Ted Hoffman

Rainbow Walking
Oh, you mean High Intensity? yeah, now I see it, talk about high concentration!
Lack of conceptual data does not mean the neurones are not "firing". The brain of an unborn child registers some activity but it remains obscure. And I dont believe foetuses have the capacity to recall dreams, so even if they have them, they are just for the purposes of brain development and are not based on conceptual data.
Beliefs have been used by opressed people to deal with stronger enemies. Its all over History - e.g. the Maji-Maji (who believed that a majic water could stop bullets).

Its the belief (whether false or otherwise is irrelevant) that bolsters the courage in the face of insurmountable force (like Israel backed by the US). That belief is harnesses from any source. Religion just happens to be an avenue that can be esily exploited because - in religion, anything is possible. So ok, 72 virgins? so be it.

I believe whether or not the value of the motivational belief is worth the lives of those lost in the Twin towers incident is a side-issue, because the mentality is "they are killing us", if someone called "they" is killing you (meaning they dont value your life very much), why would you value their lives or those of people close to them? Especially if even those close to them are infidels (people who should be killed)?

Its simply a holy duty. Honorable violence (forget about contradiction of terms, thats semantic nonsense - with no place in the game of life).

Even Yahweh killed innocent kids when he killed Egyptian firstborns, when he brought Noahs flood and so on.
The placenta is cut when a baby is born and blood flows monthly to clean the womb. Trees are cut for firewood. Rocks are mined with explosives for buildings. We have to die to make room for others.

The WTC had to be bombed to remove america from the "behind-the-scenes" manipulation of the middle-east crisis, and propel it to the harsh frontline into the open battlefield. Of course US blinked incomprehensibly in the white light for a while then Bam! War against terror "campaign" began. Shoot them and provide them with bandages and food. It has had its hands full since then. Its tough being part of the equation.

Afghanistan has a government now - doesn't that count for something?

Every act of creation involves destruction.
Its a simple fact of life.

People die in wars all the time - even soldiers are innocent people with Guns.
Nobody wants to die. Especially me.

/* removes polemic hat and sets it down slowly then takes a deep breath - the smell of napalm floats to his nostrils*/

[Edited to destroy errors - creating the message below]

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Autonemesis

I do see what you mean, Helen. That is precisely what I called into question. I don't believe people are motivated by their beliefs. I believe that by-and-large, people are motivated by urges they do not understand, do not recognize, and will not acknowledge, urges like self-preservation, avoidance of pain or shame, need for acceptance and praise. These are not beliefs, not in the same sense that theology is a belief. They are part of human nature, primal instincts.

Philosoft

No, it isn't. Existence precedes attribution. If existence [e] is an attribute, then non-existence must also be an attribute [-e] (or, it must be possible to lack 'e'). This is obviously incoherent.

<strong> X--&gt;X

How very profound.

<strong> I can extract no meaning from the above. Please rephrase.

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

HelenM

Hi Kind Bud

Thanks for saying more...

Ok, I see what you mean. My response is that those urges are connected to beliefs, to some extent. And sometimes theological beliefs can go deep enough that internally they interact with 'other' beliefs - and sometimes the theological beliefs win out.

It seems that you regard theological beliefs as at a more 'superficial' level than what relates to our urges.

Example: Suppose I avoid certain things because I 'believe' they will be painful. (Which belief may or may not be true, by the way). I am convinced that some people - with such a belief - yet will walk into a painful situation intentionally because their belief that it's the 'right' thing to do take precedence over their urge to avoid the pain.

The New Testament portrays Jesus as someone who annoyed the religious leaders - for religious reasons - until they got him executed. Setting aside whether this is true or not for the moment - if it is true, then Jesus evidently was someone whose theological beliefs led him to act in ways that would have been counter to his urge to survive (that I assume all mentally/emotionally well humans have)

Likewise, suicide bombers who do what they do for religious reasons, I suppose...

love
Helen

E_muse

Indeed. But the ground of being seems to me an abstract concept as all observable phenomena appear contingent - even the universe itself.

Well, as a being, God can be described as one considered to have existence - according to the definitions used. Simply, he is.

Agreed, and I think that your clarification is helpful.

However, I think there is a need to define the God concept that we are considering. For example, with regard to the Biblical concept of God, God cannot be contingent to the universe because he is claimed to have created it all. He is described as 'necessary being'.

Obviously I do not present this as a proof of God. I am simply saying that God, in order to be God, would have to possess the qualities of absolute being (if the existence of everything else depended upon him).

Firstly, collections of 'beings' can be regarded as single entities. The universe is referred to as a single entity.

Secondly, there are modes of being too. Going back to the pink unicorn - exists in my mind but has no existence outside of my mind. Something's ability to exist can depend upon context. The pink unicorn is also contingent because its existence depends upon the presence of a mind.

Your points are helpful but then Christian theology for one would not simply define God as 'a being' then but being itself.

This is what I meant. It will be helpful if I try and keep to commonly understood terminology.

Agreed. But doesn't this also imply that something must always have existed? The only alernative to something is nothing. How does existence have definition when there is nothing?

If there must have been something, what was it? What was its essential nature? Even if I reach certain logical conclusions how can I know that these conclusions are right when I am unable to verify my conclusions perceptually.

[/b][/quote]

You cannot invoke a contingent god, no. However, what is existence? The universe is a contingent being within what?

Correct.

God, simply as an idea or concept requires existence. In order for God to actually exist as a non-contingent entity existence or actual being would have to form a part of his essential nature.

But EXISTENCE simply means 'actually being'. What was 'being' prior to the universe for example?

If this is going to be verified empirically, then do we observe non-contingent entities in our universe that could also be the 'ground of being' for all other things?

Actual being would have to be non-contingent. So what are you proposing has 'actual being' and is non-contingent?

The universe, 'as IS, has actual being but is contingent - it had a beginning. It therefore cannot be seen as existence.

But THIS UNIVERSE is expanding. What is it expanding into? Existence? But existence cannot be without something 'actually being' there. Therefore the universe must be expanding into 'something'.

I am happy to discuss God. I was simply wanting to distinguish between being and existence in relationship to the definitions you had given. I think that you've done this.. and thank you.

I was responding to your following point:

Here, you seem to have hinted at the possibility of being outside of existence, whereas elsewhere you have argued that being requires existence and vice versa - they are co dependent.

It must be perceivable to be known to exist perhaps.

In a universe the size of our own I question whether something must be perceivable to exist. The existence of something doesn't depend upon our perception of it surely?

This works on the assumption that our sensory organs tell us everything there is to be known about the universe.

Can 'actual being' be confined to what we are able to apprehend with our sensory organs?

But what is your empirical basis for believing such a thing? Why does skepticism always seem more lenient in its dealings with the possibilites of human reason and endeavour?

What if the physical constraints of the universe prevent us from discovering very much more about it?

Perhaps not. But this is different from saying that he doesn't actually exist.

It has not been verified by the process of empiricism that God has concrete being maybe.

According to the rules of empiricism, maybe.

Existence must be applied to something.. I think you've agreed with this. It is a quality possessed by something. Nothing cannot exist. This means that 'something' must exist outside of the universe. If EXISTENCE is the ground of all being then there must be SOMETHING that is the ground of all being. However, according to the rules you've established for accepting actual being, I cannot consider it real because I have no means of verifying this perceptually even though it seems a completely logical conclusion.

Thank you RW.. and ditto!!

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

Ron Singh

Existence is an attribute of God. God being the non-contingent being that God is, has granted this attribute to its creation.

You claim that non-existence is an attribute. Isn't atheism about 'a lack of belief', opposed to not believing in? If something were not to exist, it would have a lack of existence. Aexistence, if you will. It's incorrect to assign it an attribute due to its lack of attribute, unless you count non-existence an attribute.

rainbow walking

E: Indeed. But the ground of being seems to me an abstract concept as all observable phenomena appear contingent - even the universe itself.

Rw: This is correct.


E: Well, as a being, God can be described as one considered to have existence - according to the definitions used. Simply, he is.

Rw: I am…you are…is a reference to actual being. To say that “god is” before the referent has been established is in-accurate.

E: Agreed, and I think that your clarification is helpful.

However, I think there is a need to define the God concept that we are considering. For example, with regard to the Biblical concept of God, God cannot be contingent to the universe because he is claimed to have created it all. He is described as 'necessary being'.
Obviously I do not present this as a proof of God. I am simply saying that God, in order to be God, would have to possess the qualities of absolute being (if the existence of everything else depended upon him).

Rw: I understand. I do not hold that such a being is contingent to this universe. I am presenting an argument that posits this universe, along with any aspect of it (including any hypothetical being who may or may not have created it), to be contingent on existence.

E: Again, this is helpful. But then the Christian theology for one would not simply define God as 'a being' then.

Rw: Then how would a theologian define such a being such that this being is not contingent upon existence to exist without contradiction?

E: Agreed. But doesn't this also imply that something must always have existed?

Rw: Yes, existence

E: The only alernative to something is nothing.

Rw: Existence is something. Existence exists.

E: How does existence have definition when there is nothing?

Rw: There has never been nothing.

E: If there must have been something, what was it?

Rw: Existence

E: What was its essential nature?

Rw: To have actual being…to exist.

E: Even if I reach certain logical conclusions how can I know that these conclusions are right when I am unable to verify my conclusions perceptually.

Rw: Depends on how you define “know”.

E: You cannot invoke a contingent god, no. However, what is existence?

Rw: That which has actual being.

E: The universe is a contingent being within what?

Rw: Existence.


E: God, simply as an idea or concept requires existence. In order for God to actually exist as a non-contingent entity existence or actual being would have to form a part of his essential nature.


Rw: No actual being can exist non-contingently. Actual being is contingent upon existence to actually be.

E: But EXISTENCE simply means 'actually being'. What was 'being' prior to the universe for example?

Rw: If you mean, “what were the attributes of existence prior to this universe”, I cannot say. What are the attributes of this universe? Can it be accurately measured? Weighed? What is space?

E: If this is going to be verified empirically, then do we observe non-contingent entities in our universe that could also be the 'ground of being' for all other things?

Rw: This universe is contingent on existence. Anything empirically observable within this universe is contingent on both this universe and existence. Nothing outside of existence exists. Existence IS the ground of being, both actual and imagined.

E: Actual being would have to be non-contingent. So what are you proposing has 'actual being' and is non-contingent?

Rw: Actual being cannot be non-contingent as it requires existence to actually be.


E: The universe, 'as IS, has actual being but is contingent - it had a beginning. It therefore cannot be seen as existence.

Rw: That is true and it is not being represented as such. The reason this universe has actual being is due to its attributes which have actual being. Universe is a concept whose attributes render it factual. The same cannot be said of god.

E: But THIS UNIVERSE is expanding. What is it expanding into? Existence?

Rw: It already exists. It is expanding into a larger universe to accommodate space.

E: But existence cannot be without something 'actually being' there.

Rw: Existence has always been. It does not require anything outside of itself to be. It exists as an end in itself. Any contingent things that are or become a part of existence can change form or cease to exist.

E: therefore the universe must be expanding into 'something'.

Rw: It is…a larger universe.


E: I was responding to your following point:

E: Here, you seem to have hinted at the possibility of being outside of existence, whereas elsewhere you have argued that being requires existence and vice versa - they are co dependent.

Rw: I am stating the impossibility of anything existing outside of existence and hence the impossibility of knowing anything outside of existence. I am arguing against omniscience, an attribute associated with a non-contingent god. Non-contingency would place this god outside of existence.

E: It must be perceivable to be known to exist perhaps.

In a universe the size of our own I question whether something must be perceivable to exist. The existence of something doesn't depend upon our perception of it surely?

Rw: See my clarification below.

E: This works on the assumption that our sensory organs tell us everything there is to be known about the universe.
Can 'actual being' be confined to what we are able to apprehend with our sensory organs?

Rw: Yes to both with the added clarification that it is THIS UNIVERSE specific.

E: But what is your empirical basis for believing such a thing?

Rw: Evolution and human intellect


E: Why does skepticism always seem more lenient in its dealings with the possibilites of human reason and endeavour?

Rw: Because it provides more valid answers than prayer and fasting.

E: What if the physical constraints of the universe prevent us from discovering very much more about it?

Rw: Then we will cease to exist as a species.

E: Perhaps not. But this is different from saying that he doesn't actually exist.

Rw: Correct.

E: It has not been verified by the process of empiricism that God has concrete being maybe.

Rw: It is the responsibility of the claimant to substantiate his claim.

E: According to the rules of empiricism, maybe.

Rw: I would entertain the inclusion or introduction of any rules you wish to invoke that would factualize the concept… with the exception of blind faith.

E: Existence must be applied to something.. I think you've agreed with this. It is a quality possessed by something. Nothing cannot exist. This means that 'something' must exist outside of the universe. However, according to the rules you've established for accepting actual being, I cannot consider it real because I have no means of verifying this perceptually.

Rw: I understand. Let’s try this: Existence has always been. I cannot truthfully or factually say that it will always be because I do not know. It is possible and conceivable that, one day, existence will simply…cease to exist. And then there will be NOTHING. For those who require a god it can be said that ”nothing is inconceivable.” For those who do not require a god it can be said that “nothing is inconceivable”. Let the emphasis fall where it may.

I appreciate your continued interest and response to this topic E-muse. Thanx.

rainbow walking

Hi sikh.
Thank you for replying to my argument. I have just a few objections for you to consider.

sikh: Existence is an attribute of God.

rw: Well, that remains to be seen my friend. But you have brought up one of the unique and interesting aspects of existence. That being existence as both an attribute of all that exists while, simultaneously, being the universal envelope within which all that has actual being can actually be. Existence exists.


Sikh: We being the creation have been granted this attribute too.


Rw: Without existence we would have no being. The question of how we came to be is currently being resolved. There is no evidence to support an assertion that existence for human life is contingent upon the permission of a non-actual concept. Existence is non-partial. Anything that can exist will. Anything that cannot exist will not. Anything that cannot continue to exist will dissipate.

Sikh: For anything to Exist, there must be God.


Rw: God, defined as a being with specific attributes, has not been concluded to have actual being therefore your assertion cannot be verified. That which does not have actual being cannot dictate the existence or non-existence of anything that does.

Sikh: God exists, not to say that God is a byproduct of existence, rather existence is the byproduct of existence.

Rw: God, as a concept, exists in the minds of humans who have actual being. This concept, as well as all others, are humanly devised and exist as attributes of human beings. Thus, god is a by-product of human beings until and unless it can be demonstrated that this concept represents an entity that has actual being. Existence is not a byproduct. It is the envelope within which all that can be will be, including god.

Sikh: Moreover, God being non-contingent, would enforce the fact that omniscience and omnipotence are alongside the fact that God exists.

Rw: Everything that exists is contingent on existence except existence itself. It is neither forced nor does it require enforcement. It just is. If such a being as god existed, his existence would be necessarily contingent. If such a being is non-contingent then it is also non-existent and no attributes beyond non-existence would be applicable.

Ron Singh

RW: But you have brought up one of the unique and interesting aspects of existence. That being existence as both an attribute of all that exists while, simultaneously, being the universal envelope within which all that has actual being can actually be. Existence exists.

Sikh: Noted.

RW: Without existence we would have no being.

Sikh: I'll agree with this.

RW: The question of how we came to be is currently being resolved.

Sikh: Really? Could you expand a little?

RW: There is no evidence to support an assertion that existence for human life is contingent upon the permission of a non-actual concept.

Sikh: I don't know what a 'non-actual concept' is, but I'll suppose that you refer to God. Human life is dependant upon a space to exist. This is where I'de proclaim some sort of cosmological or fine-tuning arguement, which you would try to refute, and then we'de both stick to our premises, and get nowhere.

RW: Existence is non-partial.

Sikh: I don't know what this means. Sorry but I'm new to this atheist-theist-philisophical jargon.

RW: Anything that can exist will.

Sikh: I find this rather interesting. 'All that can' would imply that something has some sort of reproducable merit in respect to past events. This itself would mean that something that has happened will happen again in some degree or another.
Suppose however that we are in a universe. It is conceivable that the molecules in this universe could aggregate and produce a human. This is possible and this can happen, therefor it will? Now suppose that that universe will exist for a fraction of a second, and then will stop existing. After this destruction, we find that humans did not randomly come into existence due to random aggregation.

RW: Anything that cannot exist will not. Anything that cannot continue to exist will dissipate.

Sikh: I think I agree.

Rw: God, defined as a being with specific attributes, has not been concluded to have actual being therefore your assertion cannot be verified. That which does not have actual being cannot dictate the existence or non-existence of anything that does.

Sikh: I thought we were working under the assumption of the existence of God.

Rw: God, as a concept, exists in the minds of humans who have actual being.

Sikh: Just like how triangles exist as both concepts and things of existence outside of the human mind.

RW: This concept, as well as all others, are humanly devised and exist as attributes of human beings.

Sikh: Concepts being integrated perceptions, I agree to some degree. The point at which you claim that God is devised concept is where we part ways.

RW: Thus, god is a by-product of human beings until and unless it can be demonstrated that this concept represents an entity that has actual being.

Sikh: Your use of 'thus' is dependant upon your previous statement. You connotate God with specific theistic points of views, opposed to a supernatural being, which is a more universal attribute of God.

RW: Existence is not a byproduct. It is the envelope within which all that can be will be, including god.

Sikh: I should have been more specific. My intention was to say that all that exists in this universe is dependant upon a non-contingent creator, because the universe itself is contingent. Moreover, all I tried to assert was that God is not contingent upon existence, since it is an attribute.


Sorry to waste your time on defining things, but could you tell me what 'making a strawman' is? There aren't many philisophical outlets for me other than online for a fifteen year old like me.

HelenM

Hi sikh

It's like this: instead of arguing against the 'real thing' some people will set up an inaccurate caricature of something that they can easily demolish - i.e. the 'strawman'.

They haven't demolished the real thing though - only the strawman.

People who set up strawmen and demolish them come across as not understanding what they are arguing against.

No offense...of course the person who says "that's a strawman!" might not have a leg to stand on. So it can go both ways...

love
Helen