Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



7/09/2015 10:03 pm  #1


Moved a few questions

Taking Scott's advice I've decided to move the questions I have to the philosophy forum:
1. With regards to the argument from contingency even if we say that by needing to emperically verify the laws of physics entail that they are treated as possibly obtaining rather then necessarily obtaining, and thus would be contingent, could a skeptic  =13pxsay in response to the fact that we have to go out and see if the laws of physics work to determine their existence as not knowing them is enough, shouldn't we do the same for something that is Being itself as for them knowing it wouldn't entail that it exist to them and they may see it as creating an exception for God, and not work.Furthermore could they say that  God cannot be necessary because denying his existence is conceivable and thus logically possible.=13px I know the great thinkers of such as Aquinas and Avicenna would not come up with something like this, but it is a little hard to see it.

 

7/09/2015 10:15 pm  #2


Re: Moved a few questions

Skeptics can say a lot of things. The question is whether they can argue for them. And they can't do that for propositions that don't make sense.

For example, the proposition that Being Itself might not exist is simply incoherent. Completely aside from the fact that the classical theist gives a metaphysical argument that God's essence is identical with His existence (which is why He must be Being Itself), what in the world could it possibly mean for "Being" not to be? (Something similar is true of the claim that God's nonexistence is "conceivable." No, it isn't, if the skeptic means the God of classical theism; Aquinas's Third Way has that covered. And if he means some other "god," who cares?)

So yes, a skeptic could say such things, but he would thereby be showing that either (a) he wasn't talking about the God of classical theism, or (b) he didn't understand what he was saying. Why would anyone think he was making serious arguments?

Last edited by Scott (7/09/2015 10:18 pm)

 

7/09/2015 10:28 pm  #3


Re: Moved a few questions

Scott wrote:

Skeptics can say a lot of things. The question is whether they can argue for them. And they can't do that for propositions that don't make sense.

This is strikingly true, and becomes more so as one studies philosophy. There is an uncanny ability of logic -or the native power of the human mind- to ascertain the truth of things. As Scott afterward says,

"For example, the proposition that Being Itself might not exist is simply incoherent."

One of the primary feuds today is just (as it has ever been, arguably) between realism and skepticism.

It is, for many, scary what the human mind just knows and is able to know about the truth of reality. We are accustomed to being "explorers" of reality; whereas, what is real is all about and around us. It is not far away from us. "Digging" into reality is in a way just begging the question. These different 'modes of thought' make for a marked difference between what we call philosophical and scientific thinking or reasoning. This is why the ancient philosophers wrested their arguments for God's existence on metaphysical as opposed to "scientific" proofs: the former is absolute, universal and necessary; whereas, the latter is (as it were) 'beside the point' insofar as it takes for granted (assumes) certain truths and investigates purely contingent truths and realities.

Last edited by Timocrates (7/09/2015 10:29 pm)


"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).

Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
 

7/09/2015 10:30 pm  #4


Re: Moved a few questions

So if a skeptic says something along the line that if God's existence is identical to his essence, should'nt that entail he exist by simply knowing and since they don't believe in him, this is false, they have'nt understood what Aquinas and others meant at all? What exactly do they mean if this is not the case?
P.S do you reccomend any books or media that explains classical theism, and the arguments in more depth. 

     Thread Starter
 

7/09/2015 10:36 pm  #5


Re: Moved a few questions

AKG wrote:

So if a skeptic says something along the line that if God's existence is identical to his essence, should'nt that entail he exist by simply knowing and since they don't believe in him, this is false... 

I am all too eager tonight, because I believe Scott should answer this question for you and that would be best. But, I would only point out the following of what you said,


"if God's existence is identical to his essence, should'nt that entail he exist by simply knowing and since they don't believe in him..."

One can know and not believe. This is perfectly possible. Indeed, insofar as we know being we know God or, at least, something of God.

Last edited by Timocrates (7/09/2015 10:37 pm)


"The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16 (3).

Defend your Family. Join the U.N. Family Rights Caucus.
 

7/10/2015 6:44 am  #6


Re: Moved a few questions

AKG wrote:

So if a skeptic says something along the line that if God's existence is identical to his essence, should'nt that entail he exist by simply knowing and since they don't believe in him, this is false, they have'nt understood what Aquinas and others meant at all? What exactly do they mean if this is not the case?
 

If one were to directly perceive the essence of God one would indeed know that God’s non-existence is contradictory. As it stands some claim we can reason from propositions made true by that essence (as opposed to definitive knowledge of the essence itself) to God’s necessary existence. Indeed if the Fool - I mean 'sceptic' knows what he or she is talking about they must claim God is impossible (and, if so, why) since the idea of a merely possible necessary being is incoherant.
 

Last edited by DanielCC (7/10/2015 6:50 am)

 

7/10/2015 4:20 pm  #7


Re: Moved a few questions

Another questions in regards to the laws of physics and contingency:
Could it be said that under a Platonic view where the laws actually have independent existence , the laws due to being composed of mathematics are necessary as mathematical things such as 2 plus 2 equals 4 are regarded as necessary and self explanatory/existant and since the laws themselves are mathematic equations would this make them metaphysically necessary? If not how come?

     Thread Starter
 

7/10/2015 4:54 pm  #8


Re: Moved a few questions

AKG wrote:

So if a skeptic says something along the line that if God's existence is identical to his essence, should'nt that entail he exist by simply knowing . . .

If I'm understanding your question correctly, then I think DanielCC has given a sound answer to it. If we knew God's essence directly, then not only would we know without doubt that He exists, but our very knowing of His essence would itself entail that He existed.

Timocrates's point is a good one too; most of us are all too adept at not believing things that we really know -- or that we should know better than to think we don't know. 

AKG wrote:

P.S do you reccomend any books or media that explains classical theism, and the arguments in more depth. 

Probably my favorite general introduction overall is George Hayward Joyce's Natural Theology, which is the one I always recommend to people fairly new to the subject (as I was myself just a few years ago when I read it). You can follow that link to read it online, or you can buy a hard copy inexpensively.

There are others and we can make additional recommendations as needed, but I'd just get that one and read it first.

AKG wrote:

Could it be said that under a Platonic view . . .

I suppose so, but if so, the relevance of that fact to Thomism* isn't obvious. Thomism does include some Platonic elements (unsurprisingly to those of us who regard Aristotle as a Platonist!), but it doesn't hold that the laws of physics have independent existence. On the contrary, it follows the Augustinian version of Platonism (usually called "neo"-Platonism even though its adherents took themselves simply to be interpreting Plato) that locates stuff like that in the Divine Intellect. And it doesn't believe that the "laws" of physics are anything more than descriptions of how physical things behave given their natures/essence; it's those natures/essences, not the "laws," that subsist in the Divine Intellect .(Whenever there are actual created substances that have those natures/essences, the Divine Ideas are exemplars that God in some sense used as a "model.")

----

* I'm taking it that we're still on the subject of your original question about Ed's "Fifty Shades of Nothing" blog post. The physicists he's discussing aren't Platonists of the sort you describe and neither is Ed.

Last edited by Scott (7/10/2015 5:10 pm)

 

7/10/2015 5:29 pm  #9


Re: Moved a few questions

I know Ed is a Thomist, but is'nt platonism itself relevant to classical theism

     Thread Starter
 

7/10/2015 5:51 pm  #10


Re: Moved a few questions

AKG wrote:

I know Ed is a Thomist, but is'nt platonism itself relevant to classical theism

Sure, but as I said in my footnote, I took it that we were still addressing your original question about Ed's post, and the physicists he was describing wouldn't take that Platonic approach either.

But yes, a Platonist who thinks physical (or even mathematical or logical) "laws actually have independent existence" (as not all Platonists do) could very well hold that such laws were metaphysically necessary (in, probably, any of several senses).

For the record, though, nothing in Thomism requires that God be the only being that exists necessarily. It's just that all other necessary beings derive their necessity from God.

(Dinner beckons, so TTYL.)

Last edited by Scott (7/10/2015 5:52 pm)

 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum