He's probably referring to people who like to point out that our forum apologists are passive aggressive bullshitters to the core.

For example, look at the explosion of convo in the past few posts, all of it informed by and initiated by a manifestly false claim about what the five ways were and are in the tradition of classical philosophy. They seek to establish and describe nothing. They were a syncretic attempt to make christian belief acceptable to people who felt that another worldview had intellectual credibility that their superstitions lacked. That's it, that's all. That's all that was even attempted. It was about how their godman could be made to retroactively fit preconceived notions, not explaining our world or any first principles of it.

There's some divine simplicity for you. This shit isn't difficult or profound or wise or beautiful - it's a mercantile negotiation. It isn't that everyone who calls bullshit must get it wrong, or that other people just won't accept this or that, or even that other people are particularly argumentative - it's that the faithful refuse to accept having gotten something wrong as a product of their base irrationality. So they mound garbage on top of their garbage mound insulting anyone who deigns to point out that it's all garbage, crying victim as they casually denigrate others.



Yet another answer to the thread q. People tend to believe that if others were smarter or understood properly, they would agree with our beliefs. Therefore, if they don't, they are either dumb, or don't have a proper understanding, or [insert insult here]. It's a non sequitur, but it's how we think. More intimately, it's how we shield our cherished beliefs from their own, often vacuous, natures. The master answer to the question is that we're irrational because we can be. Because no law of the universe steps in to prevent irrationality from being or happening. Not in us, or in any other thing. It's a thing that we and everything else in the universe can do, and on the basis of that alone becomes a statistical inevitability.

The uses of the word contingency that @polymath257 described (a feature of logical deductions, an aspect of causality) are connotations. They all participate in a simple concept. The word contingent has sufficient definition when used properly to indicate dependence on something else. The opposite of contingent is necessary. That said, once a disagreement reaches the point of bickering over semantics, the discussion ceases to be interesting.

@emjay – I get your point. If the 5W are true then God has a minimum of five features. Thomas of Aquinas demonstrates that they are all features of one thing, which is where the Summa picks-up immediately after the 5W., whether or not God has parts, i.e. simplicity versus complexity. So when someone, not you, repeatedly suggests that the 5W just dangle out there unconnected to each other, it only shows that that person got their understanding of the 5W from skeptical YouTube videos and not from actually reading the Summa. Divine Simplicity, in Scholastic thought, is distinguished from complexity. God does not have parts. This does not exclude the possibility that God can be experienced in multiple ways and/or have infinite effects.

@Belecqua, thank you for the kind words. But I was being a little snarky and I must watch my tone. My bad online habits are coming back. It does not matter that I, as a believer, have chosen to participate oi forums where both disdain for religion and epistemic hubris feature prominently. When that culture rubs off and I contribute to it, then I have to own it.

(December 20, 2021 at 12:09 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The uses of the word contingency that @polymath257 described (a feature of logical deductions, an aspect of causality) are connotations. They all participate in a simple concept. The word contingent has sufficient definition when used properly to indicate dependence on something else. The opposite of contingent is necessary. That said, once a disagreement reaches the point of bickering over semantics, the discussion ceases to be interesting.

To me, this simply pushes the issue back one step: 'dependence' in what sense?  Does everything 'depend' on something? Can something depend only on itself? Can something 'depend' on nothing at all?

Does logic, for example, 'depend' on anything else? Does math? Does the universe?

In all of these cases, I see nothing to suggest there is a dependency on anything else, but there are claims that, for example, the universe is not 'necessary', which goes directly against the do of 'necessary' as 'not contingent'.

So, in what sense is the universe contingent? How do you conclude it has to 'depend' on something else?

The conflation of the different notions leads to very bad reasoning and confused logic. By using vague notions, it papers over problems in the reasoning that reveal massive holes in the argument.

Epistemic hubris?

I created an entire thread for the purpose of giving you guys the opportunity to make a case for your epistemology and demonstrate its efficacy. Seems like people abandoned ship the second there was even the slightest challenge or request for clarification of some of those epistemic principles used to get to god.

(December 20, 2021 at 12:54 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I created an entire thread for the purpose of giving you guys the opportunity to make a case for your epistemology and demonstrate its efficacy. Seems like people jumped ship the second there was even the slightest challenge or request for clarification of some of those epistemic principles used to get to god.

"You guys" basically means two contributors, Belecqua and me. And other than a few obvious trolls, I haven't seen much participation from theists across the boards. I think, each of us, in his own way has, made a sincere effort to give nuanced reasoned responses on the relevant threads. I am sorry that, in general, I have not answered your particular concerns or objections.

(December 20, 2021 at 12:22 pm)polymath257 Wrote:

(December 20, 2021 at 12:09 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: The uses of the word contingency that @polymath257 described (a feature of logical deductions, an aspect of causality) are connotations. They all participate in a simple concept. The word contingent has sufficient definition when used properly to indicate dependence on something else. The opposite of contingent is necessary. That said, once a disagreement reaches the point of bickering over semantics, the discussion ceases to be interesting.

To me, this simply pushes the issue back one step: 'dependence' in what sense?  Does everything 'depend' on something? Can something depend only on itself? Can something 'depend' on nothing at all?

Does logic, for example, 'depend' on anything else? Does math? Does the universe?

In all of these cases, I see nothing to suggest there is a dependency on anything else, but there are claims that, for example, the universe is not 'necessary', which goes directly against the do of 'necessary' as 'not contingent'.

So, in what sense is the universe contingent? How do you conclude it has to 'depend' on something else?

The conflation of the different notions leads to very bad reasoning and confused logic. By using vague notions, it papers over problems in the reasoning that reveal massive holes in the argument.

And therein lies a huge problem (as I see it) with using logic to argue god into existence. A logical argument is only as useful as truth of its premises. Perhaps it is a category error to demand physical evidence for god, but it is certainly the responsibility of the theist to provide sufficient evidence for the grand and sweeping assertions about the nature of physical reality made in arguments like the 5W and other ontological arguments. These arguments directly refer to alleged truths about our physical reality and therefore require adequate evidential support before they can be reasonably accepted. That’s why definitions are imperative. It’s not an issue of semantics, it’s an issue of accuracy.

(December 20, 2021 at 12:09 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: ...
@emjay – I get your point. If the 5W are true then God has a minimum of five features. Thomas of Aquinas demonstrates that they are all features of one thing, which is where the Summa picks-up immediately after the 5W., whether or not God has parts, i.e. simplicity versus complexity. So when someone, not you, repeatedly suggests that the 5W just dangle out there unconnected to each other, it only shows that that person got their understanding of the 5W from skeptical YouTube videos and not from actually reading the Summa. Divine Simplicity, in Scholastic thought, is distinguished from complexity. God does not have parts. This does not exclude the possibility that God can be experienced in multiple ways and/or have infinite effects.
...

Thanks for the summary, but the main point I was trying to make was that any entity, however complex or simple, and however you might decide to divide it up, is still a something-not-nothing, and thus from my POV either requires an explanation for it's own existence or requires to be accepted as a brute fact. And though the logic of essential series may dictate that the first element be uncaused, unmoved etc, that doesn't go any way to explaining how, if not why, that is the case.

But that's based on viewing God as some sort of entity... which I think is implied... or harder to deny... by it allegedly having multiple facets including some sort of intelligence, but if you see it otherwise, as something like Platonic Forms or whatever, that's what I'm curious about... but on that score, I have nothing to say really... no opinion... as I'm not informed enough about it, and it's not something I can intuitively conceptualise either as or as not an 'entity' in this sense I'm talking about it of something-not-nothing, especially in the case of multiple Forms... like Good, Beauty etc... somehow grouped together as one under the heading of God.

I'm sorry but this thread's just getting awkward/stressful now, so I might soon call it a day.

(December 20, 2021 at 12:54 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Epistemic hubris?

I created an entire thread for the purpose of giving you guys the opportunity to make a case for your epistemology and demonstrate its efficacy. Seems like people abandoned ship the second there was even the slightest challenge or request for clarification of some of those epistemic principles used to get to god.

Are you referring to the Tooth Fairy thread? 


It's pretty optimistic to think that we're going to settle the Nominalism vs. Idealism debate on a thread, since it's one of the longest-running debates in the history of philosophy. 

I guess I don't feel an obligation to stand and fight when I know it's not going to finish. The Stanford page I linked to outlines the whole problem better than any one of us can do. It would be rude of me to say "go read this and come back when you understand it," since I only understand a little bit of it myself. But it shows how big the issue is and how unsuited it is, finally, to an informal setting like this one. 

On one hand, I think it's important for each of us to work through the issues ourselves, since we can't get the full grasp of the issues just by reading -- we have to engage personally. At the same time, every one of us here (myself very much included) is an amateur who's just above beginner's level, at best. At some point we realize that we have to go away and read a bunch of books if we want to do a good job. 

Polymath is passionate about his view of things, and he does a very good job of explaining his position. Maybe he doesn't do a splendid job of understanding differing viewpoints. At some point those of us who aren't as sure of his position as he is have to decide if we want to spend a large part of our day explaining why he may not be as justified as he supposes. 

I appreciate this venue as a place to work through the issues, but I hope you'll understand that nobody, given real life (I rode in an ambulance yesterday), is going to be able to give these enormous philosophical issues the full time attention required to make any progress. Chipping away over years and years has helped me understand some things.

(December 20, 2021 at 7:09 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(December 20, 2021 at 12:54 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Epistemic hubris?

I created an entire thread for the purpose of giving you guys the opportunity to make a case for your epistemology and demonstrate its efficacy. Seems like people abandoned ship the second there was even the slightest challenge or request for clarification of some of those epistemic principles used to get to god.

Are you referring to the Tooth Fairy thread? 


It's pretty optimistic to think that we're going to settle the Nominalism vs. Idealism debate on a thread, since it's one of the longest-running debates in the history of philosophy. 

I guess I don't feel an obligation to stand and fight when I know it's not going to finish. The Stanford page I linked to outlines the whole problem better than any one of us can do. It would be rude of me to say "go read this and come back when you understand it," since I only understand a little bit of it myself. But it shows how big the issue is and how unsuited it is, finally, to an informal setting like this one. 

On one hand, I think it's important for each of us to work through the issues ourselves, since we can't get the full grasp of the issues just by reading -- we have to engage personally. At the same time, every one of us here (myself very much included) is an amateur who's just above beginner's level, at best. At some point we realize that we have to go away and read a bunch of books if we want to do a good job. 

Polymath is passionate about his view of things, and he does a very good job of explaining his position. Maybe he doesn't do a splendid job of understanding differing viewpoints. At some point those of us who aren't as sure of his position as he is have to decide if we want to spend a large part of our day explaining why he may not be as justified as he supposes. 

I appreciate this venue as a place to work through the issues, but I hope you'll understand that nobody, given real life, is going to be able to give these enormous philosophical issues the full time attention required to make any progress. Chipping away over years and years has helped me understand some things.

I understand that. What I took issue with was the accusation of “epistemic hubris,” when myself and Poly (don’t take that to mean I think we’re on the same level intellectually, ha!), have been open to hearing arguments for a sound epistemological framework that gets us to a god. Asking for clarification regarding the definitions used in such arguments isn’t pulling semantics or being contrarian for the sake of it; it’s a justified pursuit toward accuracy so that the most reasonable conclusions can be reached. Are you insinuating that only the highly philosophically educated, intellectually superior, and vastly-read of society can reason their way to god? What about average-intelligence, time-constrained shmucks like me who might never make it through the Stanford.edu entry on Plato and physicalist? We just have to take it on faith?

(December 20, 2021 at 7:28 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Are you insinuating that only the highly philosophically educated, intellectually superior, and vastly-read of society can reason their way to god? What about average-intelligence, time-constrained shmucks like me who might never make it through the Stanford.edu entry on Plato and physicalist? We just have to take it on faith?

You shouldn't take anything on faith.

Nor should we assume that the arguments are easy.