Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WJ · 07-25-2002, 06:20 AM

RD!

RE "So, to paraphrase Dr. Forrest, why do you presume that the logical possibility of a concept "under this pretense" is sufficient warrant for the attribution of existence?"

Mmmmm, well, think about it for a moment. Why do people presume anything? If one attribute of existence is predication, what is our purpose and/or methodology in aquiring knowledge to begin with? Why seek knowledge about existence, and then take a subsequent position? Is it logically necessary to do so? Why?

I think that basic question(s) ought to be explored before we can even proceed to infer and/or make leaps about such explainations of existence, don't you think? In other words, people, everyday, hold beliefs about thngs based upon common sense or inference about things that are possible. And all these dynamics, to mention a few, cause people to act. I think at some point, we will run into a paradox if we keep talking about this, but let us see where it leads.

Perhaps the main question is that if the concept of logical necessity exists, why should humans attach another concept of Being to it? I think Toobad raised an excellent question.

Thoughts?

the apeman

ManM · 07-25-2002, 10:36 AM

God transcends the categories of human thought, including the one this statement places Him in.

WJ · 07-25-2002, 10:57 AM

Hi Man!

Have you read, by chance, any theories about Kant's transendentalism?

ManM · 07-25-2002, 11:38 AM

WJ,
No, I can't say that I have. My experience with Kant is in his ethical theories.

Starspun · 07-25-2002, 01:35 PM

I don't think there is an intelligent 'thing' that miracled the universe into existance. I don't see how one would be needed. On the other hand, our finite knowledge of the universe leaves alot of gaps to be filled, so, although I disbelieve and do not live my life with a supernatural foundation, I wouldn't, with substantial proof, dismiss the notion altogether. (I will dismiss the gods of organized religion though.)
With that said, energy or a form thereof would make, imho, the best form for an intelligent, something. Energy, in all it's various forms is the driving force behind the universe. Energy is mass; mass is energy. Perhaps, from a philosophical frame of mind, the universe is 'god'. Energy created the universe along with the laws that rule our existence. Energy is everything that can neither be created nor destroyed.
We are energy, but, energy doesnt really give shit about you or me. Energy evolves and in it's wake lies energy in a new form, ready to evolve infinitely.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]

Jayhawker Soule · 07-25-2002, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
Why seek knowledge about existence, and then take a subsequent position? Is it logically necessary to do so? Why? I think that basic question(s) ought to be explored before we can even proceed ...

I was just wondering if it was reasonable to presume presume that the logical possibility of a concept is sufficient warrant for the attribution of existence? I'm sorry if my question was inadequately basic. Feel free to avoid it.

TooBad · 07-26-2002, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:
God transcends the categories of human thought, including the one this statement places Him in.

So: No statement about God is true, including this one. We know nothing about God, not even that we know nothing about him. (?)

What's the difference between (a) a concept that is incomprehensible because it "transcends the categories of human thought" and (b) a concept that is incomprehensible because it just doesn't make any sense?
What grounds are there for thinking that there is more than one kind of unintelligibility?
And how could we ever arrive at reliable criteria for telling them apart?

Typhon · 07-26-2002, 12:36 PM

Well, I'm all for saying that since we can known nothing about god, we can say nothing about god.

This would be fine by me. No more churches, no more religion, no more nutters on TV or the street corner ranting about donkeys that talk, people who fly, and a man named Jesus who lives up in the sky.

Ok theists? You heard me, now pack up your things and go home.

.T.

Jayhawker Soule · 07-27-2002, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by TooBad:
What grounds are there for thinking that there is more than one kind of unintelligibility?
And how could we ever arrive at reliable criteria for telling them apart?

ManM · 07-27-2002, 07:33 AM

TooBad,
You are assuming the necessity of reason holds sway over everything. So for you, if God exists, He too must be subject to necessity. I am providing you with a concept of God that is not subject to necessity. This directly conflicts with your assumption, and so of course you find it silly. On the other hand, I find it silly to conceive of a God who is subject to necessity.

Typhon,
You have placed God in a category by saying that we can know nothing about God. It would be more reasonable to say we can know God in a rough sense, but not fully. Again, the statement I just made must be taken with a grain of salt because it places God in a category. Reasoning about that which transcends reason leads to the necessity of Asprin.

And so what we can know about Him comes from the way he reveals Himself. Enter religion...

07-25-2002, 01:35 PM	#25
Starspun Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 334	I don't think there is an intelligent 'thing' that miracled the universe into existance. I don't see how one would be needed. On the other hand, our finite knowledge of the universe leaves alot of gaps to be filled, so, although I disbelieve and do not live my life with a supernatural foundation, I wouldn't, with substantial proof, dismiss the notion altogether. (I will dismiss the gods of organized religion though.) With that said, energy or a form thereof would make, imho, the best form for an intelligent, something. Energy, in all it's various forms is the driving force behind the universe. Energy is mass; mass is energy. Perhaps, from a philosophical frame of mind, the universe is 'god'. Energy created the universe along with the laws that rule our existence. Energy is everything that can neither be created nor destroyed. We are energy, but, energy doesnt really give shit about you or me. Energy evolves and in it's wake lies energy in a new form, ready to evolve infinitely. [ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-25-2002, 06:20 AM	#21
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	RD! RE "So, to paraphrase Dr. Forrest, why do you presume that the logical possibility of a concept "under this pretense" is sufficient warrant for the attribution of existence?" Mmmmm, well, think about it for a moment. Why do people presume anything? If one attribute of existence is predication, what is our purpose and/or methodology in aquiring knowledge to begin with? Why seek knowledge about existence, and then take a subsequent position? Is it logically necessary to do so? Why? I think that basic question(s) ought to be explored before we can even proceed to infer and/or make leaps about such explainations of existence, don't you think? In other words, people, everyday, hold beliefs about thngs based upon common sense or inference about things that are possible. And all these dynamics, to mention a few, cause people to act. I think at some point, we will run into a paradox if we keep talking about this, but let us see where it leads. Perhaps the main question is that if the concept of logical necessity exists, why should humans attach another concept of Being to it? I think Toobad raised an excellent question. Thoughts? the apeman

07-25-2002, 10:36 AM	#22
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	God transcends the categories of human thought, including the one this statement places Him in.

07-25-2002, 10:57 AM	#23
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Hi Man! Have you read, by chance, any theories about Kant's transendentalism?

07-25-2002, 11:38 AM	#24
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	WJ, No, I can't say that I have. My experience with Kant is in his ethical theories.

07-26-2002, 12:36 PM	#28
Typhon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mount Aetna Posts: 271	Well, I'm all for saying that since we can known nothing about god, we can say nothing about god. This would be fine by me. No more churches, no more religion, no more nutters on TV or the street corner ranting about donkeys that talk, people who fly, and a man named Jesus who lives up in the sky. Ok theists? You heard me, now pack up your things and go home. .T.

07-27-2002, 07:33 AM	#30
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	TooBad, You are assuming the necessity of reason holds sway over everything. So for you, if God exists, He too must be subject to necessity. I am providing you with a concept of God that is not subject to necessity. This directly conflicts with your assumption, and so of course you find it silly. On the other hand, I find it silly to conceive of a God who is subject to necessity. Typhon, You have placed God in a category by saying that we can know nothing about God. It would be more reasonable to say we can know God in a rough sense, but not fully. Again, the statement I just made must be taken with a grain of salt because it places God in a category. Reasoning about that which transcends reason leads to the necessity of Asprin. And so what we can know about Him comes from the way he reveals Himself. Enter religion...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.