'Knowledge' of Existence

[Silmarien]

I think what I see in your position is more a journey in progress, I too was at that point in my life. So I do understand.

Eh, it's more that I'm familiar with many of the options out there. I find naturalism to be a shockingly incoherent mess, given how popular it is, but that's just one paradigm. Non-naturalism covers an infinite number of possibilities. You guys ultimately got me on an Argument from Beauty, and there's no use fighting it, but that doesn't mean that the underlying epistemological situation isn't pretty bleak.

I find it surprising that you don't find it interesting. When you think about all the necessary elements and how they rest on such minuscule ranges as well as the fact that if the universe's fine tuned ranges that allow a planet like ours which allows complex life to exist are interwoven for that life; it seems to be one of the most interesting phenomena to be explored.

I find it uninteresting that the earth itself looks like it might have been a fix. I've seen ancient alien theorists run with this in defense of their own idea that our planet was engineered by extraterrestrial visitors. The anthropic principle serves as a defeater to that, since no matter how unlikely it was that our planet would form in such a way as to be life-producing, the chances that this would occur on at least one planet in the universe would be exponentially greater. And so it's not interesting that it was particularly our planet where this happened.

I do find the fine-tuning of the universe a more interesting idea, but far from conclusive.

Not only is it not a defeater considering the jackpot scenario, but it just moves the fine tuning back one level. The multi-verse generator would have to be just as fine tuned for a fine tuned universe as ours to exist.

We don't know that, since we have no way of determining what the multiverse generator actually looks like and how unlikely its own specifications were. As Gaara pointed out, we don't even know if our own universe is truly finely-tuned at all, so we definitely can't make assumptions about whatever mechanism might have created it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, it's an interesting move to show how one of your points, if true, doesn't even support your case, but I'll take it.

It does support my position, Davies doesn't support that God is the Christian God but he does believe a "mind of God" type of belief that is Deist like but even that doesn't really describe what he sees as God. Really it doesn't matter what he BELIEVES, what matters is that he shows what it means to appear designed. That we can and do recognize what appears like design.

You need to really explain how we tell the difference between design and nature, not just assume we can tell intuitively because "we design things." It's important you do so because otherwise you're just making an argument from intuition, which won't work.

I think the conceptual aspects of the universe speak to the design in it. Mathematics is a conceptual phenomena that the universe's make up consists of and we as well.

I find it humorous that you claim all other places in our known universe are lifeless. There are an estimated thousands of species on our planet alone that have yet to be discovered, and you're so sure there's nothing else alive in the universe? That's incredibly arrogant, to say the least.

Why is that arrogant? I actually did speak more absolute than what I meant to. We don't know of any life existing in our known universe, but I don't understand why that would be considered arrogant?

It is not a sign of supernatural interference that we find ourselves in a universe in which, by our calculations, it is entirely possible for life to develop on its own.

What calculations determine that life is entirely possible for life to develop on its own?

It is also seemingly a sign against competent supernatural interference that we find ourselves inside such a narrow region of the universe wherein life is possible. It appears we got very lucky, but we haven't done the impossible. Even if we had, that wouldn't get us to a god, that would just get us to an unseen variable.

And if we found ourselves in a universe teeming with life would you then say that it isn't remarkable we see life everywhere we look and the universe doesn't need God because life is so easy to come by. However we find the universe, it is such that God is not needed. That comes from your atheistic presupposition rather than from what the reality shows. We haven't done anything, including the impossible. The reason we have a universe is not in evidence, the reason the universe is fine tuned to allow life is not in evidence, the reason life arose from non-life is not in evidence. What we have in evidence that the universe began, what we have in evidence is that life exists, what we have in evidence is that the universe appears to be designed to allow life to exist, we have in evidence intelligent life. What best explains or comports with these things in reality is an intelligent Being that created a universe designed to allow for intelligent life to exist. What doesn't comport to what we find in the universe is that a universe could just pop into existence, that the universe which is necessary for life to exist be in the exact range for that life to exist and then life arising from non-life and intelligence arising from matter devoid of intelligence. It doesn't fit with reality.

Because all the separate elements of my position have been demonstrated to exist, and yours haven't. We know evolution happens, we know minds exist, we know matter exists. We don't know God exists. Demonstrate that your god exists, then we can pit your god-hypothesis against my evolution-hypothesis. Until then, I'm just going to keep telling you your hypothesis is worthless. It has no explanatory power.

Wait, WE don't know that God exists is a false statement. I know that God exists. I can't prove to you that God exists and I don't suggest that I can prove to you God exists because God is the only one that does that. I can show how God is a more reasonable explanation for reality. I can show that there is evidence that supports that worldview. I can show that your position is insufficient to explain reality. Reality gives my position its explanatory power.

Fine tuning is at best a mystery for which God is not a solution until it is shown that he exists. Meanwhile, as I said, dozens of other explanations have been proposed by theoretical physicists, none of which include Yahweh. And the anthropic principle still stands, as I explained above.

I disagree. God is something that can be "shown" to exist by scientific standards but scientific standards are useless without God.

I hope what I have written above has clarified this for you. I don't want to keep responding redundantly to paragraphs discussing more or less the same thing, but I don't want you to think I'm cutting corners.

That is fine and thank you.

The things you keep telling me I have no evidence of a natural solution for. Those gaps.

I have answered this previously in my response.

Sure it's remarkable in the sense that we are impressed by it. But "too surprising" is entirely subjective, and just another example of a gap you're creating to shove God into. Even if it were too surprising to find what we find, that's not evidence for God. That's evidence that we don't know everything.

It is what we do know that makes my argument.

In conclusion, the most important things I'd like you to meditate on is the nature of analytic propositions, the difference between design and nature, and how you can make an argument based on my lack of answers that isn't a god of the gaps argument. If not, we're not going to get anywhere.

I am pointing to the differences of my worldview and yours. As I stated above, your whole position is not reflective of reality and has no explanation for life, intelligence, and ultimately the LOL from which we are discussing this now.

 

[HitchSlap]

As I stated above, your whole position is not reflective of reality and has no explanation for life, intelligence, and ultimately the LOL from which we are discussing this now.

Yes, in the face of not knowing, religions began to fill the vacuum, with all manner of myth. Yours is no different.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, in the face of not knowing, religions began to fill the vacuum, with all manner of myth. Yours is no different.

We know that intelligence begets intelligence. We know that we must obey the absolute, invariant and universal LOL.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Eh, it's more that I'm familiar with many of the options out there. I find naturalism to be a shockingly incoherent mess, given how popular it is, but that's just one paradigm. Non-naturalism covers an infinite number of possibilities. You guys ultimately got me on an Argument from Beauty, and there's no use fighting it, but that doesn't mean that the underlying epistemological situation isn't pretty bleak.

I agree that naturalism is a incoherent mess and it is probably the most popular one on this site.

Beauty is a convincing argument, I agree but I'm not sure the epistemology of Christianity is bleak at all. I think it is masterfully connected to all areas of life, imho.

I find it uninteresting that the earth itself looks like it might have been a fix. I've seen ancient alien theorists run with this in defense of their own idea that our planet was engineered by extraterrestrial visitors. The anthropic principle serves as a defeater to that, since no matter how unlikely it was that our planet would form in such a way as to be life-producing, the chances that this would occur on at least one planet in the universe would be exponentially greater. And so it's not interesting that it was particularly our planet where this happened.

I do find the fine-tuning of the universe a more interesting idea, but far from conclusive.

It is like a puzzle piece within the whole tapestry of Christianity. All pieces come together most cohesively within the Christian worldview. From the reason for a universe to exist to the reason we exist to morality and intelligence. There are always choices and that is built in to the universe as well. We do really have choices.

We don't know that, since we have no way of determining what the multiverse generator actually looks like and how unlikely its own specifications were. As Gaara pointed out, we don't even know if our own universe is truly finely-tuned at all, so we definitely can't make assumptions about whatever mechanism might have created it.

What I mean is that it has to be fine tuned enough itself to create a fine tuned universe. I don't know Gaara?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree that naturalism is a incoherent mess and it is probably the most popular one on this site.

Beauty is a convincing argument, I agree but I'm not sure the epistemology of Christianity is bleak at all. I think it is masterfully connected to all areas of life, imho.

Ok, you two! [ @Silmarien and @Oncedeceived ] Am I going to have to come into the middle of your bout here and referee? ...it just pains me to see two fellow ladies, one Christian, and one nearly at the cusp edge of it all who, for all intensive purposes, I very much think is in the 'fold'.....

Oncedeceived, as you already know from our talks with Mountain Girl, I don't lean toward I.D, and while I do think the evidences for Christianity are substantive on the one hand, I don't think we been given the epistemological framework by the Lord to simply "see" it all in Grand Glory. I wish we did. However, with that said, I think that in line with a bit of what you're saying and a bit of what Silmarien is saying (and I'd say, me too, really) that I'd take Jesus and Paul into account in the middle of all of this and say that we can arrive at something approximating Theism, generally speaking, but it's all definitely not enough by which to simply place faith in Jesus Christ all by our lonesome selves.

But, that's me. So, ladies.....................................sorry to butt in! Please continue. Or just pretend that I didn't pop up here in the first place. [Love ya' both! ]

 

[Silmarien]

Beauty is a convincing argument, I agree but I'm not sure the epistemology of Christianity is bleak at all. I think it is masterfully connected to all areas of life, imho.

Christianity is an elegant answer, but there is no logical connection between it connecting to all areas of life and it being true. You seem to be falling into a logical fallacy of the following form:

IF X, THEN Y
Y
THEREFORE X

If Christianity is true, then it will masterfully connect to all areas of life.
It masterfully connects to all areas of life, therefore it is true.

This is fallacious logic.

It is like a puzzle piece within the whole tapestry of Christianity. All pieces come together most cohesively within the Christian worldview. From the reason for a universe to exist to the reason we exist to morality and intelligence. There are always choices and that is built in to the universe as well. We do really have choices.

Even if the pieces come together most cohesively with a Christian worldview (and I would probably agree that they do), this doesn't mean that Chistianity is true. Reality is under no obligation to provide us with a neat tapestry to make sense of things.

What I mean is that it has to be fine tuned enough itself to create a fine tuned universe. I don't know Gaara?

He's the atheist you've been talking to here.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, you two! [ @Silmarien and @Oncedeceived ] Am I going to have to come into the middle of your bout here and referee? ...it just pains me to see to fellow ladies, one Christian, and one nearly at the cusp edge of it all who, for all intensive purposes, I very much think is in the 'fold'.....

Oh no! I didn't see it as a bout! I hope that Silmarien doesn't see it as that.

Oncedeceived, as you already know from our talks with Mountain Girl that I don't lean toward I.D, and while I do think the evidences for Christianity are substantive on the one hand, I don't think we been given the epistemological framework by the Lord to simply "see" it all in Grand Glory. I wish we did. However, with that said, I think that in line with a bit of what you're saying and a bit of what Silmarien is saying (and I'd say, too, really) that I'd take Jesus and Paul into account in the middle of all of this and say that we can arrive at something approximating Theism, generally speaking, but it's all definitely not enough by which to simply place faith in Jesus Christ all by our lonesome selves.

But, that's me. So, ladies.....................................sorry to butt in! Please continue. Or just pretend that I didn't pop up here in the first place. [Love ya' both! ]

I don't believe you are butting it at all. I am always happy when others put forth their two cents. I believe that the verse that says: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Is very important to everyone who holds to the Christian worldview and those who are outside.

I agree that it doesn't bring us to faith in Jesus Christ all by our lonesome selves but I do believe that God created the universe in such a way that allows us to understand it is created. Just my take on Scripture.

I do hope though that my passion for what each little puzzle piece of all this means a expands our knowledge of God does not come off as self righteous or hostile because I really don't feel that way at all towards Silmarien or anyone else. I have enjoyed reading what she has to say and I to some degree have been in her position at one time. I have enjoyed discussing this with gaara and appreciate his cordial attitude it is so refreshing from others who pull out unicorns and Santa Claus as argumentation. So I hope that they are not feeling hostility on my part and hopefully they aren't feeling that towards me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Christianity is an elegant answer, but there is no logical connection between it connecting to all areas of life and it being true. You seem to be falling into a logical fallacy of the following form:

IF X, THEN Y
Y
THEREFORE X

If Christianity is true, then it will masterfully connect to all areas of life.
It masterfully connects to all areas of life, therefore it is true.

This is fallacious logic.

I so let my own experience translate what is so obvious to me that I sometimes forget that is not the case with everyone else.

Even if the pieces come together most cohesively with a Christian worldview (and I would probably agree that they do), this doesn't mean that Chistianity is true. Reality is under no obligation to provide us with a neat tapestry to make sense of things.

That's the point is it not? Reality is under no obligation to provide us with that, but if Christianity is true, that is exactly what God has. If Christianity is true like we claim it is about the fact that God does WANT us to see it all as a great tapestry consisting of layers within reality that proclaim His existence.

He's the atheist you've been talking to here.

I swear I need to focus today.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh no! I didn't see it as a bout! I hope that Silmarien sees it as that.

I don't believe you are butting it at all. I am always happy when others put forth their two cents. I believe that the verse that says: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Is very important to everyone who holds to the Christian worldview and those who are outside.

I agree, it is important, but if we lay that out with all of the other things said by Jesus and Paul in the New Testament, it doesn't become so clear as to what specifically Paul is referring to in the book of Romans. If anything, it's probably not what we're thinking of today when we might read Michael Behe or William Dembski, but rather it's likely something more akin to the Jewish connotations we find in Psalms which Paul was intending to imply. {Although, who knows: as educated as Paul was, he might have even have read a little bit of Aristotle or Lucretius. But we don't know that for sure.}

I agree that it doesn't bring us to faith in Jesus Christ all by our lonesome selves but I do believe that God created the universe in such a way that allows us to understand it is created. Just my take on Scripture.

....and I respect that, actually. I really do. It's just that I'm kind of half and half on it all. But we both agree that somewhere in the process of coming to faith, the Holy Spirit has to do His part to bring us to Him, no matter how good the evidence is that we might think we have.

I do hope though that my passion for what each little puzzle piece of all this means a expands our knowledge of God does not come off as self righteous or hostile because I really don't feel that way at all towards Silmarien or anyone else. I have enjoyed reading what she has to say and I to some degree have been in her position at one time. I have enjoyed discussing this with gaara and appreciate his cordial attitude it is so refreshing from others who pull out unicorns and Santa Claus as argumentation. So I hope that they are not feeling hostility on my part and hopefully they aren't feeling that towards me.

No, I personally don't think you're self-righteous. I'd say that you're well studied in whatever degrees and sources you have, and I know you have some. So, no, I don't see you as coming across as heavy handed, but maybe just consider that some of this is mediated by some other considerations, too.

And also know, I do realize that you've been kind'a going it alone of late in defending/explaining the faith, and I can appreciate your stance, even if we don't agree on every tiny detail.

 

[Silmarien]

That's the point is it not? Reality is under no obligation to provide us with that, but if Christianity is true, that is exactly what God has. If Christianity is true like we claim it is about the fact that God does WANT us to see it all as a great tapestry consisting of layers within reality that proclaim His existence.

Yes, but you're falling into a logical trap here. If you run this type of argument through the formal logic, it is invalid. We cannot get from:

IF Christianity is true AND God wishes for us to see His existence proclaimed, THEN we see reality as a great tapestry consisting of layers proclaiming God's existence.

[p ^ q] ⇒ r

To:

IF we see reality as a great tapestry consisting of layers proclaiming God's existence, THEN Christianity is true AND God wishes for us to see His existence proclaimed.

r ⇒ [p ^ q]

This would be a major logical error.

We can certainly run some interesting existential or pragmatic arguments from this sort of starting place (I am unabashedly Pascalian), but we shouldn't pretend that they have more logical force than they do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I agree, it is important, but if we lay that out with all of the other things said by Jesus and Paul in the New Testament, it doesn't become so clear as to what specifically Paul is referring to in the book of Romans. If anything, it's probably not what we're thinking of today when we might read Michael Behe or William Dembski, but rather it's likely something more akin to the Jewish connotations we find in Psalms which Paul was intending to imply. {Although, who knows: as educated as Paul was, he might have even have read a little bit of Aristotle or Lucretius. But we don't know that for sure.}

Perhaps, but I believe this is something of great importance when it presents the way God looks at those who don't believe in His existence.

....and I respect that, actually. I really do. It's just that I'm kind of half and half on it all. But we both agree that somewhere in the process of coming to faith, the Holy Spirit has to do His part to bring us to Him, no matter how good the evidence is that we might think we have.

I think that what I find imperative to this line of discussion is not that the evidence is so that it will lead others right to Jesus and Christianity but that it shows that there IS evidence that supports the Christian worldview and that it is actually more cohesive and coherent than any other paradigm. Yet, I agree completely that no one can bring another to salvation and that rests solely on the Holy Spirit.

No, I personally don't think you're self-righteous. I'd say that you're well studied in whatever degrees and sources you have, and I know you have some. So, no, I don't see you as coming across as heavy handed, but maybe just consider that some of this is mediated by some other considerations, too.

Could you elaborate? I mean such as what exactly?

And also know, I do realize that you've been kind'a going it alone of late in defending/explaining the faith, and I can appreciate your stance, even if we don't agree on every tiny detail.

Believe me I do read your posts and I think about everything you say, I am not dug into my way is the only way but I do have a great appreciation for science and how that reveals so much of God's ways.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, but you're falling into a logical trap here. If you run this type of argument through the formal logic, it is invalid. We cannot get from:

IF Christianity is true AND God wishes for us to see His existence proclaimed, THEN we see reality as a great tapestry consisting of layers proclaiming God's existence.

[p ^ q] ⇒ r

To:

IF we see reality as a great tapestry consisting of layers proclaiming God's existence, THEN Christianity is true AND God wishes for us to see His existence proclaimed.

r ⇒ [p ^ q]

This would be a major logical error.

We can certainly run some interesting existential or pragmatic arguments from this sort of starting place (I am unabashedly Pascalian), but we shouldn't pretend that they have more logical force than they do.

I felt less concerned for framing my argument with proper logical form and was rather speaking more on a personal level with you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Perhaps, but I believe this is something of great importance when it presents the way God looks at those who don't believe in His existence.

Yes, I agree that it is obvious from the text that what Paul states in Romans 1 is of great importance to him and thereby to us, but where I'm sure I differ with you in its importance comes into play with how we wach might conceptualize the actual referent to which Paul though his statements were pointing.

I think that what I find imperative to this line of discussion is not that the evidence is so that it will lead others right to Jesus and Christianity but that it shows that there IS evidence that supports the Christian worldview and that it is actually more cohesive and coherent than any other paradigm. Yet, I agree completely that no one can bring another to salvation and that rests solely on the Holy Spirit.

At the point where you say that the evidence is cohesive and coherent, I very much agree, but at the same time I'm not sure we can say that it is MORE cohesive and coherent than any other paradigm.

Could you elaborate? I mean such as what exactly?

To save time, I'll just provide a link to a discussion that I had just over 2 years ago which only went about two dozen posts before we all seemed to sputter out of anything further to say on the topic. You might want to read through it OR, if you don't have the patience for that, then maybe just look at the meat of it which is at post #20, #22 (which are both my posts) and then post #23 by a guy named alexandriaisburning (who I don't think is posting here on CF any longer). So, maybe have a look at this, that way I don't have to retype all of that original inquiry I had.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/yes-god-is-comprehensible.7961693/

Just a little f.y.i.: the thread above was the point at which I was really beginning to ponder if there was (or is) some answer we could have that would give us insight into what "exactly" it was that Paul was actually referring to and which supposedly "all people" are to understand by God's demonstration of "His invisible qualities." Since, then, I've been doing further research and have come across a few things that have given me additional ideas to think about.

Believe me I do read your posts and I think about everything you say, I am not dug into my way is the only way but I do have a great appreciation for science and how that reveals so much of God's ways.

Just know that in my suggesting to you that there are additional things to think about, I'm not trying to pull you away from your present interpretive views about Romans 1, but rather to adjust my focal point to see if we can hone the clarity of the hermeneutical horizon and bring Paul's referents into sharper focus. So, if you're up to it, briefly read those post in the thread I've provided above, and I'll think you see what my beginning point is in the hermeneutical contexts I've been wrestling with that may or may not help today's proponents of I.D.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, I agree that it is obvious from the text that what Paul states in Romans 1 is of great importance to him and thereby to us, but where I'm sure I differ with you in its importance comes into play with how we wach might conceptualize the actual referent to which Paul though his statements were pointing.

At the point where you say that the evidence is cohesive and coherent, I very much agree, but at the same time I'm not sure we can say that it is MORE cohesive and coherent than any other paradigm.

To save time, I'll just provide a link to a discussion that I had just over 2 years ago which only went about two dozen posts before we all seems to sputter out of anything further to say on the topic. You might want to read through it OR, if you don't have the patience for that, then maybe just look at the meat of it which is at post #20, #22 (which are both my posts) and then post #23 by a guy named alexandriaisburning (who I don't think is posting here on CF any longer). So, maybe have a look at this, that way I don't have to retype all of that original inquiry I had.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/yes-god-is-comprehensible.7961693/

Just a little f.y.i.: the thread above was the point at which I was really beginning to ponder if there was (or is) some answer we could have that would give us insight into what "exactly" it was that Paul was actually referring to and which supposedly "all people" are to understand by God's demonstration of "His invisible qualities." Since, then, I've been doing further research and have come across a few things that have given me additional ideas to think about.

Just know that in my suggesting to you that there are additional things to think about, I'm not trying to pull you away from your present interpretive views about Romans 1, but rather to adjust my focal point to see if we can hone the clarity of the hermeneutical horizon and bring Paul's referents into sharper focus. So, if you're up to it, briefly read those post in the thread I've provided above, and I'll think you see what my beginning point is in the hermeneutical contexts I've been wrestling with that may or may not help today's proponents of I.D.

I am not going to respond to this until I read through your link. Thanks.

 

[zippy2006]

If Christianity is true, then it will masterfully connect to all areas of life.

But what if this is bidirectional? The human mind is certainly inclined to make this move, and even the sciences are fond of "unifying theories of everything." The philosophy of science admittedly struggles with this issue, but at the popular level a theory that masterfully accounts for and illumines all of the data is considered to be true. I guess I'm not altogether convinced that overwhelming explanatory power does not imply truth. It probably depends a great deal on what is meant by "masterfully connect."

I don't mean to endorse fine tuning or oversimplify the question of adjudication, for lots of religious traditions have comprehensive explanatory power. I mostly just wanted to check something off my bucket list: Witness a Thomist accuse a Platonist of being too analytical.

(If you're interested, Feser speaks to the issue here, but I haven't read that post in a long time. The transcendentals are obviously at play, but at the moment I am too lazy to try for the fuller claim about beauty, preferring to focus on mere explanatory power.)

 

[Silmarien]

But what if this is bidirectional? The human mind is certainly inclined to make this move, and even the sciences are fond of "unifying theories of everything." The philosophy of science admittedly struggles with this issue, but at the popular level a theory that masterfully accounts for and illumines all of the data is considered to be true. I'm guess I'm not altogether convinced that overwhelming explanatory power does not imply truth. It probably depends a great deal on what is meant by "masterfully connect."

Well, I'll go all the way to scientific anti-realism if pushed. I think we ought to be constructing a metaphysics that actually allows for a coherent scientific picture of reality, so I'm happy to sign on to Neo-Aristotelianism as the best option, but reality is under no obligation to be intelligible. The scientific enterprise could fall apart at some point in the future. (For all their claims of skepticism, most atheists don't want to go all the way to Pyrrhonism, but I have no compunctions about it.)

That said, yes, it is absolutely possible that the human mind's preference for simplicity and beauty in its theories is actually a truth-seeking mechanism. I unsurprisingly lean in this direction myself, but I'm not sure there are any non-circular arguments for it. Which naturally just means... down with discursive reasoning!

I don't mean to endorse fine tuning or oversimplify the question of adjudication, for lots of religious traditions have comprehensive explanatory power. I mostly just wanted to check something off my bucket list: Witness a Thomist accuse a Platonist of being too analytical.

I don't know, have you read those Dialogues? When Plato puts on his Socrates hat, he just spins everyone in circles.

(If you're interested, Feser speaks to the issue here, but I haven't read that post in a long time. The transcendentals are obviously at play, but I am too lazy at the moment to try for the fuller claim about beauty as opposed to mere explanatory power.)

Thank you! I'm not sure I'd seen that one before. It is fun to see Feser go full-on Platonic, though--you don't get that very often.

 

[zippy2006]

...but reality is under no obligation to be intelligible.

Well, if the theory of the transcendentals is true then it sort of is.

Which naturally just means... down with discursive reasoning!

Sure! Really I'd say its monopoly on rationality was only established relatively recently.

I don't know, have you read those Dialogues? When Plato puts on his Socrates hat, he just spins everyone in circles.

Well that doesn't surprise me. Platonists make themselves dizzy--why wouldn't they spin others?

Thank you! I'm not sure I'd seen that one before. It is fun to see Feser go full-on Platonic, though--you don't get that very often.

No, you don't, but Thomas has a Platonic streak and Feser will pick it up from time to time. Josef Pieper is actually pretty good on the topic of non-discursive reasoning in Thomism, but you can find it in Aristotle too.

 

[Silmarien]

Well, if the theory of the transcendentals is true then it sort of is.

If, if, if...

Have there been any attempts to argue that the theory of transcendentals is the only theory by which reality could be intelligible? That would be interesting.

Well that doesn't surprise me. Platonists make themselves dizzy--why wouldn't they spin others?

Nah, that's just the theurgy.

No, you don't, but Thomas has a Platonic streak and Feser will pick it up from time to time. Josef Pieper is actually pretty good on the topic of non-discursive reasoning in Thomism, but you can find it in Aristotle too.

Oh, interesting. I know Aquinas is more than a touch Platonic, but I'm not used to the modern Thomists being overly comfortable with that.

Speaking of Pieper, this is apparently sitting in my local library. I need to do a more systematic study of scholasticism at some point--do you think this would be a good starting place?

 

[zippy2006]

If, if, if...

Have there been any attempts to argue that the theory of transcendentals is the only theory by which reality could be intelligible? That would be interesting.

I'm not sure. At the very least I lean in the direction that we have more evidence for the coupling of being and intelligibility than for the "no obligation" theory. (But we're threading the needle through an asteroid field of theories of mind and truth...)

Nah, that's just the theurgy.

lol

Speaking of Pieper, this is apparently sitting in my local library. I need to do a more systematic study of scholasticism at some point--do you think this would be a good starting place?

I'm not familiar with it and I can't find a preview. That said, Pieper is generally solid and faithful to the scholastic tradition, and he might fit your tastes due to his ability to dialogue with the contemporary and continental traditions.