galiel

Yes. Accepting the Nietzchean methodology does not imply that there is always an available synthesis between two opposing positions. One is either pregnant or not pregnant--there is no middle position. Similarly, one either believes in supernatural forces, or one does not. Atheism and theism are inherently non-overlapping positions. a synthesis between them is as meaningless as is a synthesis between being alive and being dead.

Amos

</strong>

In the neuter position you cannot be pregnant or not pregnant. Understanding is the required sythesis between atheism and theism just as faith and doubt must be annihilated prior to Ascention.

To understand this just read and see why the annihilation of doubt in Thomas, who was the twin of Peter in the faith/doubt division, left Peter stranded without a cloak of faith on their next fishing trip.

The sythesis between being alive and death is found in eternal life to make both life and death the illusory juxtaposition of eternal life (because God has no opposite in itself except in our extrapolation from God, such as is eternal bliss as juxtaposed with pleasure/pain, and Love (agape) with love/hate.

Edited to add that the Celestial light is needed by us to extrapolate light from the sun because without that light we would not be able to transform wave particles into the light of common day, nor would we be not be able to hear a tree fall righ next to us.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

galiel

False. one would be not pregnant. You are falling victim to the Achilles Fallacy.

[quote]<strong>Understanding is the required sythesis between atheism and theism just as faith and doubt must be annihilated prior to Ascention.
[quote][qb]Saying "it is so" does not make it so. "Understanding", however unconvnetionally you define it, does not allow one to simultaneously hold two logically contradictory and mutually exclusive positions, namely a belief in a supernatural god vs. no belief in a supernatural god.

As well, you fail to make a critical distinction between "doubting" and "not believing". Not the same thing at all.

Once again, you merely assert dogma with no substantiation.

This is further evidence to support my ("politically incorrect") general assertion that theists who proport to enter a logical debate regarding the existence of nonexistence of god are intellectually dishonest and have an agenda other than pursuing logic via critical thought to its conclusions.

Why do you need to use pseudo-scientific legitimization for your irrational assertions? I find it fascinating that you are so threatened by science that you feel compelled to incorrectly incorporate terms such as "wave particle" into your theological dogma (incorrectly because if you accept the scientific underpinnings, there is no need for a "Celestial light" to complete the explanation). I take this as a hopeful sign for the future. I don't see atheists rushing to selectively incorporate religious terminology into their world-view.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Amos

Thanks galiel, that is very kind of you to feel that way.

The difference here is that for the innovator essence precedes existence while for scientist extistence precedes essence.

Jobar

RD, I think we are having some semantic difficulties here. Some of your objections to my equating what is natural to what is known indicates to me that you may be using different definitions than I am.

I think of nature as the universe we observe. It's the world we see around us. Nature is all we know. Any new thing we learn- any fact which moves from the realm of the unknown to the realm of the known- becomes natural. I get the impression that you consider the unknown to be also a part of nature. Well, if you consider nature to be all that is, was, or ever can be- how is that any different from my own pantheistic concept of the Tao- or Amos' concept of God?

In my view, nature is the known but not the unknown. What we do not know we can not, a priori, define as natural, I think. Oh, I am quite sure we will not suddenly find a way into a universe where magic works, or where ghosts are common! However, I am humble enough to realize that 'quite sure' is not the same as 'absolutely is'. It comes down to the fact that we simply can't say anything about the unknown, until we know it!

Re the thesis/antithesis thing- I am not understanding your objection to it. Do you think that theism and atheism do not constitute a valid thesis/antithesis, which would be philosophically profitable to attempt a synthesis? Or what?

You seem to be denigrating idealism- philosophically I call myself an idealistic monist. I consider physical and experiential reality to be most like idea, and to be entirely contained in one unitary system (a monad.)

In my view, pantheism contains naturalism. Any statement which supports naturalism also supports pantheism. Right now, there are philosophical and physical questions which can be posed that naturalism cannot answer. Indeed, any natural system automatically generates unanswerable questions- that is one way to express Godel's theorem. And Bell's theorem says that no matter how much we learn, there will always be unanswerable questions. Naturalism deals with the known- and pantheism deals with the synthesis of known/unknown (which words cannot express- as per Lao Tzu.)

Science- which IMO is pretty close to being identical with naturalism- is, what, three centuries old? Pantheism has been around for two or three millenia if not more. New wisdom supports and deepens ancient wisdom- if we are able to understand the languages in which each is spoken.

Jayhawker Soule

You just asserted:

• (What Is Natural) ::= (What Is Known)

Tell me, Jobar, did gravitational lensing exist before Einstein? Was gravitational lensing natural before it was known? Just when, in your opinion, did plate tectonics become natural, and what caused earthquakes before that time?
I do not know of which "thing" you speak.

• If you are referring to the triad, I have raised no objection whatsoever, although I would recommend that you give Hegel somewhat more credit than you do.
• If you're referring to your alliteration, I have objected solely to the assumption that it communicates something meaningful, and the presumption that any failure in this regard is necessarily the fault of the listener.

So, what is meant by synthesis of the thesis of theism and the antithesis of atheism.?
I do not recall denigrating idealism. What I in fact said was: Having just answered the first question, I would be interested in your answer to the second.
I understand. What I do not understand, however, is how this differs in intent or effect from the theism of the the God-of-the-Gaps.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Jobar

I look in every single way
Inside out
Outside in
Every day. - Yes

"I get the impression that you consider the unknown to be also a part of nature. Well, if you consider nature to be all that is, was, or ever can be- how is that any different from my own pantheistic concept of the Tao- or Amos' concept of God?"

RD, if you want to define nature to be known+unknown, instead of just the known- you cannot say that you will ever completely understand it.

Let's take a slightly different tack- I firmly believe that if you pursue any idea far enough, it will lead you to pantheism. So, you pick your own. How do you define nature?

You ask
"Tell me, Jobar, did gravitational lensing exist before Einstein? Was gravitational lensing natural before it was known? Just when, in your opinion, did plate tectonics become natural, and what caused earthquakes before that time?"

I would say it existed, yes. Before anything is known though, it is indeterminate. We cannot talk about it, or think about it, or conceive of it. We cannot name it natural, supernatural, or &lt;insert nonsense word here&gt;. It is *meaningless*. Oh, there were earthquakes, and lightning, and eclipses, and all the phenomena we observe, before we discovered the physical mechanisms behind them. (And men ascribed them to gods, and the supernatural.) As we get better and better at understanding the world, we get more and more confident of our sciences and methods- but we never reach the point where all things are known, and meaningful. We simply can't- Heisenberg and all.

Nature is also a human concept. If you want to define nature as the entirety of existence, you will *still* wind up with indeterminates. If you want to say that nature is the wordless reality which all our words and concepts describe, but which is always and forever wordless and beyond thought- well, then you have come about as close as words can to defining the Tao- by defining it as undefinable. Once again, "The tao which can be defined is not the ultimate Tao."

In a way, pantheism tells us about the limitations of words and concepts. I have said before that pantheism helps us talk about ultimates and infinities- it helps us improve our inner vision, just as a telescope can improve our outer. But neither our minds nor our eyes can actually perceive infinity.

Are you someone who says that gazing off into the far distance looking for the infinite is a pointless waste of time, RD? Do you think astronomy is worthless?

Let's try to explain my thesis/antithesis comment some more. You ask
"So, what is meant by synthesis of the thesis of theism and the antithesis of atheism?"

First off- I will say that I think that the 'thesis of theism' can be stated tersely as 'there is a conscious being beyond our observed reality that causes the universe to be.' Do you agree that is a fair statement? There are many ways to word it- if you want to offer a different statement please do.

From that, we proceed directly to the statement of atheism- 'our universe is complete in itself and has no conscious being beyond it.' Perhaps we should try for a short statement of the naturalistic position, too- if you would, offer yours.

I will be very busy this next week, so I may not be able to carry on this conversation every day- but I will continue as time allows. I am rather pleased at how it's going, myself.

[ October 12, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

And what is the "antithesis of atheism" other than the "thesis of theism"?

What is the 'value-added' of Pantheism other than the 'synthesis' [?] of (T) and NOT(NOT(T))? Curiouser and curiouser ...
Conversely, Jobar, if you want to define nature to be just the known, instead of known+unknown, you reduce "completely understand" to tautology, i.e.:

• You "completely understand it" by defining 'it' as that which you "completely understand".

Furthermore, I make no claim pertaining to the possibility of "completely understanding it", and I fail to see its relevancy to this discussion.
So what?
( I find this question so thoroughly inane, symptomatic, and insulting that I'll just let it pass ... )
Truths are approximate. Facts are provisional. What does that have to do with God(s)?

Again: Why should your prerequisite to understanding be elevated to a necessity/requirement of nature?

P.S.: Sorry I didn't respond earlier. I spent the weekend focused on football and grandkids.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Keith Russell

ReasonableDoubt said:
Truths are approximate. Facts are provisional.

Are 'truths' approximate enough that some 'truths' might not be 'approximate'?

And, are facts so provisional that some facts might not be 'provisional' at all?

(And, if so, what have you really said, when you say "Truths are approximate. Facts are provisional"?)

Keith.

Jobar

RD, my question concerning astronomy was rhetorical; often I am asked "How does this sort of philosophical star-gazing do any good?" As you come here to this forum and carry on long discussions about ultimate meanings and whether or not God(s) exist, I was quite sure your answer is the same as mine- *any* search which might reveal new knowledge is good. Certainly no offense was intended, and if you were I apologize.

Your attempt to reduce the question to logical notation carves away too much of the question. "God(s) exist" does seem to be the precise logical opposite of "No God(s) exist"- until you realize that we do not understand the central term! If we have no precise definition of the word 'God' we cannot apply logic.

So we have to define 'God', which opens up a seemingly bottomless can of worms.

I talked about paring away the attributes given to God(s) by mankind's multitudinous versions, in search of some sort of common ground shared by all notions of God(s). I find that nearly all try to give some ultimate or absolute explanation of the world we see and experience; nearly all talk about infinity and eternity.

Let's expand on that statement of theism a bit. For Christians, "The heavens and the earth and all that they contain owe their existence and continuance in existence to the wisdom and will of a supreme, infinite, self-consistent, omnipotent, omniscient, righteous and benevolent being, who is distinct from, and independent of, what he has created." - from Sydney Hook's article in Critiques of God, ed. Peter Angeles.

Well, as atheists, we see quite a bit of that can be immediately cut away- the many paradoxes engendered by combining 'omnipotent' and 'righteous and benevolent' with 'self-consistent', in the light of the evil and unrighteous things that happen in 'what he has created'. (Amos, and other theists reading this- understand I am addressing atheists here. If you want to dispute any of this, please do it on a new thread.)

We are left with 'a supreme, infinite being, distinct from and independent of what he has created.'

Now let's consider the Hindu idea of Brahman. Here we have a 'supreme, infinite being', but *not* distinct from and independent of what he has created.' In fact Brahman is identical with the universe- and the universe is infinite and eternal.

This is cut down to a pretty minimal description- can we talk about any of this being real in our universe of observation? Well, since we can't see to infinity, we cannot say we have 'observed' anything god-like. However, many of our methods of inquiry seem to imply that infinity exists though we cannot directly observe it. Remember my statement concerning mathematical infinity, and the usefulness of that in describing the physical universe.

Maybe you don't think we have sufficient evidence to say that an infinite God/universe exists, RD. I cannot *demonstrate* infinity- not in the context of this post, certainly! But do you see that there are good arguments for the actuality of infinite being? IMO the evidence does not (indeed can not) point definitively to pantheism- but it seems to point most strongly towards it.

Keith asks RD: "Are 'truths' approximate enough that some 'truths' might not be 'approximate'?

And, are facts so provisional that some facts might not be 'provisional' at all?"

IMO none of our knowledge is absolute. All truths are approximate- though some truths approach absolute certainty as a hyperbola approaches its asymptote. We can be very, very, (N times very) confident in some of our ideas. (Like- Yahweh doesn't exist!)

I have more to say but too tired right now- it might be a couple of days before I post here again, but like Arnold said, "I'll be back."