Posts: 5
Threads: 0
Joined: July 31, 2016
Reputation:
0
RE: A Necessary Being?
September 7, 2016 at 5:17 pm
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2016 at 5:20 pm by Levi_Black.)
(September 7, 2016 at 4:54 pm)Alex K Wrote: (September 7, 2016 at 4:52 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: You thought he could understand. Turns out he Kant.
I think if you assume he actually Kant, you are putting Descartes before the horse.
The thing is... no matter whether you're talking about an essential prediction or an accidental prediction. Kant objection is still sound
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: A Necessary Being?
September 7, 2016 at 5:24 pm
(September 7, 2016 at 5:05 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: (September 7, 2016 at 4:54 pm)Alex K Wrote: I think if you assume he actually Kant, you are putting Descartes before the horse.
I like your Engel, very Hume-erous. You get top Marx.
Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I smell a Ruse, Gadamer! Are you Plotin something?
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: A Necessary Being?
September 7, 2016 at 5:29 pm
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2016 at 6:30 pm by Whateverist.)
(September 7, 2016 at 6:37 am)Alex K Wrote: (September 7, 2016 at 6:33 am)Levi_Black Wrote: Is the idea of a necessary being possible? yeah, sure. Is it the only possible option? No.
But haven't you heard? The concept of a necessary being by necessity includes the property that it necessarily exists, ergo, God. 
I'm pretty sure the OP was hoping for a long slow build up to that climax. Your ejaculation may have come prematurely.
Posts: 2292
Threads: 16
Joined: September 28, 2015
Reputation:
24
RE: A Necessary Being?
September 7, 2016 at 6:25 pm
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2016 at 6:29 pm by ApeNotKillApe.)
(September 7, 2016 at 5:24 pm)Alex K Wrote: (September 7, 2016 at 5:05 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: I like your Engel, very Hume-erous. You get top Marx.
Ludwig Wittgenstein.
I smell a Ruse, Gadamer! Are you Plotin something?
Surely, Euclid.
I am John Cena's hip-hop album.
Posts: 9915
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
A Necessary Being?
September 7, 2016 at 6:42 pm
(September 7, 2016 at 4:52 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: You thought he could understand. Turns out he Kant.
[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: A Necessary Being?
September 10, 2016 at 3:32 pm
(This post was last modified: September 10, 2016 at 3:35 pm by Mudhammam.)
(September 2, 2016 at 7:36 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: I know you have me on ignore, but in case you get curious enough to glance at this: what makes an infinite regress impossible? For us dummies who aren't logicians, that is...
Edit/addition:
From my limited understanding, logical absolutes are only absolutely true in THIS universe, right? So, if there can exist some universe or reality where, say, A does not equal A, why can't there exist some universe or reality where infinite regress is logically possible? How can we possibly extrapolate what we know about our own universe to whatever may or may not lie beyond it? I don't see how anyone could be justified in even trying to presume such a thing. That would be the height of nonsense! Sheer irrationality! Aye, there might be a Person who possesses two Natures and is himself among three Persons whose essence is a single Nature. Wait, what?
I'm going with the concepts of basic logic, such as the principles of identity and noncontradiction -- they seem to work fairly well.
Regarding Wooter's idea of infinite regress, I agree that it doesn't make any bit of sense to conceive of essential causes in a beginningless series, and that an eternal being would seem to be necessary. But insofar as this being has any causal relation to temporal events, I can't actually see how one can avoid a temporal infinite regress, or how that is separable from an ontologically uncaused cause. If anything is eternal, and has effect on sequences in time, it would seem to require that the sequences must be also be eternal, or that the cause was not essential. I know theists think that giving God a free will has advantage that a "spontaneous mechanism" arising from some atemporal state doesn't possess, but I don't see it. Both seem equally problematic.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
|
