Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Belacqua]

I know what actus purus is. It has a clear definition. 


You haven't demonstrated yet that actus purus is a lie. I don't know if there is such a thing or not, but that's not what we're talking about. 

We're talking about whether there is a definition for God. I have pointed to this one, many people in history have believed it. Arguing that there is no such thing would require a separate argument.


The elaborate arguments for why actus purus is God, or God is actus purus, are available to you if you want to read them. 

I am not making up this attribute; many people have written logical arguments as to why there must be such a thing and why it would be God. 


Again, I am not making up this attribute. In fact I think "attribute" wouldn't be the correct word for it. It is the definition that many people have for God. 


Please present your arguments as to why there is no such condition as actus purus and why all those who have believed in it are incorrect. The people whose work I have read have felt that they demonstrated it sufficiently. I am not enough of an expert to judge.

Hi Bel!

So, could you unpack this 'actus purus ' for we dummies?

How does 'actus purus ' actually connect to a diety? Does the diety wear it as a hat?

Who's seen a diety with an 'actus purus'?

How often does the diety get their 'actus purus ' serviced? What sort of mileage does one of those things get, anyway?

People 'argue' for things all the time. How does one show it to be actually so?

If 'Logic', and the rules there of, are emergent properties of reality (And a side effect of our pattern generating systems) how can such apply to things like deities?

Cheers!

Not at work.

These are all fair questions (except for the joke ones!). But it's a hell of a lot to unpack in a thread like this.

In an enormously small nutshell: actus purus is the condition of complete actualization, with no potentiality. The long elaborate argument tries to demonstrate that in order for change to occur in the world, something which is already actualized must cause potential in the world to be actualized. 

This is not something a deity has or sits with. It is the deity itself. Aristotle has additional arguments as to why it must be conscious. The Christians have additional arguments as to why it is cognate with their God. From what I've seen, Klorophyll thinks something very similar about the Muslim God. It's no surprise if this type of Aristotelian concept is a part of Muslim theology. 

It's a lot of work to figure it all out. The only point I'm making on this thread is that it is a clear definition. Whether the thing defined is provable through logic is a separate question.

[Peebothuhlu]

These are all fair questions (except for the joke ones!). But it's a hell of a lot to unpack in a thread like this.

In an enormously small nutshell: actus purus is the condition of complete actualization, with no potentiality. The long elaborate argument tries to demonstrate that in order for change to occur in the world, something which is already actualized must cause potential in the world to be actualized. 

This is not something a deity has or sits with. It is the deity itself. Aristotle has additional arguments as to why it must be conscious. The Christians have additional arguments as to why it is cognate with their God. From what I've seen, Klorophyll thinks something very similar about the Muslim God. It's no surprise if this type of Aristotelian concept is a part of Muslim theology. 

It's a lot of work to figure it all out. The only point I'm making on this thread is that it is a clear definition. Whether the thing defined is provable through logic is a separate question.

Cool!

So... We now know that the whole '....that in order for change to occur in the world, something which is already actualized must cause potential in the world to be actualized.' doesn't hold up under the weirdness of quantum stuff which bleeds across into the 'Macro' world.

How does the whole thought pattern hold up now, then?

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Belacqua]

So... We now know that the whole '....that in order for change to occur in the world, something which is already actualized must cause potential in the world to be actualized.' doesn't hold up under the weirdness of quantum stuff which bleeds across into the 'Macro' world.

Do we know that? 

It's important not to confuse act/potency with simple efficient cause. Things may happen in the quantum level with no apparent efficient cause, but this doesn't affect the fact that certain conditions must apply for change to occur.

[Peebothuhlu]

Do we know that? 

It's important not to confuse act/potency with simple efficient cause. Things may happen in the quantum level with no apparent efficient cause, but this doesn't affect the fact that certain conditions must apply for change to occur.

Yes, we do.

Things happen 'At' the quantum level that effect the macro world.

These quantum effects have no 'Cause'. Nothing acts upon them... they just 'Do', counter to the Aristotle ideas.

Uranium falls apart at a sub atomic level, througt varous other states of matter, to eventually resolve as the element lead.

(I often make the joke that if uranium turned into gold, we'd have a fek ton more reactors in the world.     )

It's not that there's "No apparent cause". As other far smarter than myself have pointed out before, there is no cause. The falling apart can't even be  acuratly predicted it's so 'random'. Only that, after a known amount of time 'X' amount of Uranium just isn't there any more and 'Y' amount of what ever element simply 'Is'.

It doens't matter about anything ecternal, either. The atoms are going to 'Do their thing' regardless.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Belacqua]

Do we know that? 

It's important not to confuse act/potency with simple efficient cause. Things may happen in the quantum level with no apparent efficient cause, but this doesn't affect the fact that certain conditions must apply for change to occur.

Yes, we do.

Things happen 'At' the quantum level that effect the macro world.

These quantum effects have no 'Cause'. Nothing acts upon them... they just 'Do', counter to the Aristotle ideas.

Uranium falls apart at a sub atomic level, througt varous other states of matter, to eventually resolve as the element lead.

(I often make the joke that if uranium turned into gold, we'd have a fek ton more reactors in the world.     )

It's not that there's "No apparent cause". As other far smarter than myself have pointed out before, there is no cause. The falling apart can't even be  acuratly predicted it's so 'random'. Only that, after a known amount of time 'X' amount of Uranium just isn't there any more and 'Y' amount of what ever element simply 'Is'.

It doens't matter about anything ecternal, either. The atoms are going to 'Do their thing' regardless.

Cheers.

Not at work.

Nope. Sorry.

You're using the word "cause" in its modern sense. This is what Aristotle would call "efficient cause." 

For Aristotle, a cause is anything that must be the case for something else to be the case. 

So for example hydrogen atoms are a cause of the sun (one of many). Because hydrogen atoms must exist, and have the properties they do, for the sun to exist. But this doesn't mean that hydrogen atoms are the efficient cause of the sun.  

For uranium or other isotopes to decay, several things must be the case. The laws of nature must be as they are, the isotopes must have the nature they do, time must pass, etc. etc.. The fact that the atoms "do their thing," and have a "thing" that they "do" is included in what Aristotle would call a cause. 

But we've already gotten away from the point, which is that a clear (though difficult) definition of God exists.

[Peebothuhlu]

Nope. Sorry.

You're using the word "cause" in its modern sense. This is what Aristotle would call "efficient cause." 

For Aristotle, a cause is anything that must be the case for something else to be the case. 

So for example hydrogen atoms are a cause of the sun (one of many). Because hydrogen atoms must exist, and have the properties they do, for the sun to exist. But this doesn't mean that hydrogen atoms are the efficient cause of the sun.  

For uranium or other isotopes to decay, several things must be the case. The laws of nature must be as they are, the isotopes must have the nature they do, time must pass, etc. etc.. The fact that the atoms "do their thing," and have a "thing" that they "do" is included in what Aristotle would call a cause. 

But we've already gotten away from the point, which is that a clear (though difficult) definition of God exists.

Uhm... no?

Hydrogen atoms are not actually the 'Cause' for any sun. Other factors also apply.

There might be a 'Clear' definition for a diety. having such a thing fdoes not actually make such a thing exist. We hca clear defintions for Unicorns, Pixies, Leannan Shyde, etc... such things are not beholden to exist because we have definitions for them.

Our minds can not define reality into existance Bel. Reality will do what ever the fek it wants and dayum hominids to extinction if randomness descides it be so.

As for your "For uranium to decay.." bit? It just has to be a certain isotope of Uranum to fall apart at a certain frequency. 'Depleted' uranium still falls apart. So does Throium. They just do it at such a way/level/ 'Time rate' as to be rather seeming 'inert' to our monkey brains.

Now, as for the 'Why is reality the way it is?' ? Yah, that's a question, in-it?

Cheers.

[Belacqua]

Hydrogen atoms are not actually the 'Cause' for any sun. Other factors also apply. 

Hydrogen atoms are included in what Aristotle called the "material cause." You're right that other factors are necessary. 

There might be a 'Clear' definition for a diety. having such a thing fdoes not actually make such a thing exist. We hca clear defintions for Unicorns, Pixies, Leannan Shyde, etc... such things are not beholden to exist because we have definitions for them.

Yes, that's true. I am only claiming, contra Rahm127, that such definitions exist.

Our minds can not define reality into existance Bel. Reality will do what ever the fek it wants and dayum hominids to extinction if randomness descides it be so. 

That's right. Nor have I argued otherwise. 

As for your "For uranium to decay.." bit? It just has to be a certain isotope of Uranum to fall apart at a certain frequency. 'Depleted' uranium still falls apart. So does Throium. They just do it at such a way/level/ 'Time rate' as to be rather seeming 'inert' to our monkey brains. 

Right. Though there appears to be no cause in the modern sense, the laws of nature apply, and those isotopes have ways that they are, which are not other ways. Therefore, in the way that Aristotle used the word, there are causes. 

Now, as for the 'Why is reality the way it is?' ? Yah, that's a question, in-it?

Science can tell us what the laws are, but not the why. This is the field of metaphysics. It starts with observations of the world, and uses logic to attempt explanations that cannot be included in science.

[Deesse23]

I can define a god as something that has no power, no awareness, no intelligence, no wisdom and no existence.

When people use the term god, are they referring to my definition or the one that they have in their own minds ?

When I say the word is meaningless, that is exactly what I mean.
There are no values that you can place upon the word because those values cannot be demonstrated.

It's like asking "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin ?"
How many imaginary items that have 0 mass can you put upon a finite space.
Answer - "An infinite number of nothing."

That is god. An infinite number of zeros that all add up to zero.
That is meaningless.

Once again you have allowed Belaqua to derail the conversation and to shoehorn philosophy into a conversation that was about demonstrating any claims to be true. Most people in here are talking about what is true or real and what not, he is talking...out of his ass. His MO is switching the discusison to his favourite philisophical topic, and since you dont need evidence for your philosophical claims (philosophy is not a discipline where you are actually demonstrating what is true, thats science, but where you speculate) he can continue to make all kind of philosophical claims without the need to back any of them up. I am a bit surprised some of you are still falling for this simple scheme.

Above you see the original post to which Belaquas response was (paraphrasing): "Many christians DO have a definition for (their) god and that is aristotelian *actus purus*".
Rahn basically said* that everyone can make up any defintion of a god they want, that doesnt make the god exist **, even more, you have to demonstrate that the traits you attach to your god can even exist.
Belaquas response......pointing to just another (aristotelian) definition, with a cool latin name, with trait(s) that can not be demonstrated to be real.
Q.e.d. (another cool latin phrase) for Rahn i would say, but then you allowed Belaqua to derail by allowing him to discuss the definition of whatever smoke screen he just erected in front of you, instead of asking him if he could demonstrate that any of this is possibly true.


*please correct me if i am wrong
** aka defining a god into existence

[Belacqua]

philosophy is not a discipline where you are actually demonstrating what is true, thats science

There is no empirical repeatable test to show that only science demonstrates what's true.

Therefore, when you type the above sentence you are doing philosophy, whether you like it or not.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

philosophy is not a discipline where you are actually demonstrating what is true, thats science

There is no empirical repeatable test to show that only science demonstrates what's true.

Therefore, when you type the above sentence you are doing philosophy, whether you like it or not.

But that's not quite what Deesse said.  Science does indeed demonstrate what's true, while philosophy does not.  Deesse didn't say that only science can make this demonstration, so your response is something of a strawman.

For what it's worth, I'm happy to reject the statement 'only scientific statements are true' as scientism, a self-defeating proposition. But I think Deesse's point was that science shows us what is demonstrably true, which philosophy points us towards what may be true.

That said, it's interesting to reflect that in several millennia of trying, philosophy has not solved one single problem of human existence (other than giving professional philosophers an income), whereas science has given us things like flush toilets and vaccines.

Boru