How is it that the vast majority of cosmological arguments throughout history are about divine conservation and yet almost no one discusses divine conservation but rather pictures all those arguments as talking about "the beginning of the universe"?
>>597799
Because of memes, obviously
Think of "divine conservation". It doesnt make for a good meme, while "beginning of the universe" does
>>597799
Because theists claim their god created the universe.
>>597799
I think most people think the universe as being self conserving, that is it seems complete in itself. They think of God like a clock maker who after making and setting the clock allows it to run on its own
Because crappy post-Humean concepts of causation think only in terms of temporal priority, e.g.
>>597847
So the idea that God created the universe intrinsically implies temporal priority only.
>>597847
>people picture arguments to mean something they are not even about
>because of a claim in the theists have
I find this just wacky and not really explaining anything.
>>597848
I'm with you there. Existential Inertia is just assumed out of hand. Strange, however, as I have never heard of an argument that actually supports it that isn't bullshit (like appealing to Newtonian Inertia or Conservation of Mass-Energy).
>>597855
That makes some sense, thanks.
Because the Abrahamic faiths see God as the creator as well as the curator of existence.
Also, it doesn't make sense to consider God as an observer who has no active role in the events of the Universe. Or, rather, we would have to reconceptualize God and become Deists.
>>597857
If were looking at it from a materialistic point of view, the universe doesnt seem to be "conserving". matter is slowly breaking down and time space is unstable
>>597857
Doesn't the Law of Entropy suggest that eventually all matter will be broken down to the point that it will no longer easily reassemble?
Forgive me, since I haven't studied physics since HS and I wasn't that good at it, but I always thought that within a closed system entropy would eventually lead to the decay of all matter on such a scale that it could not reappropriate to form matter and would be scattered to far across the universe to make anything we might consider meaningful.
>>597886
Entropy as directly observed seems to bear that out, however, a lot of Hubble galactic observations lend towards the opposite conclusion: Not only are galaxies moving away from each other, they seem to be accelerating, which shouldn't be happening unless something is pouring energy into the equation. And there's no real good explanation as to where that energy could be coming from.
>>597886
More or less. Matter spreads out, heat diffuses, everything moves away from the big bang at very high speeds but space itself is inflating (so even if two objects were "standing still" in relation to each other they would still increase in distance as the actual space between them is inflating), and eventually everything is so far out that nothing happens. Or so theory goes.
There's an argument that's gaining traction that after matter reaches a certain inflation point it begins to contract until it compresses to a singularity which eventually explodes outwards (Dharmic religions postulate something ~vaguely~ similar), but we're talking about something so far ahead in time that models break down.
>>597886
A couple points on this:
1) It's not the "Law of Entropy", it's the "Second Law of Thermodynamics"
2) The law is actually a statistical one that states as t (time) approaches infinity, the likelihood of a given region within a closed space being in thermal equilibrium with nearby regions approaches 1.00. This is a perfectly accurate model for all kinds of systems we encounter in nature, but we're still unsure if it perfectly models reality (there may be other factors in play that keep this from being strictly true that we have yet to fully understand).
3) We still do not know whether the universe is a closed system or not, so the second law might not be applicable at all.
>>597799
I'd say because the idea of ontological conservation probably seemed less plausible as more thinkers described the universe using the concept of physical inertia, rather than the outdated Aristotelian principle that locomotion requires the continuous contact of a moving force.
>>597847
Not all gods are creator gods, dipshit
The answer is dogma. The priesthood needs a way to justify itself so it needs a special connection to something which is not just a metaphor. Let's face you arn't going to buy into the idea that the papacy can rake up tax money because they have are aware of some spirtual truth, they need a big strong creator God in their corner to back up that type of piracy.
In general though I think orthodoxy is a threat to comsologicl understandings of God. They care more about historical validity of events than any sort of spirtualism. Did God create the univerese? Did Jesus exist? Did he die on the cross? Was peter the first pope? Are the writings historically accurate.
For the orthodox these questions are what matter. If you want to save Christianity you need to move away from the cancer of Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy.
>>598145
...what?
You may have entered the wrong thread.
>>598132
The Only God is the "Creator God".
All else are make believe. :)
>>597857
> Existential Inertia is just assumed out of hand. Strange, however, as I have never heard of an argument that actually supports it that isn't bullshit (like appealing to Newtonian Inertia or Conservation of Mass-Energy).
Why do you think these are bullshit?
>>598226
Because they have literally nothing to do with the kind of thing we're discussing.
>>597799
Because people don't realise you think the Universe needs Harry Potter to hold it together.
>>598241
But cosmological arguments employ premises drawn from experience of the physical world, no? So the way in which physical causation is believed to operate will influence the soundness of any cosmological argument based on that belief, no?
>>598277
Advocates of the cosmological argument think God conserves the universe in being, not Harry Potter.
>>598290
Why can't the natural universe exist without God "conserving" it? Why posit an additional God involved?
>>598299
It makes people feel comfortable in thinking there is something greater to the universe than what it is (which I think is silly considering the wonder of the universe, but to each their own). It literally makes no difference if you believe there is a god making things run properly or not, things work the same either way.
>>598290
Harry Potter is Jesus, that is the point of the story.
>>598299
Because the universe, being composite, has derivative existence. Whatever has derivative existence, considered solely in itself, doesn't have existence. If there one posits that there are only things with derivative existence, then one posits that-which-has-no-existence-in-itself, in itself. Hence, positing that there is only derivative existence, is to posit that nothing exists.
Since this cannot be true, there must not only be derivative existence, but that from which it derives, which is underived. Hence, wherever there exists anything with derivative existence, there must be something with underivative existence imparting existence to it.
The underivative being cannot be composite. And since to be multiplicable in any respect entails composition (i.e., a real distinction between what is multiplicable and what is unique), the underived being must be unique. And this unique being upon which all derivative being depends, is God.
>>598318
If we are talking about a being(s) that exist in and of themselves then whether they are multiplicable or not has nothing to do if they are unique.
>>597910
current cosmological would say it is not
>>598279
Oh most definitely. All the cosmological arguments work akin to any logical demonstration.
>>598277
Ignoring you trying to talk shit, your post doesn't really answer the question well at all:
People dismissing most of the cosmological arguments end up not even grasping what the arguments themselves argue FOR. I ask why. Simply saying they don't realize doesn't explain much at all. I'm interested as to why they don't realize what these philosophers are talking about.
>>598318
>derivative existence
Seems like an arbitrary system of buzzwords.
>And this unique being upon which all derivative being depends, is God.
And what's with this huge leap right at the end?
>>598318
>Something can't come from nothing
Saved you a paragraph of pretentious jargon buddy.
>>598335
Multiplicability entails composition, which is incompatible with underivative being. Uniqueness is just the denial of multiplicability.
>>598318
>And this unique being upon which all derivative being depends, is God.
Dont be so quick to sum up the results. Explain to people why you say what would have to be there rather than just attaching the "god" label.
>>598343
Multiplicability means being able to be multiplied. just because you cannot be multiplied it does not mean you are unique.
>>598340
>derivative existence
>buzzwords
I dunno man, it just requires a moderate grasp of English.
Surely you grasp what it is to exist?
Deriving existence from something else is also perfectly obvious: it is to rely for one's existence upon something else, as a whole depends upon its parts.
>huge leap
Just tradition. The Underived Being sets the reference for the term "God," and the further attributes of God are developed from here. It is why it is coherent for guys like Aquinas to ask whether God is omniscient and omnipotent without merely asserting that he is such by definition.
>>598338
you specify nor making any claim as to what this comological conservation works or is... so you're really just bullshitting about buzzwords
if you're curious as to the reasoning of an origin based account of god...
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creation-conservation/
2. paragraph two gives a good account
>>598341
Creation from nothing is a fundamental part of Catholic dogma.
>>598354
If something cannot be multiplied, that entails that more than one of it cannot exist. That of which there could not be more than one, is unique.
>>598318
>Hence, wherever there exists anything with derivative existence, there must be something with underivative existence imparting existence to it.
although wordy and almost unintelligible you hadn't made a leap in logic until this point
>The underivative being cannot be composite
why can't it be? there could be multiple underivatives all you've defined is that at least one of them had to exist before any composite, or material existence...
>>598341
The version I put up shows more intuitively why something cannot come from nothing, namely, Derivative things are indistinguishable from nothing, except in relation to underivative being.
>>598365
you're missing your own key point
> that-which-has-no-existence-in-itself
that's your god in this circumstance if you define everything else as being composite.
void=god
>>598365
>If something cannot be multiplied, that entails that more than one of it cannot exist.
Not if you are talking about being(s) that exist and of themselves.
>>598372
wait where did you define that? i didn't see it.
>>598361
>Deriving existence from something else is also perfectly obvious
It's not obvious at all.
By what mechanism do we observe with certainty that something "derives its existence" upon something else?
>>597799
>makes empty claim
>doesn't feel the need to ratify it with a single name
>claims obviously knowledge and awareness that no one else has
why is this garbage allowed on his?
>>598362
>you specify nor making any claim as to what this comological conservation works or is... so you're really just bullshitting about buzzwords
You're right, I haven't argued for divine conservation. And there's a good reason for that: The thread was literally never about it.
I explain what the thread is about >>597799 and >>598338
No doubt there are some variance within divine conservation but the discussion is discussing why divine conservation ITSELF (in all its forms) is not spoke about.
How you can think I'm just tossing around buzzwords is beyond me.
>link
Looks nice. I'll read it. Thanks.
>>598380
You are right that I just make a claim without defending it but I never once appeal to some special knowledge unique to myself. Don't be silly. The Stanford link >>598362 grasps the discussion of divine conservation pretty well.
>>598370
>you hadn't made a leap in logic until this point
The part you quoted is just a restatement of the preceding sentence. The preceding sentence follows from the preceding argument, which shows that positing underivative existence alone, is to posit nothing.
>why can't the underivative being be composite?
Because whatever is composite exists through its components (i.e., without its components, it wouldn't exist). As such, it derives its existence from them.
>here could be multiple underivatives
Nope. There could only ever be one, because multiplicity in any respect entails a real distinction between whatever real quality is shared between the multiple things (i.e., having an underived mode of being, say), and what is unique in each of them (i.e., whatever individuating factor allows one to say that there are multiple distinct things which answer to the same description).
If there is any underived being at all, there is only one, and it is the same being to which all derivative existence traces.
>>598380
It seems to me as a defense mechanism against holding a esoteric belief, while retaining a surefire way to deflect any criticism.
Make the thread about a META discussion, not the actual topic, that way if people bring up the real topic, you can claim that's not actually what you are talking about.
>>598338
>Ignoring you trying to talk shit, your post doesn't really answer the question well at all:
>People dismissing most of the cosmological arguments end up not even grasping what the arguments themselves argue FOR. I ask why. Simply saying they don't realize doesn't explain much at all. I'm interested as to why they don't realize what these philosophers are talking about.
I guess it's probably not something Christian thologians want to educate people on these days.
If scientists come to a decent explanation of how the Universe holds together it would end up being another nail in the coffin of religion.
>>598377
>Where did you define that?
This paragraph:
>
Because the universe, being composite, has derivative existence. Whatever has derivative existence, considered solely in itself, doesn't have existence. If there one posits that there are only things with derivative existence, then one posits that-which-has-no-existence-in-itself, in itself. Hence, positing that there is only derivative existence, is to posit that nothing exists.
>Hence, positing that there is only derivative existence, is to posit that nothing exists.
>>598395
>asking why people largely misunderstanding what a branch of famous arguments is even about is not an actual topic
>the validity of them is
Anon just stop being so disingenuous. This is not meta at all. This is just a different topic than you want it to be.
>>597799
>How is it that the vast majority of cosmological arguments throughout history are about divine conservation and yet almost no one discusses divine conservation but rather pictures all those arguments as talking about "the beginning of the universe"?
Because they need to find jesus desu. Who /GoWithChrist/ here?
>>598378
Composition is one obvious one, as I said. If there are composite things, then there are things which derive their existence from their components.
>>598396
And that's a fair guess.
And yes, thats true that if a religious claim about reality is false it damages the validity of the system the belief is part of.
>>598376
Are you seriously saying that if a being exists in and of itself, there can be more than one of it while it remains unique? That's a complete non-sequitur.
If it's not what you're saying, then what are you saying?
>>598394
>Nope. There could only ever be one, because multiplicity in any respect entails a real distinction between whatever real quality is shared between the multiple things (i.e., having an underived mode of being, say), and what is unique in each of them (i.e., whatever individuating factor allows one to say that there are multiple distinct things which answer to the same description).
This just says "there must be one otherwise it would be impossible to tell them apart".
So?
You can't tell them apart then, it doesn't mean there is only one.
>>598416
You're trying to prove it has to be unique.
>>598392
i think the reason that heliocentrism existed is primary bias attributed to god's predilection to have created us purposefully, and to have arranged the world as the center of the universe. in that way its rather obvious that conservation was intended and subtext for other cosmological demarcations (ie the placement of 'the heavens')
I really don't know what you're talking about, it was backdrop. Who doesn't talk about it? That philosophers that came after galileo don't mention it should become quite apparent...
>>598417
It's not just a matter of telling them apart, but what is necessary for them to *be* apart.
To *be* different from something else, just is to have something that something else does not. If the multiple underivative beings *are* different, then they must actually have some feature in common, and then some *other* feature which is unique to each. If they had everything in common, then there would be no real difference between them, hence there would only be one thing.
>>598394
>underivative cannot be composite because a component needs to have been created or derived from something
no.
>there could be multiple underivatives
>shared quantities
>unique quantities
literally no idea what that means, if anything.
>>598395
that's kind of what i assumed as well but he has responded to my criticisms...
still no claims mean no valid answers.
>>598429
>It's not just a matter of telling them apart, but what is necessary for them to *be* apart.
>To *be* different from something else, just is to have something that something else does not. If the multiple underivative beings *are* different, then they must actually have some feature in common, and then some *other* feature which is unique to each. If they had everything in common, then there would be no real difference between them, hence there would only be one thing.
Again this is just wrong.
You can have two indentical beings. saying if they were identical they would be the same being is just not logical.
>>598425
>i think the reason that heliocentrism existed is primary bias attributed to god's predilection to have created us purposefully, and to have arranged the world as the center of the universe.
You mean geocentrism? Heliocentrism is what we support now. Geocentrism was supported since Ptolemy.
>Galileo
Divine Conservation has nothing to do with geocentrism/heliocentrism.
>>598403
It's just tripfagging with an anime girl for attention, reaction images already named up ready to deploy.
>>598400
How is the universe a composite?
Why is a composite a derivative? Thats begging the question, does anything have origin... Which is both unanswerable and kind of invalid. The big bang is kind of a moot point and was designed to answer cosmological questions of expansion and antimatter imbalance, not because thing need an origin.
>there is no derivative existence
I would agree with this xD
>>598443
>being on 4chan
>not having named reaction images ready to deploy
>>598424
Yes I was, and I proved it in the following way:
1) If a being is underived, it cannot be composite (for composites exist through their components).
2) If a being is not multiplicable, it is unique. (by definition true)
3) If a being is multiplicable, it is composite (because it would have to possess a real distinction between some shareable feature, and some unique feature).
4)If a being is underived, it is not multiplicable (from 1 and 3)
c. If a being is underived, it is unique (from 2 and 4).
>>598454
2) is incorrect.
The fact you cannot be multiplied does not make you unique. It is not by definition true.
>>598442
oh, my bad i got the buzzwords mizzed up
how isn't it related? they are indicative of a supposed natural predetermined order, which would actually be defined as divine conservation
don't post smug faces without further either side of the argument...
or providing the view of a philosopher, im not going to fucking read a biography to glean a possible idea of what the fuck you could be implying exists as an idea - twat
>>598438
>Again this is just wrong.
>You can have two indentical beings. saying if they were identical they would be the same being is just not logical.
You're equivocating on identity. In order for there to be two identical beings, there would have to be something distinguishing one being from another: a different location, a different component, or something else. Otherwise it simply could not intelligibly be said that there are two beings. Look up Leibniz's law.
>>598443
Get some water. Breathe.
>>598410
That's kind of why Christianity is eroding. Everything about how matter interacts with itself has been explained in a strictly material sense, so the old religious ideas seem like superstition.
For awhile Catholicism built it's stake around being a moral authority but after the pedophile incident that narrative doesn't make sense anymore. The idea of Bishops rotatting around known pedo-philes every time they get caught, ensuring they will always have a fresh supply of victims, and than using the donations of the children's parents to hire lawyers which further protect the pedos, is something that will never be lived down. It's like the indulgence thing, people will still talk about it 500 years from now.
I feel like the purpose of a religion should provide one a personal, spiritual path. The trouble is the Christian spiritual system is out-dated, it was meant for people in a totally different world. This is why so many people feel disenchanted with the religion, the image of a lamb being sacrificed to appease some desert spirit is totally foreign to our way of life, a lot of the parables such as Jesus talking about how a slave should not offend his master are just bizzare.
You sort of see church's trying to attempt to modernize the religion with Vatican 2, the liberal protestants and so on but none of it has really been successful. Than there are the traditionalists who refuse to believe that religion has ever evolved with the times and want Christianity to die with their generation.
>>598458
What do you think "cannot be multiplied" means?
For me, it means that there cannot be more than one of whatever cannot be multiplied in any respect. That just is uniqueness.
>>598454
>underived ≠ composite
simply untrue though unless things exist without substance...
https://books.google.ca/books?id=TfLSG_coursC&pg=PA114&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false page 112
>>598454
Well, I feel like this is all just hypothetical categories.
In real life things don't just spontaneously exist because you propose aa chain of if statements.
>>598464
keep shitposting without your trip without furthering any argument and pretending you've made some clever observation...
>>598468
You'll have to copy/paste a quote, I can't see the content linked here.
>>598472
Not shitposting mate. You seem riled up so you should go get some air before coming back. Relax and cool your head.
>>598466
Then you are wrong.
A being that could multiply i.e. be multiplicable means a being that become multiple other beings.
However just because a being is not multiplicable it does not mean it is unique.
If you are postulating one being that exists in and of itself there could be other beings that exist in and of themselves, who are also not multiplicable.
>>598481
>be multiplicable means a being that become multiple other beings.
no that isnt what multiplicable means at all
>>598461
We are talking about beings without components or locations in the first place.
>>598474
i am paraphrasing perhaps without the right meaning
"if thing did not have subsistence intrinsic to its itself providing unity which was essential and necessary to it then it could not communicate its presence to the matter or the composite (defined by thomas of aquinas as suppositum) therein the existence without this would not have unity or composite"
there is a much more detailed logical approach to the question but basically things are made of other things unless your god is a fractal photon or something
the void is also becoming more of the concept of chaotic non-intervention due to its treatment by quantum chromodynamics theory (subatomic particles pop in and out of existence via the coherent or discoherent interactions of 'virtual' particles/mathematical remainders to the questions imposed by restrictions on space/quantum of space/plank length)
>>598460
>how isn't it related? they are indicative of a supposed natural predetermined order, which would actually be defined as divine conservation
Geocentrism/Heliocentrism are both systems of the structure of the planets in the solar system. Divine Conservation is the system that the physical world depends upon something transcendent from it moment-to-moment for its existence and to explain why it ultimately exists as it is. This is a view opposed from existential inertia, which argues that the world - once made - simply runs on its own.
They're two very different things.
>>598465
This is an overall much bigger topic you're getting into that may get in the way of the topic I want to discuss. No offense to you, of course, but I don't want to deride this thread even further.
>>598475
nou wolf
>>598481
>If you are postulating one being that exists in and of itself there could be other beings that exist in and of themselves, who are also not multiplicable.
If there are multiple beings that exist in and of themselves, then there would have to be some part of each being which is not "that they exist in and of themselves," for if all that they are is what they have in common, and they have no individuating features at all, then there just aren't multiple beings at all.
Each of these beings, if there is more than one of them, would have to have more than one part, hence they would have to be composite. But as we showed earlier, the underivative being cannot be composite. So there being more than one of the underived being, in any respect, is impossible.
>>598485
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/multiplicable
>capable of being multiplied.
>>598490
so divine is that there is a direct link to god that if broken would render the existence 'back into void'?
i mean what a ludicrous proposition, there would be no discernible difference between anything in creation and god... by definition
whats the point in elevating man to god, or dirt to god
and budhism and dharmic teaching do this BTW
it is also alluded to in taoism
>>598494
Again just because they are identical it does not make them the same being.
>>598504
You're thinking of qualitative identity rather than numerical identity. The kind of identity I'm talking about, is the relation that anything bears only to itself.
>>598338
>>598279
>>598241
>>597857
But if it's
> most definitely
true that
> cosmological arguments employ premises drawn from experience of the physical world... So the way in which physical causation is believed to operate will influence the soundness of any cosmological argument based on that belief
then I don't see how
> Newtonian Inertia or Conservation of Mass-Energy
> have literally nothing to do with the kind of thing we're discussing.
>>598490
>Divine Conservation is the system that the physical world depends upon something transcendent from it moment-to-moment for its existence and to explain why it ultimately exists as it is.
That seems like a fool's errand. You could never actually discover something like this.
>>598507
>You're thinking of qualitative identity rather than numerical identity. The kind of identity I'm talking about, is the relation that anything bears only to itself.
This is circular.
>>598501
There's basically two major understanding of the divine.
One is the way created by the Zoastrianians (and later taken by the Jews and Christians) in which the ultimate authority and power in the universe is some sort of God. The other way is the way that is more eastern and also much closer to the earliest religions, which is that the ultimate source of everything in the universe is certain primal forces, there are Gods but these Gods too are bound by such laws.
What we know about physics makes the 2nd choice very accessable. Even ultra-nonspiritual people like Hawking admit that mankind is searching for the primal forces that make things like gravity and nuclear forces be as they are. It just makes a lot more sense with what we have discovered to say it's a force that we can manipulate and be manipulated by rather than some entity that picks and chooses, has human emotions, and a moral code book.
>>597799
wtf is divine conservation?
bring your own links dammit
>>598526
>wtf is divine conservation?
the opposite of divine liberalism
>>598526
Apparently it's like normal physics but with God.
why do we assume their is a finite amount of matter in the universe?
Why is it assumed the universe was at one point a singularity?
what caused that singularity to explode?
>>598521
>forces
yeah ok i dig the analogy but a force is only a force by merits of its interactions, in the same way that a field is a representation of those interactions over space-time ( which appears more and more NOT to exist ). so it isn't the forces its more like the consituent particles/matter that matter although they are pretty much inextricable...
Have we tested laser communications out in space?
Do they have the same lag times as radios?
I guess I can accept that light has a speed limit if lasers took the same amount of time to reach vast distances as radio waves, since lasers are light.
>>598501
>so divine is that there is a direct link to god that if broken would render the existence 'back into void'?
I would prefer to not immediately use the term "god" as there are several forms of divine conservation and forms of "god" and I don't want to confuse the issue. Generally, the answer would be yes though. If there is a moment where the things something depends on to exist disappear then it loses that overall structure in respect to what is not retained and retains what still has the influence of its dependency. Whether that leads to explicitly a "void" is still up for discussion for some people, I imagine, but you get the idea.
>there would be no discernible difference between anything in creation and god... by definition
God, in circles that would support divine conservation like the different forms of Classical Theism, is not a being in or out of reality but is the ground of reality itself.
>>598512
Newtonian Inertia just bluntly has nothing to do with this. We're talking about ontological causation, not how things move around by location.
Conservation of Energy boils down to the law that no physical action creates or destroys energy. And no matter how you describe how divine conservation plays out it can never be considered "physical action" as it is the sustaining or creation of that physical thing.
Most of the cosmological arguments do not discuss a "beginning of the universe" but rather argue that divine conservation must be real as per what they know of nature. My issue is this discussion (no matter what they think of it) never comes up and people dismiss argument for divine conservation on grounds that rely on thinking they're about a temporal beginning to nature.
>>598535
If you assume that what we have measured is the entire universe than that's a good reason.
However the deeper thing is it was an idea that was assumed try be a great deal of theology and just taken at face value. You can find philosophical arguments for an infinite universe as far back as anaximander. Given how infinity is a natural part of nature though it's not an impossibility.
>>598539
It makes sense if you stop thinking in terms of a strict materialism and more of a metaphysics model. There is an idea that religious ideas evolved as a way of finding patterns in the world and trying to adopt society to fit into those patterns. For instance the ancients that first discovered astronomy observed that the planets were ordered. So they adopted a meta-physics view that emphasized order as being the big thing. Thus you got a lot of early religions that emphasis a strict social order, based on cycles, to mimic the celestial heavens. Just as the sun clearly 'ruled' the heavens and the planets orbited in a uniform fashion there would be a clear 'ruler' and a clear uniform fashion everyone should follow. Thus old religions were highly ceremonial and orderly.
The basic idea is to figure out the nature of the universe in ideaological terms and than everyone (including the Gods) try to adopt to that situation. So if the order is the "Tao" than you learn to have no 'self' in order to best fit in with the nature of Tao. This is highly philosophical which is why Eastern religions are said to be more philosophy than religion from people that used to the idea of religion as "God says this. You do it. Otherwise you get killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath"
>>598519
Well the cosmological arguments relevant to divine conservation definitely do make cases for the need of such a claim in reality and can say the bare minimum of the attributes of whatever is in fact doing it based on the virtue of whatever they argue must be there. These are done through deductive arguments, of course.
As many people seem to want to be able to argue and defend existential inertia I imagine there are people who wish to do the same of divine conservation.
>>598570
It seems like your entire argument is based around using terms that nobody fucking accepts in an attempt to define your things in and out of existence.
>>598553
what's the purpose to presupposing divinity to existence though? it provides no clarity to the understanding of existence, and it supposes some sort of real-time link to either something transdimensional ( ground by which things can exist on top of/within etc ) or contradicts that substance is existence...
i guess what i'm saying is I don't see the point. it basically boils down to another frame of reference for the solipsm argument whereby the observer of the observer(us) sees some extrasensory plane which provides the whereby for us to exist.
To put it another way it would be supposing that matter is divine and is all interelated ( which is looking likely as causality is irrelevant to quantum entanglement, which is the current model of thermodynamic tension/force )
>>598556
yeah i dig. ive read a decent amount of the major religions to get the gist of them...
>>598570
>arguing about something we would never have the frame of reference to examine. by nature of the argument
well beyond any of our reaches friend...night
>>598574
>It seems like your entire argument is based around using terms that nobody fucking accepts
Such as? The only term in question here is divine conservation, but the argument doesn't rest on it. Thats just the label for what the arguments are usually about.
>in an attempt to define your things in and out of existence.
?
Where is there "defining things in and out of existence"?
>>598579
I agree that it is, but as we know deductive arguments are still a valid way of achieving knowledge. That is why we have theorems and theories rather than just theories.
>>598553
> Newtonian Inertia just bluntly has nothing to do with this. We're talking about ontological causation, not how things move around by location.
But locomotion is an instance of natural causality, and if historical conceptions of how locomotion is caused have influenced cosmological arguments on the point of God's conservation (as per >>597915) then, again, it seems like Newtonian inertia does have something to do with it.
> Conservation of Energy boils down to the law that no physical action creates or destroys energy. And no matter how you describe how divine conservation plays out it can never be considered "physical action" as it is the sustaining or creation of that physical thing.
Yes, I get that - but my point is that if the soundness of cosmological arguments depends on premises drawn from experience of the physical world, then they invite suspicion when they try to draw conclusions about what is not the physical world.
> My issue is this discussion (no matter what they think of it) never comes up and people dismiss argument for divine conservation on grounds that rely on thinking they're about a temporal beginning to nature.
I get that too; probably this is due in part to the relatively recent fact that big bang cosmology has turned the attention of many apologists and critics to the concept of a beginning of the universe. Also, the concept of "vertical," sustaining causality strikes me as more intangible - thus harder to teach and harder to convince a listener of - than the concept of "horizontal," sequential causality.
I am quite religious but I get irritated by the "something from nothing" argument, especially when people try to force it with metaphysics buzzwords. You're setting yourself up for serious humiliation if physicists ever discover that the universe is cyclical or part of a multiverse.
>>598585
I've studied a great deal of philosophy and have never seen the term existential inertia dropped. It seems to be a word that only has meaning within a very narrow field of theology and it's kind of improper to use it in a more general philosophical discussion.
In general when a philosophical system becomes too dependent on lingo in older to hold an argument it's a sign that it's an argument that cannot sustain itself without self-referencing. From what I have seen of your posts in the past this seems to be a common thing. It seems like your idol Aquinas you are trying to define God into existence. The goal of any overly self-referencing system is to try to shut up the opponent's by insisting on only using words with definitions you have already fixed to win you argument.
From what I've observed of people reacting to you other people seem have the same critisism of you.
>>598604
Even worst. Physics has already discovered "nothing" doesn't exist. "Nothing" in the most literal sense is a pure vaccuum, something which literally violates the laws of physics. "Nothing" is a word only used metaphorically.
So yeah these sorts of arguments for a creator God are already shooting them-self in the foot. There cannot be a time when there was "nothing".
>>598604
I just get sick of people who think they know how God uses his power. No one can fathom God in his majesty. No one can understand God. He is too vast and infinite to understand. Man is too feeble-minded to understand the work of God. we will never know exactly how God made universe, and we have no right to know how he did it
>>598618
But God has always existed, so there has never been "nothing." There was only God
>>598622
oh man, your type are the worst
>inb4 ad hom
Don't even bother to debate or support with reason because they're too far gone. This is the most vapid and convenient argument of them all; the epitome of "muh feels".
>inb4 fedora
I used to think this way too. Then I realized that it makes no sense. There is literally no reason to think this way besides "I am scared of death". You do not experience God. I'm sorry. It's just your brain that doesn't want to die. None of us do, honestly - unless you have some sort of mental illness, in which your brain isn't functioning properly.
It's just your brain, man. Snap out of it. You don't see God's work. The rush you get is just dopamine or serotonin. I've done it too. There's a nice a rush when you feel safe under God.
There is a man on this Earth, right now, smoking peyote in the southwestern United States. He claims this is a gift from the maker, giving him life guidance, and the peyote is just the vehicle for this message. In reality, the chemicals in his brain are just reacting to the peyote and making him hallucinate. He doesn't believe in your God. He doesn't need to. He has his peyote and the great creator. The brain is a wonderful thing - that it comes up with these fictions and the dogma and zeal to defend it.
But sometimes we need other brains, or we get caught inside our own skull.
>>598622
>I just get sick of people who think they know how God uses his power.
You mean the scientists, or the guys with old manuscripts and boners for Aristotle?
>>598638
if life doesn't matter, how come you care that I believe in God?
>>598627
The "nothing" refers to things in the material sense....so yeah there goes God "creating the universe" So either you cannot have God be immaterial or you have to concede that point.
>>597915
>>598602
And, technically, I should have pointed out that Aristotle's God moves the universe by drawing it towards itself teleologically, not by efficiently pushing it by physical contact; yet the principle that change requires, for as long as it is ongoing, the actuality of some external moving power, is common to both teleological and efficient causality for Aristotle, if memory serves.
>>598647
I'm not talking to you then?
>>598652
Who said anything about life not mattering? I only care because I was in your place too! I really was - I loved Christian summer camps, reading books on apologetics, getting in the rhythm of a good worship...
But I couldn't do it after a point. I read, I learned, I was curious. A sin, apparently. I questioned. I ended up with "Welp, it goes back to the big bang! Something can't come from nothing, so God! but then I realized what a hole I was in and just collapsed, and learned and read more - and nothing isn't really a good definition of what went on then. But I digress.
I'm an atheist in the non-nihilist camp. I think that we're incredibly lucky to have evolved consciousness to this sapient level, and I think it's a travesty not to use it. Sure, life is technically meaningless, but that's not a bad thing. I enjoy it! Keep on keepin' civilization on until all the stars in the universe extinguish and it's only black holes left. Why not? Same reason to be nihilistic I guess.
Anyway, my point is, I was in your position and I know what you mean. I'm not trying to sound condescending and I apologize if I do. I won't say religion is a cancer or whatever else, but I think it'd be beneficial to at least consider there not being a God.
We're not alone, even without God.
>>598652
But, anon, no one cares about you, not even your own mother.
>>598665
I've accepted that, anon
>>598622
>No one can understand God. He is too vast and infinite to understand.
If you don't understand him how do you know that he is vast?
>>598663
Christian theology is too complex to be made up.
>>598679
I'm saying that it's impossible to know everything about him and what he's doing in the world.
>>598680
Beautiful.
I'm going to use that one when I am trolling and pretending to be religious.
ITT : nobody convincing anybody of anything
The Christians here are the worst proselytisers I have ever encountered.
>>598577
>what's the purpose to presupposing divinity to existence though?
The arguments (I can't specify one, they each to their own end) argue what must by necessity be there and then take it a step further and argue why it cannot logically be material. Divinity is just the term we historically use for the transcendent. The bare minimum is usually argued for when discussing the results themselves. For example, the standard end of Aquinas First Way (if you don't read the shortened versions that just jump straight to saying its God at the end) is "Pure Actuality". This result just extends from him using the potentiality/actuality distinction when talking about causation and he grasps necessary attributes of whatever is that thing we call Pure Actuality by virtue of it being that. We don't know anything else so we can't say much more on the topic.
Those arguments tend to extend from logical issues when talking about existence. To use the First Way example again, it is the answer to where a chain of vertical causation would have to lead.
>>598695
i know that I exist. The fact that I can comprehend the concept of existence proves that I exist
>>598698
>>598614
I use Existential Inertia because I know the label from things I have read. My use comes from the writing of John Beaudoin. The concept itself being mainstream is a modern thing but of course it exists without the label as well. If you know more mainstream terms for the idea, please assist me.
>In general when a philosophical system becomes too dependent on lingo...
Of no doubt. I agree. I'm sure this reference of me comes up in relation to me talking about Aquinas' First Way. I tell people ahead of time I simply use this older lingo because I find it sound and barebones personally and sometimes tell people I can change the terms if need be.
>define God
Using a deductive argument to say the basics of what must exist by virtue of the premises in the argument is not "defining God into existence". I find the "defining God into existence" claim gets thrown around onto deductive arguments themselves when it was just originally a criticism of Anselm's Ontological Argument. It's absurd.
But I must head out, it's late.
>>598693
This kills me.
I tried to make a thread about why people confuse a branch of arguments usually, people try to make it an argument for the legitimacy of the arguments themselves and bothered when its not that, and now we have at the end this guy being upset because we haven't done a good job trying to convince people of the arguments' validity.
Fuck.
I'm out.
>>598703
Next time don't use the little christian /pol/ girl if you don't want people to think you are promoting Christianity.
>>598706
>christian imagery cannot be used for topics about arguments for god
>only in promoting christianity
>>598710
You have autism. Not what passes for 'autism' on 4chan, actual clinical autism. Get yourself checked.
>>598703
>I tried to make a thread about why people confuse a branch of arguments usually, people try to make it an argument for the legitimacy of the arguments themselves and bothered when its not that, and now we have at the end this guy being upset because we haven't done a good job trying to convince people of the arguments' validity.
Wolfshiem your Taqiyya is not fooling anyone. Any attempt to discuss any aspect of religion is always made with the goal of making the religion look better and thus giving power to it. Your whole goal since you starting trip-fagging was to do apologists can conversion for your cult.
This isn't to say you can't discuss religion in a sensable manner, however sesnable discussions usually do not even bother arguing about 'proof for God' (a concept that would only be needed if the God in question had no inherit value, and so it must be accepted because it is 'true'). Sensible religious arguments tend to involve asking how they influence society and how the best way to control that process to meet some goal. A
>>598706
UH OH 4CHAN POLICE
dont just look at pictures u nigger
>>598703
Off you trot :^)
>>597878
But in the midst of the breaking down, the universe has islands of insane complexity.
>>598145
nah m8 don't listen to that guy, i get what you're sayin'
>>597799
Because the metaphysics behind divine conservation are unnecessarily complicated. Other metaphysics are better therefore even modern theists except some muh scholastics guys prefer to try other types of cosmological arguments.
Still, they all fail, especially those about causes.
>>598774
In general such metaphysics are more about trying to prove God exists than saying providing a good model of reality. The needless complexity is there just to make it harder to refute their God proof by hiding behind self-referencing lingo.
>>598804
No the classical traditions influenced by the greeks are all about finding good models
>>598808
Exactly. Metaphyisc started out as highly practically and illuminating (just look at Heraclitus) than scholastic and general religious metaphysics turned it into pointlessly self-referencing sophistry. Eventually Spinoza set things back on the right track.
>people who don't understand anything about scholastic philosophy debating its arguments
This is always so embarassing... tbqh there is a good reason philosophical discussion is confined to the intellectuals, if one is unable or unwilling to take part in the ~2500 year-old discourse that is metaphysics, a philosopher is not required to crouch down to the level of a pleb.
Go read Aristotle and don't comment until you have a basic grasp senpai
>>598813
No I'm talking about the scholastics and all the other traditions influenced by the Greeks. They were very driven towards finding truth.
>>598818
Please give us some example of why we should believe this is just way above us. Right now it just looks like youre trying to hide behind an air of superiority so not to show that you have no substance. Prove me wrong.
>>598825
It is impossible to accurately grasp philosophy without understanding its history. Aristotle is the single most important thinker of the western tradition. The way we talk about metaphysics, and even the very LOGIC we assume to correctly describe reality, come from Aristotle. It is necessary that people understand the historical progression of their own assumptions about the world, and the greeks are the best starting point.
>>598920
>Aristotle is the single most important thinker of the western tradition
Subjective claim
>>598909
>Aristotle is the single most important thinker of the western tradition
This is highly debatable. I'd say Plato or Heraclitus was the most importaint force in the ancient world. Than again modern philosophy is more based on Nietzsche or Hegel than the Greeks. (Nietzsche/Schopenhauer's metaphysics of the Will is pretty much the basis for modern psychology and the understanding of human nature for instance. Stuff like the subconscious, ego drives, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, etc are all based on this model)
And besides that all you are doing is invoking Aristotle's name and trying to show that it means something. You were asked to show an example of any real value or insight from scholastic metaphysics. You couldn't even do that....
>>598932
I don't see how it's debatable at all... Aristotle was instrumental in the development of the scientific method, and a rigorous style of discourse in any field. It took a whole revolution for his explanation of physics and human nature to be allowed to be denied. His system of logic was practically unquestioned until recently, IIRC Kant still said it was finished and logic could progress no further. Plato was obviously highly important as well, but when we talk about the western view of the world and its assumptions, Aristotle is the single highest authority.
Here's a good quote from Heidegger:
"ThePhysicsis a lecture in which he seeks to determine beings that arise on their own, τὰ φύσει ὄντα, with regard to their being. Aristotelian "physics" is different from what we mean today by this word, not only to the extent that it belongs to antiquity whereas the modern physical sciences belong to modernity, rather above all it is different by virtue of the fact that Aristotle's "physics" is philosophy, whereas modern physics is a positive science that presupposes a philosophy.... This book determines the warp and woof of the whole of Western thinking, even at that place where it, as modern thinking, appears to think at odds with ancient thinking. But opposition is invariably comprised of a decisive, and often even perilous, dependence. Without Aristotle'sPhysicsthere would have been no Gailileo. "
>>598985
I'm not saying Aristotle wasn't importaint. He's one of the most importaint Greece figures ever.
If you want to pull up quotes, Hegel said something to the effect that history should measure Heraclitus, Aristotle's concepts are derivative of his work on the idea of a Logos.
But with Nietzsche, Hegel, Plato, Heraclitus existing it would be extremly hard to say Aristotle is the biggest guy, escpially since our modern knowledge rejects so much of what he made. He was simply wrong about a lot of physics his theory of essence is pretty much dead outside of some obscure theology. Again this isn't saying he isn't a major player but saying he is the uncontested best is just stupid.
And again...how the hell does this mean that scholastic metaphysics are not useless?
I want OuterLimits to leave
>>599022
Heraclitus is the very opposite of rigorous, I feel like moderns such as Nietzsche just love to ascribe really deep meanings to him, since the fragments we have can be interpreted in many ways. The truth is we can't really say much about his work. And if he's been considered important for the last, I dunno, two centuries it's hardly comparable to Aristotle's uncontested authority of western philosophy for a thousand years...
I'd also disagree with the claim that we've abandoned his philosophy. His thought is not only stil relevant but is experiencing a comeback in recent years, definitely not just in the realm of theologians. Look at the explosion of virtue ethicists for example.
>>599094
>Look at the explosion of virtue ethicists for example
Such as?
In general there are several dominate forces. There's Unitarianism which has always been pretty popular but people like Singer made it go much further. In general philosophy is still sort of stuck in a post-modern stage though.
>>598520
No it's not. It's an elementary logical distinction.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/
>>599238
>Numerical identity can be characterised, as just done, as the relation everything has to itself and to nothing else. But this is circular, since “nothing else” just means “no numerically non-identical thing”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity/
>>598602
I'm still hoping for a response to this.
>>597799
>How is it that the vast majority of cosmological arguments throughout history are about divine conservation and yet almost no one discusses divine conservation but rather pictures all those arguments as talking about "the beginning of the universe"?
What?
>>601142
People tend to picture and speak of the branch of arguments called Cosmological Arguments as talking about the temporal beginning of the universe, hence why there is so much talk of the Big Bang and a "before the Big Bang". However, the vast majority of Cosmological Arguments do not even make this argument but are rather arguing for Divine Conservation.
The thread was to ask why that confusion came (or comes) about.
