- Well, I am on the field of those having a penchant for those cosmological arguments even if not well trained to judge there worth; a good food for thought evenMessage 1 of 23 , Jan 31, 2005View Source
Well, I am on the field of those having a penchant for those cosmological arguments even if not well trained to judge there worth; a good food for thought even if not very digestive.
I dont think that the existence of my private moment here and know; there is a rose on my desk is easier to explain than the entire universe. After trying to compute hundred thousand things from seed to gardener, sun and water, biosphere, solar system, supernova and galaxies, intergalactic space and time; I must confess that I am not able to give any final explanation for that rose on my desk. My provisional conclusion is that wonderful rose on my desk (and the universe to which it is related) is both; (1) unintelligible and (2) have no final explanation. I may be in error and somehow deficient, but anyway I think provisionally -- as a relatively rational being -- that the universe is unintelligible and have no explanation. Would it needs to be more rational that I am perhaps, or maybe absolutely rational, to affirm that the universe has an explanation? An internal voice it telling me that maybe I need a priori to transcend all those steep by steep little rational operations, and get to the point! As a rational being, from a wide and rational perspective - as supposed - I have no option but to accept that the rose and the universe have an explication! OK, as I dont want to fall in some irrationality! I feel compelled to assent. Okay; but what is it? It is an unintelligible and unknowable agency named God; and this is the final explication! So, as fare as I can understand it, the final explication is an unintelligible and unknowable personal agency, supposed from premise, to aim and desires to create the universe and the rose.
As fare as I can see, the argument claims for reason but impel us to believe in some unintelligible and unknowable creative personal agency acting without reasons; and this is clamed to be the intelligible explication promised in the first place! Can this be considered a rational and successful argument?
Thinking in that possible unintelligible and unknowing creative agency surrounding my own personal and limited intelligence and rationality (mainly in this context: trying to investigate the explanation for the rose in my desk), and also thinking on that famous Occam´s razor in the context of those cosmological arguments; I wonder if it is better (1) to suppose my own personal ignorance to be God or (2) to suppose that the Universe is god as it is, complex and essentially unknowable. As a pantheist I am provisionally buying the second option this rose is God. For sure I must be wrong; this rose is a rose; is a rose.
- My point was the importance of the question, not who exactly by name is asking it. That this particular question is important to so many of such a wide crossMessage 2 of 23 , Feb 1, 2005View SourceMy point was the importance of the question, not who exactly by name is asking it. That this particular question is important to so many of such a wide cross section of culture, education, intelligence, character, etc, is sufficient in and of itself to warrant a thorough hashing out. To do otherwise is nothing less than black listing, kind of an ideological tyranny, something no Stoic or anyone who values critical inquiry would prefer IMO.
[Papini, Mauricio]Steve, but I think I would return the same criticism to you, because when you say:How many angels can dance on the head of a pin is clearly not as critical, and the comparison, quite frankly, is utterly ridiculous. We could do a survey to establish the relative importance to people of these two questions I suppose. Why the tactic to trivialize? And I mean: what is the psychological motive?
[Papini, Mauricio]...it seems to me you are trivializing my point and blacklisting me (which I know, or assume, you are not; I'm just making a point). In any case, although trivializing may have been in my words, it was not in my intentions. I just wanted to contribute a view point.
Inquiry is not served by deciding a priori which subjects get a hearing and which don’t.
[Papini, Mauricio]I do not think I have the power of censorship over this list--nor do I want it. However, how can I express my view that certain questions (e.g., what is the purpose of the universe?) are probably invalid and are asked just because language allows us to ask them, without offending anybody? There is a difference between "trivializing" and expressing the view that something is "trivial". The former seems closer to a personal attack, while the latter seems just part of the rules of discussion among open-minded people.
- Hello Curt, I thought I d finished this and already sent it... ... might be the cause of what you see as confusion . Sustaining has a completely differentMessage 3 of 23 , Feb 2, 2005View SourceHello Curt,
I thought I'd finished this and already sent it...
>>>Why do you use the word "creator" if that is not what you mean? Thismight be the cause of what you see as "confusion". "Sustaining" has a
completely different meaning than "creating". To create something
necessarily requires a time at which that thing did not exist.<<<
Okay... But I still see no answer to my question as to what sustains an
infinitely enduring universe.
(Which is not to say that I believe that the universe is infinitely
>>>"Sustaining" has a completely different meaning than "creating". <<<Well, or course the words have different meanings, but that is not the
issue. With respect to God's relationship to the universe, creating and
sustaining may well be the very same act (I believe they are).
I think there can be room for confusion in this issue because there is the
tendency to think that once something has been made, and sent on its way
(something like a clockwork toy, for instance) there is no further function
for its 'creator'. But in the context of theological debate, we need to
remember that the world into which the toy trundles must also have been
created, and it must along with the toy be sustained in being.
>>>To create something necessarily requires a time at which that thing didnot exist.<<<
You might just as well say that creating something requires a space in which
to create it. In which case I am interested to know the whereabouts of the
space in which the universe was created.
I am a long way from having a full understanding of cosmology or theology.
But I think the general view is that the universe, along with all its
attributes, including the ways in which things can be related (temporal,
spatial, and others), came into being all in one go. But this coming into
being did not happen at any moment of time. Just like the number 4 is not
the square of the number 2 at any particular time -- this is a fact that is
timeless -- so too is the coming-into-being-of-the-world timeless.
These are very difficult questions, and I am convinced that much study and
thought is required to master them. And I, for one, cannot find enough time
for all the work I would like to do...
----- Original Message -----
From: "curt" <curt@...>
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [stoics] Logic Proof that there is No God
> Why do you use the word "creator" if that
> is not what you mean? This might be the cause
> of what you see as "confusion". "Sustaining"
> has a completely different meaning than
> "creating". To create something necessarily
> requires a time at which that thing did not
> - Curt