https://plus.google.com/106774038347107328330/posts/YbZaetpCuQx
INTRODUCTION
... whoop whoop! I'm glad that you are all warmed
up and ready for this discussion lol. Im glad that you're as excited as
I am. Wooooo! Let's do this lol.
OBJECTIVE - BUT WITH VIQ
VIQ = Very Important Question
I see that you are straying away from the discussion
context that I am making. That is, the sequitur of subjects-matters
like minds, immateriality etc. But you have branched off on another
subject matter - RELIGION. I like the way you discuss because you do not
like to bother yourself with the branches of a tree but you like to
attack the root. hahahaha - you wise and sneaky fellow - i like that. I
bet immediately you knew my bias you were like "Drop everything,
let's deal with this religious nonsense if not we will not be able to
make any progress." Well done lol... I like guys like you.
Now I have to apologise
because I know it takes me quite a while to reply. I am a postgraduate
on the verge of searching for a job and paying loans to the bank and the
real reason I even engage in these discussions is because my friend +carmel Ka invites
me to them lol. That is why I discipline myself with dedicated 1 hour
minimum each day to associate in these delightful discussions.
The
reason I apologised is because I want to reply to you but I too have
made an assumption of your axiomatic bias - so far, that you are
irreligious - since you are so good at hiding your background in the way
you discuss lol. Sometimes, I almost confuse you for a religious person
lol - (teasing you). I am apologising because I have to go on and reply
to all that you have said even though I think it would be
counter-productive to do so until you have answered this very important
question:
Have you taken a degree in Christian Theology or are you well vastly conversant with Christian Theology???"
The reason I am asking this question is because I am going to go on along to have to teach or educate you on the how I believe God is very much coherent with sound philosophy.
So, to play it safe, I
will answer "no" for you, for now, so that I can proceed with my reply.
But a confirmation from you would be nice too.
PROCESSION
Now
the same reason you reject Christianity is the same, but opposite
reason I accept Christianity. Your argument, in the form of that
demonstrated-discussion tries to prove that. However, I would say that
that demonstrated-discussion does not settle well proving your point: That Christianity is a barrier to reasonable discussion.
I think that this is a fallacious argument from analogy as it
philosophically fails on the grounds of necessity. Why? Because I too
could conjure up a demonstration-discussion analogy that could biased
prove that you were wrong. It does not prove the point that Christianity
is a barrier to reasonable discussion.
Secondly, this is also an
Association-Causation Fallacy because the association of people with
Christianity or Mental Sickness, does not necessarily Cause the
Objective Truth of their argument. A mad-man could say "1+1=2" but that
does not make it wrong or right by appealing to his mad incredulity lol.
The reasonableness of discussion should be assessed more intellectually
objective than this, in my opinion.
Thirdly, Christianity is a
very big umbrella - although, we have 1 and the same core-values; and
that is "Christ". That is to say, no "Christianity" without "Christ"
lol. We are divided into sects; Catholics, Protestants, Pentecostals,
Baptists etc. So it would a Fallacy of Composition to use one person's
thinking faculty of Christianity to make a judgement about Christianity.
This is why I still remain skeptical that Christianity can CAUSE
unreasonable discussions.
YOUR DISCUSSION-CONTEXT DEMANDS
As earlier said in the Objective of this reply, I know the analogy is not your case... This is what you want me to address:
You want me to address my own take on this discussion
To which you can critique and logically discuss. OK... I accept :D
ATHEISM VS IDEALISM - a bit of contextual non-sequitur
When
it comes to the debate over mind vs brain, we see that mind has
different properties as opposed to the properties of the brain. If you
want the vast amount of experiments that are out there to prove this
point, just ask and I will show you. What I do not get is the mutual
inclusivity of atheism and idealism in this same context. Rather than
jump the gun, I would politely ask you:
How do you define Atheistic Idealism?
Does
it mean that although the properties of mind and brain are different,
they are both natural? Because, last time I checked, Atheism ONLY
adheres to the natural realm ALONE. So a good logically warranted
justification is needed on how an atheist can believe in idealism.
FINALLY - ANSWERING YOU LOL
(1) For necessarily inherent secondary aspect: mechanism:
I
agree with this argument. Yes. It is definitely "most likely" as a vast
amount of our existential experiences denote this and there are no
strong counter-arguments for this in my opinion.
(2) For divided awareness:
Now
I understand your context because at first I was gonna ask if you were
hastily generalising the "we" in your premise 1; however, I love how you
draw out the dichotomy between God and Man. God is Omniscient and HE is
aware of everything that is a thing and not a logical contradiction. So
yes, I agree with this and I agree that God does not imbibe the same
nature of awareness as us and all of us are not enough - even
collectively - to sum up the awareness of God lol.
(3) Argument for variation in qualia being the reason for causal activity and mechanism:
I totally agree. Premise 4's "most likely" is used intellectually honestly. Well done.
(4) Against intelligent non mechanical beginning:
Premise
1 does not apply to God - especially the Christian God. This is
over-ruled but the Bootstrap Objection of Christian Theology (BOCT). In
summary or layman's language, the BOCT says that for especially
for abstract entities that the what cause of those abstract entities
must necessarily and ultimately be that very same abstract entity.
So, God did not just create good, truth, information etc God IS love,
truth, information. Why? because HE is the FIRST EFFICIENT CAUSE of
those things. So God cannot be "bad", "Lies",
"Contradictory-information" because HE is not the FIRST EFFICIENT CAUSE
OF THOSE THINGS. So in this argument, and seeing that God is not just a singularity, but God is The Singularity
in and of HIMSELF, God does not just have a beginning - HE is "_The_
Beginning". This is also an argument to avoid the logical contradiction
that an Infinite Regress of Beginnings exists.
Premise 4 disturbs me -
and trust me, its not because I'm religious lol - think with me for a
minute. I do not see the logical-coherent-connection between "Absolute Singleness or Simpleness" and "no-variation".
I think you are asking for a one-ended stick here and this is logically
unwarranted. So please, justify because I totally disagree. In my
opinion, the kind of Absolute Singleness or Simpleness you are asking for here is special pleading.
This
is also a simple-to-complex argument; which is special pleading. You
need to warrant why ALL THINGS must always only move from
simple-to-complex without fallaciously appealing to the consequence that
"if it were so, then the explanation of the complexity would be even
more complex than what is being explained". Who sets this rule up as a
main logical objective? Even the primordial soup is not "simple". Even
black holes and their singularities are not "simple". In fact, I think
you will be violating a Philosophical Assumption of Science called
"INFINITY" (1) - that the universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic
and macroscopic directions. Even string theory does not argue for a
single-ended string. It does not seem to me that it is a NECESSITY that
things must start simple. In my opinion, one-ended sticks are a logical
contradictions.
OR
A "Cause" eternally existing without an "Effect" eternally existing side-by, is a logical contradiction.
So
I find it logically possible for events to EITHER move from simple to
complex or from complex to simple as long as it is logically consistent.
But making a law out of one direction must be logically warranted.
This
is coherent with Christian Theology and Doctrine because God is
incomprehensible; but do not fallaciously equivocate it with the fact
that HE can be fully apprehensible.
If you need further Theological explanations for this, just ask and it will be given to you lol (Matthew 7:7) hahaha
(5) Argument for a-causal advent of variation of qualia:
Now
this is where I play your game with you for now in the assumption that
the above argument is right. Yes, I agree with this argument for that
play-along-assumption.
But seeing that I am not satisfied with the previous argument, it special pleads how a-causality can create variation in the ABSOLUTE absence
of variation. Where did that a-causality come from? I bring in the BOCT
again to say that, therefore, whatever that "a-causality" is, it is
therefore God.
In fact, God is a person. In Christianity, we say HE
is (eternally) multi-personal. AND the only Candidate that fits that
description of a-causality is "personality" - in my opinion.
(6) Argument against brute fact God agency creating mechanism:
I
noticed that you are not arguing for the "God Theory" as postulated by
Dr Bernard Haisch which is a model of Pandeism. Rather, you only poison
the well of Theism's God Theory. If that is the definition of "God
Theory" you're using, then this is a very sound argument. I agree... but
I do not think it applies to the Christian God. By virtue of this
argument, you only appear to Poison The Well rather than make the
well better. Yes you gave a meaningful argument but make it better - if
there is no explanation in God Theory for the advent of mechanisms ....
where do you consider the explanation to be? If there is no logically
warranted answer, then it seems like your concept of who God is must
therefore be DIFFERENT from the Christian God. You appear to be arguing
for a Monadic Concept of God - the Islamic Kind of God. Well done in
debunking that one. I would argue that you're right coz I almost see no
flaw in your logic and every other "gods" of the other religions are
question-begging and special pleading. But the God of Christianity,
according to the BOCT, HE is both agency and mechanism. This is to say
we believe in Tritheism of God's Hypostasis. God the father, God the Son
and God the Holy Spirit. In the language of your very own context
- God the Agency - That which creates the cause
- God the Effect - The end of the stick of causality
- God the Mechanism - The producer that allows for transition between the Agent and Effect.
agency - Genesis 1:1 ... In the beginning, God created...
agency & mechanism - John 1:1-5 ...
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3*Through* him all things
were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was
life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5The light shines in
the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
Maybe it was the way that other Christian defined things for you. I'm sorry but many of us Christians just get things wrong.
THIS IS WHERE I EDUCATE YOU ON CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
Lastly,
I see you struggling with the Law of Identity. This is easy to prove by
the fact that God is Infinitely Great. Even by virtue of the assumption
of science in reference (1), infinite exists in order for our
mathematics to be coherent. Now consider the following philosophical
arguments for infinity:
- The Banach-Tarski Paradox
- Georg Cantor's Diagonal Argument for Infinite Uncountable Numbers
- Hilbert's Paradox of the Grand Hotel
- Hilbert's Paradox of the Grand Hotel from the perspective of Circle's Shape.
- Ian Stewart's Hyperwebster dictionary
- Ian Stewart's Hyperwebster dictionary from the perspective of a sphere
- Zeno's Paradox
We
use the philosophy of infinity (2) in the Naturalistic Theism of
Christian Theology and Doctrine. Just watch this video so that I do not
have to explain each of those points (3).
1 + infinity = infinity
1 - infinity = infinity
1 x infinity = infinity
1 / infinity = infinity - ie according to philosophy lol
In fact, look at the video from time 8:13 to 9:24 - and notice how the circle never needed its missing piece to be complete when looking at it from the perspective of infinity.
But,
to say, if mathematics behaves MOSTLY like this, then why is it
impossible for God to ADD or SUBTRACT from HIS identity and HE still
remains HIS very same identity? The subtracted piece from the circle can
assume a new individual identity while God remains in HIS own
unchanging identity. God is complete all by HIMSELF and in no need of
you to add or subtract from HIM to complete HIM. God is not a Unitarian
like a human being who when you subtract from his identity, he looses it
lol. God is Infinite and multi-personal in the opinion of Christian
Theology and Doctrine.
(7) Argument that mind is made of awareness and qualia:
I agree ... whoop whoop ... well done :) - you looked like you were on fire on that day writing this out lol - figuratively lol.
(8) ontological arguments.
Well,
I debunked your controversy over the conservation of identity so,
therefore, the very first premise of the ontological argument still
stands in my opinion
It IS POSSIBLE that a maximally great being exists
In
Christian Theology, when we say "Maximally Great Being (MGB)" we mean
that God possesses "Greater Making Properties (GMP)". A Greater Making
Property, as opposed to a "Lesser Making Property (LMP)" can be likened
to the following
- GMP: an ever dripping tap becomes a mighty ocean and so much more at Maximum.
- LMP: an ever reducing ocean become impossible to exist at Maximum.
This first premise would be better if it said only 'it is possible that primary necessary being exists, ( leave out the 'a' so it reads '.....primary necessary being exists' to avoid automatically accepting brute fact supernatural associations the phrase 'a being' carries and recognize in the argument the word 'being' can be used differently).
I
still find it special pleading and question begging as to where
"a-causality" will come from to create variation, according to your
arguments, when all that exists is ABSOLUTE singleness or simpleness.
This, in my opinion, makes your "necessary primary being (NPB)" to be an
impossible concept because it would be like asking for a one-ended
stick. It is gibberish to me and logically inconceivable. God, according
to Christian Theology and other versions of the ontological argument
(e.g. St. Anselm's Ontological Argument (4)), is the Greatest
Conceivable Being (GCB) and your NPB appears to be inconceivable and not
powerful. It would not be "Self-Existent" but rather contingent on some
sort of external a-causality. But if you meant to say "internal acausality"
then that would be circular reasoning because you will be saying that
"variation" existed before creation "variation". So my question still
stands, "Where does this a-causality come from if all that previously
exists is
ABSOLUTE singleness or ABSOLUTE simplicity???
> 1. If God exists then He is a maximally great being.
Well except he is not capable of creating mechanism, so not that great. He can't even exist since mechanism requires an explanation.
Since
God is Self-Existent from all Eternity, where the Father Caused the Son
and the Son Caused the Father. Think of it, you cannot be a Father
unless a son is begotten by you. And a son cannot be a son unless he is
begotten of you. Both of you elevate yourselves confluently to the title
of Father and Son. Your argument here does not apply to the Christian
God. When you're debating against a Muslim, for example, then you will
be successful.
> 2. A maximally great being would only entail maximally great qualities.
True but what is defined as great will depend on your perspective and your interpretation of life.
Although
I adhere to idealism, I do not adhere to solipsism. Greatness, in my
opinion, exists irrespective of my appeal to my incredulous perspective.
> 3. A maximally great quality is a good quality to the maximum extent.
Okay. But good for what?
Please study some Perfect Being Theology in the Philosophy and Doctrine of the Christian Religion. (5)
John Mill argued that:
If in ascribing goodness to God I do not mean what I mean by goodness; if I do not mean the goodness of which I have some knowledge, but an incomprehensible attribute of an incomprehensible substance, which for aught I know may be a totally different quality from that which I love and venerate … what do I mean in calling it goodness? … To say that God's goodness may be different in kind from man's goodness, what is it but saying, with a slight change of phraseology, that God may possibly be not good? (6)
The
question is not "Good for what"? A maximally great quality is a good
quality because it is something that I love and venerate. Even satan
loves and venerates "maximally great qualities" <>.
> 4. Creating things is a good quality.
He can't create anything that isn't like himself. That would violate the law of conservation of identity. He can't produce this reality.
Debunked
for Christianity by moi. But the argument is not "he can't do it" ...
the argument is "it is a good quality for him to do it". But I guess you
were just trying to make a point in your discussion category/ flow/
context.
> 5. A maximally great being would entail by it's nature the good quality of being creative to the maximal extent.
Then God cannot be a maximally great being because there are limits to his creativity.
You make a category error here and moving the goalpost. Just because God is constrained/ limited by HIS MGB Nature
to only do things that are Maximally Great - ie, only greater making
things - does not rationally cohere with the fact that God is limited
because HE cannot create a Lesser Making Property (LMP). As Christians,
we already tell you "HE is a Maximally Great Being". But then you move
the goalpost into the logical absurd and say, "But HE cannot create
lesser making properties such as raping children or telling lies so HE
is not so great for being limited to GMP alone." Then you have to prove
that Infinity is limited because no matter how much you subtract from
it, it is forever limited to being unlimited. This is logical jargon in
my opinion.
Philosophically speaking, God doesn't exist because he
would have been alone at the beginning with no possibility of creating
mechanism.
I agree... depends on your concept of God lol. Here's
a video to help (I think) (7), (8). Even your NPB fails by this
logically sound theoretical testing methodology.
If you start to talk of creation ex-nihilo I will point out that nothing cannot be so how can there be creation out of something that doesn't even exist. There was only God in the beginning so he only has himself to play with and create things out of.
Again, depends on your concept of God.
But you see... you prove my point that even you yourself argue for the
IMPOSSIBLITY of an ABSOLUTE-simple-to-complex transition and hence, your
replacement argument of a Necessary Primary Being (NPB) ... does not
stand your own critique.
CONCLUSION
You are logically sound
all the way through but I do not think you have a very good concept of
the Christian God. And your replacement fails your own criteria under
special pleading grounds.
God bless you :D
REFERENCES
(6) Mill, John Stuart, 1865. “Mr. Mansel on the Limits of Religious Thought,” in Pike 1964: 37–45.
No comments:
Post a Comment