is different than a logical demonstration of it.
Just because a proposition is in principal verifiable, it does not follow that it will ever be verified.
A proposition may be in principle verifiable, but not in principle falsifiable.
The idea of a continued conscious existence after bodily death is a proposition that is verifiable in principal, but not falsifiable in principle. It may be false, but it cannot be known as a false statement via experience.
The universe as seen by the theists is totally different as the universe the atheists sees because of the notion of eschatological verification.
Some Difficulties and Complications
The notion that it makes sense to speak of continued existence after death is not rendered verifiable by a belief in God.
The continued existence of a dead man in a new universe in a new body does not prove the existence of a loving God.
Our present environment is religiously ambiguous.
There are difficulties in a finite creature claiming to have seen and recognized an infinite creature.
"Exists", "Fact", and "Real"
What does it mean to ask, Does God exist?
This is not a problem for any proponent of non cognitive religious language.
For the theist, the notion of God's existence is factual and thus, problematic.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Class notes on God as a causal agent
(Originally written March 26, 2007 in Book 25)
Class Notes
Objections to God as a direct causal agent
1. Laws of nature cannot be violated; miracles are a violation
2. If miracles can occur, God would be changeable
3. Miracles are correctives to our understanding of the laws of nature, not violations of the laws
4. Miracles are not rationally believed in
5. Providence violates the the simplicity of God
6. God is eternal, how can an infinite God contain a finite attribute?
7. If God has to intervene in what he created to fix it it implies a defect in his creation
8. Miracles can be explained by natural occurrences; we just don't understand them
9. Miracles are always a result of natural causes
10. How can a non-physical being directly cause a physical change
11. If God is directly intervening in the world, and there is evil in the world, then God is not good.
12. Anomalies in nature do not prove direct intervention
13. Miracles intervene in human freedom
14. Every actualization of a potential through an immediate contingent cause; therefore, a remote cause is not necessary
15. If God governed directly it would destroy the perfection of the causal order
16. If God is outside of time but his causal action would have to be inside of time
Divine Providence and Miracles
Is God a direct causal agent in the world?
Views of God's interaction:
Classical theology
Deist
Neo-Thomism (primary cause working through secondary causes)
Kenotic God (limiting his power willingly)
Existential theology
Linguistic theology
Process theology
Neo-Thomism and Divine Providence
God as an end for everything
Action <- Man <- God
Miracles
- an effect in the physical world that surpasses all known human powers and beyond natural powers
Objection to miracles
- Principle of uniformity
Spinoza:
1. Miracles are a violation of natural laws
2. Natural laws are immutable
3. It is impossible for immutable laws to be violated
4. Therefore, miracles are impossible
Hume, Kant and Flew all argued agains miracles based on the principle of uniformity
God can't do anything against nature
Evidence for miracles is scarce and unpredictable by nature
God cannot violate the law of nature because the law of nature stems from God. So any violation of the law of nature is a violation of God's personal nature.
What is a secondary cause?
Could quantum mechanics explain God's intervening in human/natural affairs?
God effects the secondary cause (quantum mechanics) in effecting the probability at the molecular level.
Problems with this is that new technology is discovered accounting for previously unexplainable events.
Antony Flew
Science:
- Laws from observation
- Limited to this method by definition
Unexplained events are either miracles (outside of science) or anomaly (inside of science)
No unexplained event can ever be considered a miracle. At worst it is a not yet explained anomaly.
Are miracles possible?
Are miracles knowable?
Are miracles recognizable?
Hume critiqued miracles on the basis of whether they are knowable. Flew critiqued miracles on rather they are recognizable.
Superseding Miracles - where the laws of nature are superseded, direct action by God
Constellation Miracle - no law of nature is violated, but many circumstances come together in such away that they could have occurred by accident is less probable than it occurring by divine intervention
Reasonable presumption - reasonableness of a presumption
Worldview
If you do not have a worldview favorable to theism then you will not be convinced of miracles existing.
Circumstances, reasonable presumption and whether or not divine agency is the best explanation for the event all play a part in regarding something as a miracle.
Class Notes
Objections to God as a direct causal agent
1. Laws of nature cannot be violated; miracles are a violation
2. If miracles can occur, God would be changeable
3. Miracles are correctives to our understanding of the laws of nature, not violations of the laws
4. Miracles are not rationally believed in
5. Providence violates the the simplicity of God
6. God is eternal, how can an infinite God contain a finite attribute?
7. If God has to intervene in what he created to fix it it implies a defect in his creation
8. Miracles can be explained by natural occurrences; we just don't understand them
9. Miracles are always a result of natural causes
10. How can a non-physical being directly cause a physical change
11. If God is directly intervening in the world, and there is evil in the world, then God is not good.
12. Anomalies in nature do not prove direct intervention
13. Miracles intervene in human freedom
14. Every actualization of a potential through an immediate contingent cause; therefore, a remote cause is not necessary
15. If God governed directly it would destroy the perfection of the causal order
16. If God is outside of time but his causal action would have to be inside of time
Divine Providence and Miracles
Is God a direct causal agent in the world?
Views of God's interaction:
Classical theology
Deist
Neo-Thomism (primary cause working through secondary causes)
Kenotic God (limiting his power willingly)
Existential theology
Linguistic theology
Process theology
Neo-Thomism and Divine Providence
God as an end for everything
Action <- Man <- God
Miracles
- an effect in the physical world that surpasses all known human powers and beyond natural powers
Objection to miracles
- Principle of uniformity
Spinoza:
1. Miracles are a violation of natural laws
2. Natural laws are immutable
3. It is impossible for immutable laws to be violated
4. Therefore, miracles are impossible
Hume, Kant and Flew all argued agains miracles based on the principle of uniformity
God can't do anything against nature
Evidence for miracles is scarce and unpredictable by nature
God cannot violate the law of nature because the law of nature stems from God. So any violation of the law of nature is a violation of God's personal nature.
What is a secondary cause?
Could quantum mechanics explain God's intervening in human/natural affairs?
God effects the secondary cause (quantum mechanics) in effecting the probability at the molecular level.
Problems with this is that new technology is discovered accounting for previously unexplainable events.
Antony Flew
Science:
- Laws from observation
- Limited to this method by definition
Unexplained events are either miracles (outside of science) or anomaly (inside of science)
No unexplained event can ever be considered a miracle. At worst it is a not yet explained anomaly.
Are miracles possible?
Are miracles knowable?
Are miracles recognizable?
Hume critiqued miracles on the basis of whether they are knowable. Flew critiqued miracles on rather they are recognizable.
Superseding Miracles - where the laws of nature are superseded, direct action by God
Constellation Miracle - no law of nature is violated, but many circumstances come together in such away that they could have occurred by accident is less probable than it occurring by divine intervention
Reasonable presumption - reasonableness of a presumption
Worldview
If you do not have a worldview favorable to theism then you will not be convinced of miracles existing.
Circumstances, reasonable presumption and whether or not divine agency is the best explanation for the event all play a part in regarding something as a miracle.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Cosmological Arguments & Attributes of God
(Originally written March 13, 2007 in Book 25)
Class of Notes
Philosophy of Religion
Principle of Sufficient Reason (Leibniz)
What counts as an explanation is mushy. What counts as a sufficient reason is mush. What is not mushy is the fact of causality.
A Cosmological Argument
Aquinas - Everything that moves is moved by another
Flew - From the Newtonian vantage point we can see this is false. Aquinas used the Aristotelian method of potentiality moving to actuality. But, this concept with all the archaic concepts of Aristotle are shown to be flawed by today's scientific insights.
Aquinas - Everything that moves is moved by another
Modern - Every body continues in its state of rest (or of uniform motion) unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.
Aquinas and Aristotle would have meant "change" by "move". Thus, Aquinas and Newton were really stating the same thing.
Aristotelian metaphysical is not outdated or replaced by modern science.
The Existential Cosmological Argument
Change: When something changes a potential is actualized.
Change is limited by potential.
A contingent thing has the potential to change.
Potential do not actualize themselves. It takes a cause.
Logically there can be change caused by another or an uncaused change, but not a self-caused change.
Anything that exists must be either caused by another thing or totally uncaused
1) Something exists
2) Each thing that exists is either necessary or contingent
Necessary - that which is non-contingent
Contingent - that which is non-necessary
Contingent - dependent, conditioned, caused, sustained, shaped, actualized potential
Necessary - none of the above; independent, unconditioned, uncaused, unsustained, uninfluenced
Properties of a contingent being vs. necessary being
Limited vs. Unlimited
Temporal vs. Eternal
Finite vs. Infinite
Dependent vs. Independent
Caused vs. Uncaused
Changeable vs. Immutable
3) A necessary being has the properties of "God"
- it must have all of its properties, whatever they may be, without limits
4) The world (universe) cannot be a necessary being
5) There can be, at most, one necessary being
Principle of the Identity of Indiscernables
"Cookie Monster Principle"
If you do not differ from Cookie Monster in some respect you are Cookie Monster
In order for two things to differ from each other they must differ in some respect; or, unless two things differ in some property they are identical (they are one and the same thing)
Whether or not we can derive the attributes of God from reason?
Objections:
1. If Divine simplicity is true, there would be no distinctions among any of God's attributes
2. Complex things are better than simple things, God must be the best, therefore, not simple
3. We cannot conceptualize immutability
4. The world is in perpetual flux; God is immutable. How can they relate?
5. If God is unity, how can he be a trinity?
6. God's actions change and they take place in time; therefore, how can he be immutable?
7. God might change, but it takes a long time, just as things in nature seem to be immutable but aren't
8. The concept of "one" is incompatible with God's complete unity
9. Removing all specific attributes from God in order to achieve simplicity leaves you with a God without attributes; therefore, a God who is nothing
10. Applying an attribute to God is to limit God/
Can the Attributes of God be derived by reason?
Aquinas' Attributes of God
- Simplicity
- Perfection
- Goodness
- Infinity
- Immutability
- Eternity
- Unity
God's Simplicity
- Is God a body?
- Does God consist of matter and form?
- Is God the same as his essence?
- Is existence one with God's essence?
- Is God wholly simple?
Is God a body?
arg. 1:
1) No body is in motion unless put in motion
2) Bodies cannot be necessary beings because it could not cause itself
3) God is the first mover, unmoved
4) Therefore, God is not a body
arg. 2:
1) The first Being is pure actuality with no potentiality
2) All bodies have potentiality
3) Therefore, God is not a body
Does God consist of matter and form?
Argument against matter:
1) Matter is potentiality (contingent)
2) God is pure actuality
3) Therefore, God does not consist of matter
Argument Against Form
Is God the same as His essence?
Uses the analogy of man and humanity: individual man has certain skin color, specific flesh and bones, but these 'accidental qualities' are not the same was the form or essence of humanity
Since God is not matter he cannot have 'accidental qualities', therefore God's essence and Being are one.
Is God wholly simple
arg. 1
1) Every composite has a cause (parts do not unite themselves)
2) God is uncaused
3) Therefore, He is simple
arg. 2
1) No single part can predicate a composite of parts
2) Therefore, God must be pure form and in no way composite
God's Immutability
1st arg:
1) God is pure actuality with no potentiality
2) Everything which is in any way potential is changeable
3) Therefore, God is immutable
2nd arg:
1) Everything that moves remains as it was in part and passes away in part
2) God is not a composite
3) There is not multiple parts to remain and pass away in God
4) Therefore, God is immutable
3rd arg:
1) Everything that changes acquires something new
2) God is infinite
3) He cannot acquire anything new
4) Therefore, God is immutable
Immutability belongs only to God
Unity of God
Argument from simplicity:
1) God is a simple being
2) Simple beings have no parts
3) In order to be divisible one must have parts
4) Therefore, God is one
Argument from perfection:
1) God is perfect
2) If there were two or more Gods they would have to differ
3) But an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack anything
4) Therefore, God is one
Argument from unity of the world
1) World is composed of diverse things
2) Diverse things do not come together unless ordered
3) The world has an ordered unity
4) Therefore, there must be only one God
Objections
Schubert Ogden:
1) Service is doing for God
Aquinas' God is immutably perfect
Therefore, we cannot serve Aquinas' God
Thomistic reply
True, we cannot add anything to God. We serve Him for His glory. God is not "statically completed perfection". He is pure actuality or dynamic act.
2) All genuine relationships involve mutual dependence. Aquinas' God does not depend on the world. Therefore, there is no relationship between God and man.
Thomistic reply
True, God is not dependent on the world. First premise is wrong; all relationships do not involve mutual dependence. This is absurd anthropomorphism.
Can the attributes of God be derived by reason?
Yes, I think so ... - Matt
Divine simplicity
God - One God, no Parts, No divisibility
God is one Being, one Existence, One Nature, One Substance, One essence, Not three Gods, three parts three divisions, three natures, three substances, three beings, three existences, three natures, three substances
He is three modes, persons, appearances, outward manifestations, subsistences
Whatever category God is one in He is not three. Whatever category God is three in He is not one.
"One what and three who's" - Geisler terminology
One God who manifests himself in three ways. The term used for this is "persons" which goes back to "persona" (Latin) which goes back to the Greek word meaning "mask"
Persons are three different ways of the one God manifesting himself.
These manifestations are not sequential (heresy) but eternal. All three occur simultaneously, but it is still only one being.
The three persons subsist in the one existence of God.
Class of Notes
Philosophy of Religion
Principle of Sufficient Reason (Leibniz)
What counts as an explanation is mushy. What counts as a sufficient reason is mush. What is not mushy is the fact of causality.
A Cosmological Argument
Aquinas - Everything that moves is moved by another
Flew - From the Newtonian vantage point we can see this is false. Aquinas used the Aristotelian method of potentiality moving to actuality. But, this concept with all the archaic concepts of Aristotle are shown to be flawed by today's scientific insights.
Aquinas - Everything that moves is moved by another
Modern - Every body continues in its state of rest (or of uniform motion) unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.
Aquinas and Aristotle would have meant "change" by "move". Thus, Aquinas and Newton were really stating the same thing.
Aristotelian metaphysical is not outdated or replaced by modern science.
The Existential Cosmological Argument
Change: When something changes a potential is actualized.
Change is limited by potential.
A contingent thing has the potential to change.
Potential do not actualize themselves. It takes a cause.
Logically there can be change caused by another or an uncaused change, but not a self-caused change.
Anything that exists must be either caused by another thing or totally uncaused
1) Something exists
2) Each thing that exists is either necessary or contingent
Necessary - that which is non-contingent
Contingent - that which is non-necessary
Contingent - dependent, conditioned, caused, sustained, shaped, actualized potential
Necessary - none of the above; independent, unconditioned, uncaused, unsustained, uninfluenced
Properties of a contingent being vs. necessary being
Limited vs. Unlimited
Temporal vs. Eternal
Finite vs. Infinite
Dependent vs. Independent
Caused vs. Uncaused
Changeable vs. Immutable
3) A necessary being has the properties of "God"
- it must have all of its properties, whatever they may be, without limits
4) The world (universe) cannot be a necessary being
5) There can be, at most, one necessary being
Principle of the Identity of Indiscernables
"Cookie Monster Principle"
If you do not differ from Cookie Monster in some respect you are Cookie Monster
In order for two things to differ from each other they must differ in some respect; or, unless two things differ in some property they are identical (they are one and the same thing)
Whether or not we can derive the attributes of God from reason?
Objections:
1. If Divine simplicity is true, there would be no distinctions among any of God's attributes
2. Complex things are better than simple things, God must be the best, therefore, not simple
3. We cannot conceptualize immutability
4. The world is in perpetual flux; God is immutable. How can they relate?
5. If God is unity, how can he be a trinity?
6. God's actions change and they take place in time; therefore, how can he be immutable?
7. God might change, but it takes a long time, just as things in nature seem to be immutable but aren't
8. The concept of "one" is incompatible with God's complete unity
9. Removing all specific attributes from God in order to achieve simplicity leaves you with a God without attributes; therefore, a God who is nothing
10. Applying an attribute to God is to limit God/
Can the Attributes of God be derived by reason?
Aquinas' Attributes of God
- Simplicity
- Perfection
- Goodness
- Infinity
- Immutability
- Eternity
- Unity
God's Simplicity
- Is God a body?
- Does God consist of matter and form?
- Is God the same as his essence?
- Is existence one with God's essence?
- Is God wholly simple?
Is God a body?
arg. 1:
1) No body is in motion unless put in motion
2) Bodies cannot be necessary beings because it could not cause itself
3) God is the first mover, unmoved
4) Therefore, God is not a body
arg. 2:
1) The first Being is pure actuality with no potentiality
2) All bodies have potentiality
3) Therefore, God is not a body
Does God consist of matter and form?
Argument against matter:
1) Matter is potentiality (contingent)
2) God is pure actuality
3) Therefore, God does not consist of matter
Argument Against Form
Is God the same as His essence?
Uses the analogy of man and humanity: individual man has certain skin color, specific flesh and bones, but these 'accidental qualities' are not the same was the form or essence of humanity
Since God is not matter he cannot have 'accidental qualities', therefore God's essence and Being are one.
Is God wholly simple
arg. 1
1) Every composite has a cause (parts do not unite themselves)
2) God is uncaused
3) Therefore, He is simple
arg. 2
1) No single part can predicate a composite of parts
2) Therefore, God must be pure form and in no way composite
God's Immutability
1st arg:
1) God is pure actuality with no potentiality
2) Everything which is in any way potential is changeable
3) Therefore, God is immutable
2nd arg:
1) Everything that moves remains as it was in part and passes away in part
2) God is not a composite
3) There is not multiple parts to remain and pass away in God
4) Therefore, God is immutable
3rd arg:
1) Everything that changes acquires something new
2) God is infinite
3) He cannot acquire anything new
4) Therefore, God is immutable
Immutability belongs only to God
Unity of God
Argument from simplicity:
1) God is a simple being
2) Simple beings have no parts
3) In order to be divisible one must have parts
4) Therefore, God is one
Argument from perfection:
1) God is perfect
2) If there were two or more Gods they would have to differ
3) But an absolutely perfect Being cannot lack anything
4) Therefore, God is one
Argument from unity of the world
1) World is composed of diverse things
2) Diverse things do not come together unless ordered
3) The world has an ordered unity
4) Therefore, there must be only one God
Objections
Schubert Ogden:
1) Service is doing for God
Aquinas' God is immutably perfect
Therefore, we cannot serve Aquinas' God
Thomistic reply
True, we cannot add anything to God. We serve Him for His glory. God is not "statically completed perfection". He is pure actuality or dynamic act.
2) All genuine relationships involve mutual dependence. Aquinas' God does not depend on the world. Therefore, there is no relationship between God and man.
Thomistic reply
True, God is not dependent on the world. First premise is wrong; all relationships do not involve mutual dependence. This is absurd anthropomorphism.
Can the attributes of God be derived by reason?
Yes, I think so ... - Matt
Divine simplicity
God - One God, no Parts, No divisibility
God is one Being, one Existence, One Nature, One Substance, One essence, Not three Gods, three parts three divisions, three natures, three substances, three beings, three existences, three natures, three substances
He is three modes, persons, appearances, outward manifestations, subsistences
Whatever category God is one in He is not three. Whatever category God is three in He is not one.
"One what and three who's" - Geisler terminology
One God who manifests himself in three ways. The term used for this is "persons" which goes back to "persona" (Latin) which goes back to the Greek word meaning "mask"
Persons are three different ways of the one God manifesting himself.
These manifestations are not sequential (heresy) but eternal. All three occur simultaneously, but it is still only one being.
The three persons subsist in the one existence of God.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Can we demonstrate the existence of God?
(Originally written February 20, 2007 in Book 13)
Can we demonstrate the existence of God?
Objections
1) Can never demonstrate an infinite cause from a finite effect.
2) God's existence is known through faith. Reason cannot prove matters of faith.
3) Even a demonstration that's logically valid may not correspond to reality.
4) We are limited by being enclosed in a finite universe, which we cannot escape. God exists outside of the universe, thus we cannot demonstrate his existence or non-existence.
5) Every argument for the existence of God must first assume His existence, thus all arguments are circular.
6) No argument for the existence of God is ever going to convince who doesn't already believe.
7) God's essence is the middle term, but we cannot comprehend God's essence.
Explanation of 7)
All birds are egg layers (major premise)
All penguins are birds (minor premise)
Therefore, all penguins are egg layers (conclusion)
"Birds" - the middle term
"egglayers" - major term, always the predicate of the conclusion
penguins - minor term, always the subject of the conclusion
The essence of God must function as the middle term, but we do not have any comprehension of the essence of God, so it cannot function that way.
8) There is no such thing as metaphysical knowledge. All knowledge is limited to experience.
9) God cannot be proven by scientific experiments.
10) The term 'God' is meaningless.
Can we demonstrate the existence of God?
Based on Summa Theologic 1, q. 2a.2
Objections revisited
1. A priori objections
2. A posteriori objections
A priori objection #1
Religious language is meaningless
- Ayer, Wittgenstein, logical positivists
- In order to be a meaningful a statement must be, in principle, verifiable
A priori objection #2
- We cannot validate religious experience empirically
- Flew
A priori objection #3
- What is rational, needn't be true
- post modernism
All dragons have wings
All monsters are dragons
Therefore, all monsters have wings
A posteriori objection #1
-Knowledge of God can only be based on faith
- Kierkegaard
A posteriori objection #2
- We cannot apprehend God's essence
A posteriori objection #3
- The finite can never extend to the infinite
- Alfred North Whitehead
A posteriori objection #4
- Presuppositionalism: Since God is first in Being, we must begin with God
- Kierkegaard, Van Til
Transcendental argumentation
Ways to draw valid logical inferences
1) Deduction - formal inferences from premises
2) Induction - probable conclusions from observations
We know there is a world
- What are the conditions that are necessary for there to be a world?
- We cannot look outside o the world to find God
- If there is a God, there could be evidence for a God in the world.
Any attempt to simply close the option of there being theistic proofs are purely arbitrary.
Can the finite attain infinity?
Georg Cantor's set theory
{1, 2, 3, 4 ... infinity}
{1, 2, 3, 4
but the set of real numbers, which is infinite is longer than the set of integers, which is also infinite.
Metaphysical infinity is more than mathematical infinite.
Important considerations
- Distinction between that something exists and comprehending its essence.
Distinction between ontology and epistemology.
-Ontology (being)
-Epistemology (knowing)
Ontologically, God exists or he doesn't.
Theistic proofs deal with the epistemological question: "Can one know that God exists".
Ontology - God exists
Epistemology - Ascertaining the ontology
Arguing in a circle.
God exists
Therefore, he has shown his effects
Therefore, he has ...
Therefore, he has ...
Therefore, God exists.
Believing the ontological statement that "God exists" and then providing an epistemological proof is not circular, so long as one does not assume it in the actual argument.
Assignment: argue for the ontological argument.
Can we demonstrate the existence of God?
Objections
1) Can never demonstrate an infinite cause from a finite effect.
2) God's existence is known through faith. Reason cannot prove matters of faith.
3) Even a demonstration that's logically valid may not correspond to reality.
4) We are limited by being enclosed in a finite universe, which we cannot escape. God exists outside of the universe, thus we cannot demonstrate his existence or non-existence.
5) Every argument for the existence of God must first assume His existence, thus all arguments are circular.
6) No argument for the existence of God is ever going to convince who doesn't already believe.
7) God's essence is the middle term, but we cannot comprehend God's essence.
Explanation of 7)
All birds are egg layers (major premise)
All penguins are birds (minor premise)
Therefore, all penguins are egg layers (conclusion)
"Birds" - the middle term
"egglayers" - major term, always the predicate of the conclusion
penguins - minor term, always the subject of the conclusion
The essence of God must function as the middle term, but we do not have any comprehension of the essence of God, so it cannot function that way.
8) There is no such thing as metaphysical knowledge. All knowledge is limited to experience.
9) God cannot be proven by scientific experiments.
10) The term 'God' is meaningless.
Can we demonstrate the existence of God?
Based on Summa Theologic 1, q. 2a.2
Objections revisited
1. A priori objections
2. A posteriori objections
A priori objection #1
Religious language is meaningless
- Ayer, Wittgenstein, logical positivists
- In order to be a meaningful a statement must be, in principle, verifiable
A priori objection #2
- We cannot validate religious experience empirically
- Flew
A priori objection #3
- What is rational, needn't be true
- post modernism
All dragons have wings
All monsters are dragons
Therefore, all monsters have wings
A posteriori objection #1
-Knowledge of God can only be based on faith
- Kierkegaard
A posteriori objection #2
- We cannot apprehend God's essence
A posteriori objection #3
- The finite can never extend to the infinite
- Alfred North Whitehead
A posteriori objection #4
- Presuppositionalism: Since God is first in Being, we must begin with God
- Kierkegaard, Van Til
Transcendental argumentation
Ways to draw valid logical inferences
1) Deduction - formal inferences from premises
2) Induction - probable conclusions from observations
We know there is a world
- What are the conditions that are necessary for there to be a world?
- We cannot look outside o the world to find God
- If there is a God, there could be evidence for a God in the world.
Any attempt to simply close the option of there being theistic proofs are purely arbitrary.
Can the finite attain infinity?
Georg Cantor's set theory
{1, 2, 3, 4 ... infinity}
{1, 2, 3, 4
but the set of real numbers, which is infinite is longer than the set of integers, which is also infinite.
Metaphysical infinity is more than mathematical infinite.
Important considerations
- Distinction between that something exists and comprehending its essence.
Distinction between ontology and epistemology.
-Ontology (being)
-Epistemology (knowing)
Ontologically, God exists or he doesn't.
Theistic proofs deal with the epistemological question: "Can one know that God exists".
Ontology - God exists
Epistemology - Ascertaining the ontology
Arguing in a circle.
God exists
Therefore, he has shown his effects
Therefore, he has ...
Therefore, he has ...
Therefore, God exists.
Believing the ontological statement that "God exists" and then providing an epistemological proof is not circular, so long as one does not assume it in the actual argument.
Assignment: argue for the ontological argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)