Your argument against "many paths to God"

[cloudyday2]

Start with post #7
There he makes the statement that I want to have answered: that there is a "logical argument" from the existence of "only One God" to "God has a 'will' for all of mankind".

I disagree with this statement, because I cannot see how such an argument could be made. That's why I asked him in post #60

His response, in post #62 consisted in claiming that this "argument" would only work for believers. That is either incorrect, or would imply that there are additional unmentioned premises to this argument. I fear such premises would result in "begging the question"... that is, already assuming what you want to conclude. Here: "if we assume the existence of One God who has a plan for humanity, we can conclude that God has a plan for all of humanity".

I pointed out that this isn't the way logic works in my response to that, post #68.

He then claimed that he had already explained his thinking, which he very obviously had not done. My pointing that out he ignored, which I found rather funny when he started to claim that he would answer "polite" questions.

o.k. I didn't see your post, so I asked about #7. I haven't had time to read those yet to see what I think.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

How would you persuade somebody who seeks God that Christianity is either the best way or the only way (without simply quoting from Christian sources that the other person doesn't yet accept)?

You wouldn't persuade someone unless they want what God offers.

Some people genuinely do not want to have anything to do with God, and "what He's selling." I would say it comes down to a conviction in the first place that makes someone ask about God.

Certainly it isn't the mainstream idea of religion - which is hypocritical at best. Something fundamental directs one to a particular path. And, s/he makes the choice to stay on that path.




But, paths are unique. Despite what many may think, infinite roads do not converge to a point; or several points. Each unique entity has a unique living trajectory - and a unique path. That is because everything that will happen has already happened. Life, as it were, is a way for us to understand who we are with the luxury of time. If, with your time alive, you choose to follow one path - that is your path.


(The Word of) God is very specific in what He wants. "Covenant" means contract - which means we both must adhere to the terms in order for the contract to remail valid. Just like parents exect of their children, we have an obligation to God (or whomever you decide to follow) to follow the "house rules," or we can leave and try to build a foundation based on our own rules. It happens all the time.



If someone wants to worship and follow the God of Jacob, Isaac and Moses, then s/he must only follow His path - one path. That is the first commandment - God didn't say, "There are no other 'gods,'" He said [if you want to worship me,] "You shall not have any other gods before me." That is the main reason why someone who wants to be a follower of Christ, there is only one path. No other path converges with the path of Christ at any point. You can walk parallel to the path, but never reach the desired point (i.e. Life,) because the parallel path does not ever overlap with the path of Christ.

 

[Freodin]

@Freodin , is this the quote that you and @Nihilist Virus think needs defense? I don't agree with the reasoning, but I don't think @Adstar was unreasonable to present the argument. At least it is an interesting approach that might persuade some people.

I don't think adstar is unreasonable to present an argument. The problem is that he doesn't present an argument... not in this case.

The argument that he does make is that, if there is a God who has a plan for all humanity, then such a God would not spread different messages. I would not call that "logical"... there isn't a necessary connection between these two statements. But there are reasons to support this conclusion.

But he also makes the explicit claim that there is a logical argument between the existenc of "only One God" and "God has a plan for humanity". He never presents this argument.
I'd say because he cannot. There isn't such an argument that is logically conclusive.

And personally I think this is a very good reason to reject the "only one way to God" idea, even if you believe in "only One God". (And yes, I can give an argument for that, if you should ask. )

 

[Silmarien]

To be honest, I find that the idea of philosophical theism is quite often based on this very backward kind of thinking that I mentioned. Inevitably perhaps, but still.

Well, philosophical theism is just belief in God apart from any religious system. I would say deism, but deism is really just one concept that fits under a larger umbrella.

I'm not really sure what you mean by backwards thinking in this particular context, though. I would agree that arguments for the existence of God from morality are weak, but most of the other arguments out there do not specifically address the human condition.

If it works for you. I never found a convincing argument for the existence of "objective values". It seems a contradiction in terms to me.

How so? I should state that when I talk about objective morality, I don't mean individual cultural concepts of virtue or what is and is not acceptable in any particular society. That certainly appears to be variable, but I think it quite clear that love is better for us as a species than hatred, so there is something universal going on there. Whether it extends beyond our species is impossible to determine, but I see no contradiction in the idea that it might.

With pleasure. I hope you will get better soon.

Thank you!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

@Freodin , is this the quote that you and @Nihilist Virus think needs defense? I don't agree with the reasoning, but I don't think @Adstar was unreasonable to present the argument. At least it is an interesting approach that might persuade some people.

Yep, Adstar made that claim and then refused to defend it.

 

[Freodin]

Well, philosophical theism is just belief in God apart from any religious system. I would say deism, but deism is really just one concept that fits under a larger umbrella.

I'm not really sure what you mean by backwards thinking in this particular context, though. I would agree that arguments for the existence of God from morality are weak, but most of the other arguments out there do not specifically address the human condition.

It is belief in a personal God. Personality isn't an abstract universal concept, it is derived from our existing reality.

I may be wrong here, but as I see it, "reality" is an interconnected system. Everything that we humans identify as "distinct" features or concepts exists in that way only because everything else exists in its own way.
Thus, for example, we are not "intelligent", because there exists some independent "thing" called "intelligence", but because of what we are, how we became what we are and the whole wide universe around us. Without all the rest, there wouldn't be any "intelligence".
A theistic idea of God claims the complete opposite.

How so? I should state that when I talk about objective morality, I don't mean individual cultural concepts of virtue or what is and is not acceptable in any particular society. That certainly appears to be variable, but I think it quite clear that love is better for us as a species than hatred, so there is something universal going on there. Whether it extends beyond our species is impossible to determine, but I see no contradiction in the idea that it might.

I agree with your basic idea. But that wouldn't be "objective". "Objective morality" would mean a morality that exists independent from the agents that follow it... and I cannot see how that is possible.
In your previous post, you used the term "objective values". It is the same with that: a "value" is given. It cannot exist independently from a giver. Thus it cannot be objective.

 

[cloudyday2]

Yep, Adstar made that claim and then refused to defend it.

I agree there are some missing steps in the reasoning of the argument. It almost seems like a proof by counter example that there is no God who revealed some religion to humans, because I think the natural implication of @Adstar 's assumptions would be that God should distinguish Christianity from the hundreds of false religions so that it is more obvious that Christianity is the right path. I suppose a born-again conversion experience would serve that purpose.

 

[cloudyday2]

If I was a Christian trying to persuade a seeker to pursue the Christian path here are some ideas:

(1) I would show that the important Christian historical claims might have actually happened.

(2) I would devise a set of practices for the seeker with the goal of him/her receiving a revelation from God that Christianity is true. Practices might include: (a) having Christians pray for him/her, (b) setting aside time for prayer and contemplation of God, (c) studying the New Testament.

(3) Maybe I would try to show the plausibility of some version of Christian theology if the person is blocked on those issues.

(4) I would argue that Christian teachings are good - even if the metaphysical claims are false. So the seeker is not losing too much by pursuing Christianity.

(5) I might argue that the seeker can incorporate the beliefs and practices of others paths into Christianity where there is no conflict.

 

[Silmarien]

It is belief in a personal God. Personality isn't an abstract universal concept, it is derived from our existing reality.

I may be wrong here, but as I see it, "reality" is an interconnected system. Everything that we humans identify as "distinct" features or concepts exists in that way only because everything else exists in its own way.
Thus, for example, we are not "intelligent", because there exists some independent "thing" called "intelligence", but because of what we are, how we became what we are and the whole wide universe around us. Without all the rest, there wouldn't be any "intelligence".
A theistic idea of God claims the complete opposite.

Classical theism doesn't, though the more popular modern version might. I would agree that we are what we are because the universe is what it is, but I think it very much worth asking if we could exist at all had the potentiality for something like humanity not always been there all along. Could life arise from nonlife by accident, could consciousness spring from a dead, material universe, could rationality arise by chance (and if it could, how can it be trusted at all)?

I don't believe God is personal because we are persons; I would sooner say that I believe that God is subjective because subjectivity certainly appears to exist, and I honestly do not think it could if it were not built into the nature of reality.

I also don't believe that God is intelligent because humans are intelligent. I believe that because the universe itself seems to be intelligible, and it makes no sense that a non-intelligent God would give rise to an ordered universe by accident. With that logic, you're back to the universe as a brute fact and theism stops being coherent. This certainly doesn't mean that God is intelligent in the same way that we are, though. That's crazed anthropomorphism.

I agree with you for the most part, though. I just don't see how it's an argument against theism, or at least the version I'm sympathetic to. But I'm a wild medieval throwback.

I agree with your basic idea. But that wouldn't be "objective". "Objective morality" would mean a morality that exists independent from the agents that follow it... and I cannot see how that is possible.
In your previous post, you used the term "objective values". It is the same with that: a "value" is given. It cannot exist independently from a giver. Thus it cannot be objective.

I agree. I do not think that objective values make sense except in a theistic context. But if we address the scenario where something like the Triune God exists--a god concept that is simultaneously singular and plural, then relationality and everything that follows from it become an inherent aspect of reality. Objective values springing from God's nature as communal.

Obviously I do not expect you to decide that objective values exist and therefore that God exists, but the two do make sense together, at least in a Christian or Neoplatonic framework.

 

[Dirk1540]

I'm kind of dying of food poisoning right now, though, and will need to take a rain check!

Oh No!! In Italy, or are you home now? Not that either place is good. I have a trick for you, not sure if you realized that you ate something bad at the time or not. I don't get food poisoning often but when I eat something bad my stomach usually lets me know very quickly. When I had that feeling this has saved me 4 or 5 times now (one time I waited too long to do it so it didn't work). Several drops of oil of oregano under your tongue IMMEDIATELY after you realize you ate something bad. It's antibacterial and antiviral properties are off the charts. The one time I waited about 90 minutes and it was too late. Also make sure you get a real oil of oregano, there are fakes I believe.

 

[Freodin]

Classical theism doesn't, though the more popular modern version might.

Ok, you are about right here. Some classical philosophical theism gets quite abstracts, though it still is considered "personal". Even the god concept of Aristotle is a personal, if highly abstracted god.

I would agree that we are what we are because the universe is what it is, but I think it very much worth asking if we could exist at all had the potentiality for something like humanity not always been there all along. Could life arise from nonlife by accident, could consciousness spring from a dead, material universe, could rationality arise by chance (and if it could, how can it be trusted at all)?

These are interesting questions, and, as I see it, perfect examples of this "backward thinking" that I try to adress here.

You start from a position that acknowledges the existence (and the distinct existence on top) of things like "life" "non-life", "consciousness", "matter", "rationality".
The first problem I personally see is the essentialist position that this list demonstrates. I don't adhere to the platonic idea system. I don't think that concepts like "life", "consciousness", "rationality" (or "Love", "green" and "up") have independent existence. They are only expressions of "real" existence. (Which may be indentified with "physical", but not necessarily so.)
The second problem is the main point. You present the concept/question of "Could life arise from nonlife?", but you can only do that because we as humans make this distinction. An exclusive human distinction, that might not be "real".

If you follow the line of this question, you might have to consider others. "Could matter come from non-matter? Could energy come from non-energy? Can gravity come from non-gravity? Can the complex structure of the universe, the whole of existence come from something that is not an equally complex structure?"
Usually we don't ask these questions, because, based on our experience, we don't even consider "non-energy, non-matter, a universe that doesn't exist". We have no way to make such a distinction, as in "life vs. non-life", because we have no idea, no concept of these things.

But if we are to accept that these are "created" in the same way that people think "life" is created, by a "living" being... wouldn't it be, in the same way, reasonable to conclude that this being must be also dead and material and structured in the same way as the universe?

Again as I see it, there are only two basic options: either the "cause" or "creator" of this universe is basically just the same as "us" (meaning, all of the "material" existence), or not.
In the first case, the rational conclusion arises - always put down by special pleading from Christians: If we need to be "created", then so should the creator.
In the second case: nothing that we, from our experience, attribute to this "cause" or "creator" needs to apply.

I hold to the second position. Call it my "personal theology": I believe that the "ground of existence" is different from all that we "know", and indescribable, because of that difference. I use the term "primal chaos".

I don't believe God is personal because we are persons; I would sooner say that I believe that God is subjective because subjectivity certainly appears to exist, and I honestly do not think it could if it were not built into the nature of reality.

Hm... no, I have to disagree here. Not with the first part: I also don't think God is personal because we are persons. Rather, that we see God as personal because we are persons.
But I disagree on the subjectivity. It "exists"... but it only exists because there are "subjects". You don't need subjectivity to create subjects, you create subjectivity simply by there being subjects.

I also don't believe that God is intelligent because humans are intelligent. I believe that because the universe itself seems to be intelligible, and it makes no sense that a non-intelligent God would give rise to an ordered universe by accident.

As above, we see God as intelligent because we are. But that goes back to my one-before-the-last paragraph: why are we intelligent? How does our intelligence work?
It is not that there is a bunch of molecules and then some "intelligence" put into it.
It is the way that these molecules behave and interact that "gives rise" to what we call "intelligence". Without this basis, there wouldn't be any "intelligence".

Think about it. Think about how it works, would work. You will always come to a point where you either need a structured system already existing for these "emergent properties", or something completely different.

With that logic, you're back to the universe as a brute fact and theism stops being coherent. This certainly doesn't mean that God is intelligent in the same way that we are, though. That's crazed anthropomorphism.

How different can "intelligence" or any other concept like this get before not being "intelligence" any more?

I agree with you for the most part, though. I just don't see how it's an argument against theism, or at least the version I'm sympathetic to. But I'm a wild medieval throwback.

More than medieval, I would say. Antique. But as Platonism is still a philosophical system, I wouldn't call it a throwback.

As an argument against theism, well, that's difficult. It may sound wierd, but my personal belief system doesn't exclude the existence of deities, or even "One Single God". I don't believe in any, but that doesn't mean they would be impossible.
Yet for the reasons I explained above, I claim that these "gods" would not be the "basic existence". They would be expressions of this basis, just like an "accidental" (I dislike this term) universe would be.

I agree. I do not think that objective values make sense except in a theistic context. But if we address the scenario where something like the Triune God exists--a god concept that is simultaneously singular and plural, then relationality and everything that follows from it become an inherent aspect of reality. Objective values springing from God's nature as communal.

I would still say that this doesn't make these values objective. They don't exist independently from the subject holding these values, in this case God. And I still would say that they cannot be "objective" even if you don't use this term in this way I do. You still cannot disconnect the "values" from the "value-holder". And that means that all values must be subjective.

Obviously I do not expect you to decide that objective values exist and therefore that God exists, but the two do make sense together, at least in a Christian or Neoplatonic framework.

I fear I cannot see any way this concept can make sense, in any framework. That's why I called it a "contradiction in terms". At best, you could call them "authoritative values"... and I think that this makes a lot more sense in a Christian framework.

Interestingly I find that my "primal chaos" idea has a lot in common with the Neoplatonic concept of "the One". I mainly disagree with the theistic conclusions added to it.

 

[Adstar]

If I was a Christian trying to persuade a seeker to pursue the Christian path here are some ideas:

(1) I would show that the important Christian historical claims might have actually happened.

(2) I would devise a set of practices for the seeker with the goal of him/her receiving a revelation from God that Christianity is true. Practices might include: (a) having Christians pray for him/her, (b) setting aside time for prayer and contemplation of God, (c) studying the New Testament.

(3) Maybe I would try to show the plausibility of some version of Christian theology if the person is blocked on those issues.

(4) I would argue that Christian teachings are good - even if the metaphysical claims are false. So the seeker is not losing too much by pursuing Christianity.

(5) I might argue that the seeker can incorporate the beliefs and practices of others paths into Christianity where there is no conflict.

Point 2, 3 and 4 and i would say point 1 would require the use of scriptures.. In your opening post you asked for arguments that do not use scriptures .. I quote from your opening post::

""""How would you persuade somebody who seeks God that Christianity is either the best way or the only way (without simply quoting from Christian sources that the other person doesn't yet accept)?"""

The Bible is the principle Christian source.. So you start out with a restriction against Christians using the scriptures.. and then you give your advice to Christians about how you would do it .. By pointing the seeker to Scriptures.. To study the New Testament ..

 

[cloudyday2]

Point 2, 3 and 4 and i would say point 1 would require the use of scriptures.. In your opening post you asked for arguments that do not use scriptures .. I quote from your opening post::

""""How would you persuade somebody who seeks God that Christianity is either the best way or the only way (without simply quoting from Christian sources that the other person doesn't yet accept)?"""

The Bible is the principle Christian source.. So you start out with a restriction against Christians using the scriptures.. and then you give your advice to Christians about how you would do it .. By pointing the seeker to Scriptures.. To study the New Testament ..

O.k. I see what you are saying. I only meant that quoting Jesus saying "I am the way the light and the truth" (and similar verses) wouldn't persuade most seekers that Christianity is the best or only path, because those seekers are not yet convinced that Jesus was divinely inspired.

 

[Adstar]

O.k. I see what you are saying. I only meant that quoting Jesus saying "I am the way the light and the truth" (and similar verses) wouldn't persuade most seekers that Christianity is the best or only path, because those seekers are not yet convinced that Jesus was divinely inspired.

Well it has been my experience that people who convert and become Christians do so because of the Message contained within the Bible.. I know people have been convinced of the existence of Jesus by Non- Biblical sources but those sources cannot convince anyone that Jesus is God.. There are a lot of people who believe Jesus existed but do not believe Jesus.. Even among self identified Christians..

 

[cloudyday2]

Well it has been my experience that people who convert and become Christians do so because of the Message contained within the Bible.. I know people have been convinced of the existence of Jesus by Non- Biblical sources but those sources cannot convince anyone that Jesus is God.. There are a lot of people who believe Jesus existed but do not believe Jesus.. Even among self identified Christians..

Hmmm. I don't understand how that would work. So what is the process? Does the seeker simply start reading the Bible and suddenly think "why of course that must be true, where can I get baptized"?

What I imagine happening is that the reading may become mystical. Words might seem to be highlighted to the seeker and he/she begins to believe that God is confirming the truth of those words. I don't see how a person would just read the Bible and be converted without some other reasons. Honestly there isn't much in the Bible that impresses me. I'm impressed by the Bhagavad Gita, but I'm not impressed by the Bible.

 

[Silmarien]

The second problem is the main point. You present the concept/question of "Could life arise from nonlife?", but you can only do that because we as humans make this distinction. An exclusive human distinction, that might not be "real".

I am sympathetic to this point, actually. I identify as a strong agnostic half the time around here because I've been backed into a very interesting corner:

1) Either the human experience does reflect reality in some meaningful sense, which means our intuitions about our own existence are basically sound and we can engage in this sort of "backwards" reasoning to establish whether it is at least rational to believe in a divine entity; or

2) The human experience does not reflect reality in any meaningful sense, rationality does not exist, science amounts to nothing more than the manipulation of matter and tells us absolutely nothing about the universe as it actually is, knowledge is an illusion, and we can say nothing at all about anything. I would say that this view is incompatible with anything except a very, very strong agnosticism.

I have no problem with radical skepticism, but every thought we have is specifically from the human perspective, so it is special pleading to think we can escape this epistemological quandary in any way whatsoever. The only coherent options are to accept this skepticism and everything it entails or to reject the idea that human existence does not match up to reality in some meaningful sense, even if it may not be a complete match.

But if we are to accept that these are "created" in the same way that people think "life" is created, by a "living" being... wouldn't it be, in the same way, reasonable to conclude that this being must be also dead and material and structured in the same way as the universe?

I do not actually believe the universe is either dead or material, so it's rather irrelevant to me. I'm intrigued by panpsychism and believe that the universe is energy.

I should specify that I'm specifically interested in what the universe itself might actually be with these particular questions--I don't believe life exists because God has imbued dead matter with some additional essence; I think the seeds were there all along and our concept of matter is wrong. So my point is not that X cannot come from non-X so much as, what is non-X really that X can come from it? I'm rabidly anti-materialist.

In the first case, the rational conclusion arises - always put down by special pleading from Christians: If we need to be "created", then so should the creator.

I actually do not see how it follows that uncreated existence needs to be the same thing as created existence. I would expect created existence to somehow reflect its creator, I suppose, but I do not think it special pleading at all to say that everything that comes into being has a cause, so something must exist necessarily that has no cause.

But I disagree on the subjectivity. It "exists"... but it only exists because there are "subjects". You don't need subjectivity to create subjects, you create subjectivity simply by there being subjects.

The difficulty is that I believe that it is impossible that there be individual subjects at all. I don't think that we should exist, I don't think that anything at all should exist. I'm all the way at the bottom of Nietzsche's abyss in any number of senses, but the one thing that is incontrovertible is that existence is a fact, so I am in a bit of a bind.

Think about it. Think about how it works, would work. You will always come to a point where you either need a structured system already existing for these "emergent properties", or something completely different.

"Emergent properties" amounts to begging the question, as far as I'm concerned. Molecules cannot give rise to intelligence unless there is something inherent to the nature of molecules that could at some point lead to self-consciousness. I do not believe in magic.

More than medieval, I would say. Antique. But as Platonism is still a philosophical system, I wouldn't call it a throwback.

Well, more Aristotelian than Platonist, really, though I am sympathetic to the latter as well. Actually, it's worth mentioning that you've interpreted a lot of what I've said within the context of a Platonic Theory of Forms, whereas I'm actually thinking more in terms of Act and Potency.

But I say medieval because medieval philosophy is very Aristotelian and Neoplatonic also. It's interesting to note that more than one atheist philosopher has rediscovered Aristotle and subsequently abandoned atheism, tossing out the last 400 or so years of intellectual history. That's what finally happened to Antony Flew, though everyone focuses on the ID angle instead because it's an easier target.

I would still say that this doesn't make these values objective. They don't exist independently from the subject holding these values, in this case God. And I still would say that they cannot be "objective" even if you don't use this term in this way I do. You still cannot disconnect the "values" from the "value-holder". And that means that all values must be subjective.

There is nothing independent of the subject holding these values, at least if you're positing fullblown theism, so I fail to see the problem. If values are not grounded in God's nature, we're back to the Euthyphro Dilemma.

Interestingly I find that my "primal chaos" idea has a lot in common with the Neoplatonic concept of "the One". I mainly disagree with the theistic conclusions added to it.

We probably have more in common than not, in that case!

 

[Silmarien]

Oh No!! In Italy, or are you home now? Not that either place is good. I have a trick for you, not sure if you realized that you ate something bad at the time or not. I don't get food poisoning often but when I eat something bad my stomach usually lets me know very quickly. When I had that feeling this has saved me 4 or 5 times now (one time I waited too long to do it so it didn't work). Several drops of oil of oregano under your tongue IMMEDIATELY after you realize you ate something bad. It's antibacterial and antiviral properties are off the charts. The one time I waited about 90 minutes and it was too late. Also make sure you get a real oil of oregano, there are fakes I believe.

Thank you! Yes, I'm finally home, though the trip was not fun. Got caught up in the French air traffic control strike, leading to a three hour delay getting out of Rome and getting stuck overnight in the Lisbon airport waiting for my next flight.

I have no idea what made me sick, really. I thought it was just stress from the situation, but then the fever got worse, so... not so much. Whatever it was, it took days to manifest, though. Doesn't seem to be the bad type of E. Coli, at least, since the medication hasn't killed me yet...

 

[Freodin]

I am sympathetic to this point, actually. I identify as a strong agnostic half the time around here because I've been backed into a very interesting corner:

1) Either the human experience does reflect reality in some meaningful sense, which means our intuitions about our own existence are basically sound and we can engage in this sort of "backwards" reasoning to establish whether it is at least rational to believe in a divine entity; or

2) The human experience does not reflect reality in any meaningful sense, rationality does not exist, science amounts to nothing more than the manipulation of matter and tells us absolutely nothing about the universe as it actually is, knowledge is an illusion, and we can say nothing at all about anything. I would say that this view is incompatible with anything except a very, very strong agnosticism.

I have no problem with radical skepticism, but every thought we have is specifically from the human perspective, so it is special pleading to think we can escape this epistemological quandary in any way whatsoever. The only coherent options are to accept this skepticism and everything it entails or to reject the idea that human existence does not match up to reality in some meaningful sense, even if it may not be a complete match.

Hm, how about a compromise between 1) and 2)?
The human experience does reflect reality in a meaningful sense... as far as human experience goes. And with that I mean the very basic human experience, that is subconscious/instinctive, not always rational.

You might be a rabit anti-materialist, but even you act in a materialistic way. You eat, you type, you walk. You use planes, computers, shoes. You don't act in your daily life as if everything is "energy" or some kind of psyche.

That is the "normal" human experience. But the further we go "down", the weirder and less "normal" it becomes.
And still humans don't act as if their world is just a bunch of stochastical wave functions.

I do not actually believe the universe is either dead or material, so it's rather irrelevant to me. I'm intrigued by panpsychism and believe that the universe is energy.

I'd say it doesn't matter. The result would be the same. You think the universe is "alive" and that results in "life", I think the universe is "dead with emergent properties" and that results in the emergent property of "life".

I should specify that I'm specifically interested in what the universe itself might actually be with these particular questions--I don't believe life exists because God has imbued dead matter with some additional essence; I think the seeds were there all along and our concept of matter is wrong. So my point is not that X cannot come from non-X so much as, what is non-X really that X can come from it? I'm rabidly anti-materialist.

But a seed is not a tree.
The problem I see here is the separation of "X" as a distinct entity. (Which I claim is based on this "normal human experience")
Humans, due to the way that their intelligence and consciousness works, categorize things. You already made such a distinction when you asked "Can life come from non-life?" You have a category "life" and one "non-life".

(If, as you implied, you think that there is no "non-life", this problem falls flat. We are just using different supercategories then.)
These categories "reflect realities in a meaningful way"... meaningful to us humans, and only to us humans.

So when you experience something - say, this text right here - you can analyse it "materialistically". There are, on one level, "letters". On another level, there are electrical signals. Somewhere you will come down to matter and energy.
But on no level will there be anything like "meaning" or "content" or "answers", "questions", "information". This will only exist on the "complete" level.

So, yes, X can come from something that doesn't contain a trace of X.

I actually do not see how it follows that uncreated existence needs to be the same thing as created existence. I would expect created existence to somehow reflect its creator, I suppose, but I do not think it special pleading at all to say that everything that comes into being has a cause, so something must exist necessarily that has no cause.

Not necessarily "the same thing"... but it would be either similar on a fundamental level, or completely different.
And, yes, to claim that "and this now did not come into being, because I need a prime cause" is special pleading.

The difficulty is that I believe that it is impossible that there be individual subjects at all. I don't think that we should exist, I don't think that anything at all should exist. I'm all the way at the bottom of Nietzsche's abyss in any number of senses, but the one thing that is incontrovertible is that existence is a fact, so I am in a bit of a bind.

I cannot see how that would lead to your conclusion. I agree that existence is a fact. But how is that going to lead to the conclusion that existence was created? After all, the creator would also have to exist, yet be uncreated.

Also, I believe that non-existence is impossible.

"Emergent properties" amounts to begging the question, as far as I'm concerned. Molecules cannot give rise to intelligence unless there is something inherent to the nature of molecules that could at some point lead to self-consciousness. I do not believe in magic.

Well, there is "something inherent to the nature of molecules" that leads to intelligence and consciousness. But it isn't intelligence or consciousness in itself. This isn't magic.

Well, more Aristotelian than Platonist, really, though I am sympathetic to the latter as well. Actually, it's worth mentioning that you've interpreted a lot of what I've said within the context of a Platonic Theory of Forms, whereas I'm actually thinking more in terms of Act and Potency.

But I say medieval because medieval philosophy is very Aristotelian and Neoplatonic also. It's interesting to note that more than one atheist philosopher has rediscovered Aristotle and subsequently abandoned atheism, tossing out the last 400 or so years of intellectual history. That's what finally happened to Antony Flew, though everyone focuses on the ID angle instead because it's an easier target.

As far as I understood it, most Neoplatonists weren't very fond of Plato. But I also think that a lot of the medieval Neoplatonism was, well, "corrupted" by the intent to align it with Christian theology.

There is nothing independent of the subject holding these values, at least if you're positing fullblown theism, so I fail to see the problem. If values are not grounded in God's nature, we're back to the Euthyphro Dilemma.

But there are independent subjects, even in "fullblown theism". Otherwise the whole topic here wouldn't make sense. And each of these independent subjects hold subjective values... grounded in "their nature".

We probably have more in common than not, in that case!

Well, very likely. I have no qualms with general philosophical theism. I just disagree with it. I usually draw the line at the "Jesus rose from the dead and Muhammed went to heaven on a flying horse" things. I don't believe in magic either.

 

[Silmarien]

Hm, how about a compromise between 1) and 2)?
The human experience does reflect reality in a meaningful sense... as far as human experience goes. And with that I mean the very basic human experience, that is subconscious/instinctive, not always rational.

I do not see how this particular compromise gets us anywhere. If only instinct counts and rationality is out the window, we still can't know anything.

You might be a rabit anti-materialist, but even you act in a materialistic way. You eat, you type, you walk. You use planes, computers, shoes. You don't act in your daily life as if everything is "energy" or some kind of psyche.

None of that has to do with metaphysical materialism, though. I have no problem saying I'm materialistic in the cultural sense, but it is philosophical materialism and its bizarre dogmatism and incoherent ramifications that I take issue with.

The problem I see here is the separation of "X" as a distinct entity. (Which I claim is based on this "normal human experience")

I do not see how I am separating anything out as a distinct entity. I'm not suggesting a Theory of Forms with this--the only place where I really start getting at all Platonic is with the context of subjectivity, but that has more to do with personal intuition and the fact that I am uncertain that objectivity exists.

But on no level will there be anything like "meaning" or "content" or "answers", "questions", "information". This will only exist on the "complete" level.

So, yes, X can come from something that doesn't contain a trace of X.

I disagree for two reasons. Most importantly, we only exist on our particular level--I hesitate to call it "complete", because that would imply that there is no picture of reality that transcends our understanding, and I don't believe that. As we only exist on this level, I do not see how we are qualified to claim that any such concepts do not appear on other levels as well.

I am also unconvinced that information is not a basic building block of reality. There are attempts out there to reinterpret physics as a matter of information and information flow, and there is of course the notorious example of DNA, so I do not see any evidence whatsoever that there is no trace of meaning and content at all in the nature of reality.

And, yes, to claim that "and this now did not come into being, because I need a prime cause" is special pleading.

How so? Nobody is saying (I hope) that the Christian God can be the Prime Mover but for some random reason, Allah or Brahman cannot. If you believe that non-existence is impossible, then you must also believe that something has always existed and thus need not have been caused. How is a Prime Mover special pleading but a Primal Chaos not?

I cannot see how that would lead to your conclusion. I agree that existence is a fact. But how is that going to lead to the conclusion that existence was created? After all, the creator would also have to exist, yet be uncreated.

Well, I don't really believe that the underlying nature of reality is a quantum vacuum and a whole bunch of inexplicable laws of physics that are just conveniently there. I do not see the universe as necessarily existing, as it is too composite for my poor, Neoplatonic brain to handle, which means that something else must necessarily exist.

You could take a right hand turn straight into Vedanta Hinduism and claim that everything, including individual existence, is illusory and a manifestation of God, and I would not be too uncomfortable. I'm really only positing an ultimate reality that is in some sense subjectively aware of itself--there are multiple ways that makes sense to me, but in the absence of that, everything is incoherent.

Well, there is "something inherent to the nature of molecules" that leads to intelligence and consciousness. But it isn't intelligence or consciousness in itself. This isn't magic.

Again, Aristotelian, not Platonist. I do not really think that we have self-aware water particles wandering around or something along those lines. I'm happy looking at this from the perspective of Act and Potency and then falling into a carefully set Thomist trap.

 

[cloudyday2]

@Silmarien and @Freodin , I have only been skimming bits and pieces of your posts, but it seems that "rationality" keeps coming up. I would define "rational" behavior as the behavior that we could reproduce with a computer algorithm. "Rational" doesn't seem divine to me. "Irrational"/"unexpected"/"creative" is divine IMO. Or maybe the combination of both is divine.