RE: Reflecting on Atheism.
November 23, 2013 at 11:04 am
(This post was last modified: November 23, 2013 at 11:23 am by arvind13.)
I will respond to some of the comments and leave it there. you can respond back and have the last word.
"The other possibilities would be - there are multiple agents specifying different purposes or there is no supervening agency, but the purpose is provided by the nature of human existence.
As it happens, the claim made within Hinduism is that the purpose is to transcend to cycle of karma and become one with Brahman."
If the intentions of the agent is the cause and governs everything (past, present and future), how can there be multiples of that agent?
A logical consequence of the above framework is that there can only be one such agent. That's why Christians, Muslims, and Jews insist there is only one God. I don't believe in God myself, but there is an internal logic to their claims. It makes sense within their theological framework.
There is nothing inherent in the nature of human existence that makes them provide a purpose of life. Except for Christian and Islamic cultures, no other culture has even asked such questions about human existence.
"The other possibilities are that EIA posits the existence of multiple entities or it forgoes providing a teleological cause and posits no agent or it posits agency for some aspects of the explanation and none for the other or it posits multiple agencies for some aspects or it provides a layered structure - providing some agencies for some aspects and another set of agencies for those agencies and so on. All of these are viable alternatives to the first contingent property.
As it happens, if you replace the word god with Brahman, you have the first contingent property as it applies to Hinduism."
Brahman is not an agent. Brahman doesn't have intentions, goals, or desires. and The EIA is of the cosmos, not of this or that aspect. you cannot have an EIA of this or that aspect, because those aspects doesn't exist in isolation and are affected by other factors. For example you can't have an EIA of a house and say everything that happens in this house expresses the intention of a "house god", because whatever happens in the house is influenced by so many factors that lie outside the house. So an EIA automatically has to be all encompassing and about the whole cosmos and not about this or that aspect.
"Having a teleological cause of not a universal aspect of events - unlike the efficient cause. To use the example of your the door opening - if the wind blows and door opens then you have the presence of efficient cause and an absence of teleological cause"
This is irrelevant to what we are talking about. I was just using those examples to differentiate between a causal and intentional account. Ok fine, the wind blows and the door opens is also an example of a causal account.
As much variety as you can have within Christianity, there is a common framework that makes all these denominations into Christian denominations. and the theory I provided outlines such a structure
"The other possibilities would be - there are multiple agents specifying different purposes or there is no supervening agency, but the purpose is provided by the nature of human existence.
As it happens, the claim made within Hinduism is that the purpose is to transcend to cycle of karma and become one with Brahman."
If the intentions of the agent is the cause and governs everything (past, present and future), how can there be multiples of that agent?
A logical consequence of the above framework is that there can only be one such agent. That's why Christians, Muslims, and Jews insist there is only one God. I don't believe in God myself, but there is an internal logic to their claims. It makes sense within their theological framework.
There is nothing inherent in the nature of human existence that makes them provide a purpose of life. Except for Christian and Islamic cultures, no other culture has even asked such questions about human existence.
"The other possibilities are that EIA posits the existence of multiple entities or it forgoes providing a teleological cause and posits no agent or it posits agency for some aspects of the explanation and none for the other or it posits multiple agencies for some aspects or it provides a layered structure - providing some agencies for some aspects and another set of agencies for those agencies and so on. All of these are viable alternatives to the first contingent property.
As it happens, if you replace the word god with Brahman, you have the first contingent property as it applies to Hinduism."
Brahman is not an agent. Brahman doesn't have intentions, goals, or desires. and The EIA is of the cosmos, not of this or that aspect. you cannot have an EIA of this or that aspect, because those aspects doesn't exist in isolation and are affected by other factors. For example you can't have an EIA of a house and say everything that happens in this house expresses the intention of a "house god", because whatever happens in the house is influenced by so many factors that lie outside the house. So an EIA automatically has to be all encompassing and about the whole cosmos and not about this or that aspect.
"Having a teleological cause of not a universal aspect of events - unlike the efficient cause. To use the example of your the door opening - if the wind blows and door opens then you have the presence of efficient cause and an absence of teleological cause"
This is irrelevant to what we are talking about. I was just using those examples to differentiate between a causal and intentional account. Ok fine, the wind blows and the door opens is also an example of a causal account.
As much variety as you can have within Christianity, there is a common framework that makes all these denominations into Christian denominations. and the theory I provided outlines such a structure
