Existentialism continued

[Bertrand_Russell]

My investigation of existentialism continues not through Kierkagaard, but through Kant's work.

In a famous section, Kant sets to work to demolish all the purely intellectual proofs of the existance of God. He makes it clear that he has other reasons for believing in God; these he was to set forth later in The Critique of Practical Reason. But for the time being his purpose is purely negative.

There are, he says, only three proofs of God's existance by pure reason; there are the ontological proof, the cosmological proof, and the physico-theological proof.

The ontological proof, as he sets it forth, defines God as the ens realissimum, the most real being, i.e., the subject of all predicates that belong to being absolutely. It is contended, by those who believe the proof valid, that since "existance" is such a predicate, this subject must have the predicate "existance", i.e., must exist. Kant objects that existance is not a predicate. A hundred thalers that I merely imagine may, he says, have all the same predicates as a hundred real thalers.

The cosmological proof says: If anything exists, then an absolutely necessary Being must exist; now I know that I exist; therefore an absolutely necessary Being exists, and this must be the ens realissimum. Kant maintains that the last step in this argument is the ontological argument over again, and that it is therefore refuted by what has already been said.

The physio-theological proof is the familiar argument from design, but in a metaphysical dress. It maintains that the universe exhibits an order which is evidence of purpose. The argument is treated by Kant with respect, but he points out that, at best, it proves only an Architect, not a Creator, and therefore cannot give an adequate conception of God. He concludes that "the only theology of reason which is possible is that which is based upon moral laws or seeks guidance from them".

Reference: A History of Western Philosophy, p. 709, 1945.

This is powerful analysis. One cannot easily dismiss any of these ideas. They are all justifiable. What about the connection to materialism ? Pantheism ? Panentheism ? Is the creator analogous to the universe ? To reality ? Why not ? Or why ?

I need to think more about how these proofs relate to modern existentialism and will give more ideas shortly. Right now I need to rest my brain, it is overheating.

 

[Dogbrain]

This is powerful analysis. One cannot easily dismiss any of these ideas. They are all justifiable. What about the connection to materialism ? Pantheism ? Panentheism ? Is the creator analogous to the universe ? To reality ? Why not ? Or why ?

I need to think more about how these proofs relate to modern existentialism and will give more ideas shortly. Right now I need to rest my brain, it is overheating.

Actually, Kant WAS dismissing all three of these "proofs", and very well done, Herr Doktor Professor Kant, well done, indeed. I would go even further in Kant's direction and say that even the physio-theological proof does not even prove an Architect. There is no evidence to indicate that our universe of "order" and "patterns" is not, instead of being designed, merely one out of an extremely large number of purely random universes that merely happened to end up with pattern and order.

For the record, I am a Christian, but I do not pretend that being Christian is particularly rational.

 

[c0de]

Kant objects that existance is not a predicate. A hundred thalers that I merely imagine may, he says, have all the same predicates as a hundred real thalers.

philosophers including Kant himself never appreciated the ultimate conclusions of this most powerful of arguments i.e what does this say about the hundred "real" thalers?

 

[Bertrand_Russell]

Actually, Kant WAS dismissing all three of these "proofs", and very well done, Herr Doktor Professor Kant, well done, indeed. I would go even further in Kant's direction and say that even the physio-theological proof does not even prove an Architect. There is no evidence to indicate that our universe of "order" and "patterns" is not, instead of being designed, merely one out of an extremely large number of purely random universes that merely happened to end up with pattern and order.

For the record, I am a Christian, but I do not pretend that being Christian is particularly rational.

You are correct Dogbrain, however you did not understand the deeper meaning, please keep reading and neither bark or bite.

 

[Bertrand_Russell]

philosophers including Kant himself never appreciated the ultimate conclusions of this most powerful of arguments i.e what does this say about the hundred "real" thalers?

You, on the other hand, c0de, understand the deeper meaning this section, and we shall continue the discussion along these lines.

 

[Bertrand_Russell]

The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century A.D. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—exists.

Ref. - Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Does everyone agree with this ontological argument ?

 

[Dogbrain]

Does everyone agree with this ontological argument ?

No, because it has the same flaw that Kant's dismissal of a fourth spatial dimension has.

That something can or cannot be imagined does not necessarily mean that it does or does not exist.

 

[Bertrand_Russell]

No, because it has the same flaw that Kant's dismissal of a fourth spatial dimension has.

That something can or cannot be imagined does not necessarily mean that it does or does not exist.

Agreed Dogbrain, that was a no brainer. Lets see how you do with this one:

Although in Western philosophy the earliest formation of a version of the cosmological argument is found in Plato's Laws, 893–6, the classical argument is firmly rooted in Aristotle's Physics (VIII, 4–6) and Metaphysics (XII, 1–6). Islamic philosophy enriches the tradition, developing two types of arguments. The Arabic philosophers (falasifa) developed the atemporal argument from contingency, which is taken up by Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) in his Summa Theologica (I,q.2,a.3) and his Summa Contra Gentiles (I, 13). The mutakallimūm, theologians who used reason and argumentation to support their revealed Islamic beliefs, developed the temporal version of the argument from the impossibility of an infinite regress, known as the kalām argument. For example, al-Ghāzāli (1058-1111) argued that everything that begins to exist requires a cause of its beginning. The world is composed of temporal phenomena preceded by other temporally ordered phenomena. Since such a series of temporal phenomena cannot continue to infinity, the world must have had a beginning and a cause of its existence, namely, God (Craig 1979, part 1). This version of the argument enters the Christian tradition through Bonaventure (1221–74) in his Sentences (II Sent. D.1,p.1,a.1,q.2).

Cosmological Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Any problems here ? Remember that al-Ghazali is considered a top notch Islamic scholar. Are you on board with this argument ? Are you familiar with the ideas around "self-assembly" ? Do you see a fit with this approach ?

 

[c0de]

al-Ghāzāli (1058-1111) argued that everything that begins to exist requires a cause of its beginning. The world is composed of temporal phenomena preceded by other temporally ordered phenomena. Since such a series of temporal phenomena cannot continue to infinity, the world must have had a beginning and a cause of its existence, namely, God (Craig 1979, part 1). This version of the argument enters the Christian tradition through Bonaventure (1221–74) in his Sentences (II Sent. D.1,p.1,a.1,q.2)

c0de: So what was the "cause" of God's existence?

Ghazali: I said "begins to exist." God did not have a beginning.

c0de: if existence is a property shared by us and God alike, then how can you claim that our existence had a beginning, but God's didnt??

If God exists and his existence was not caused -> then a way to solve these (very dire) empirical issues is to say that God exists, but we do not (i.e have any inherent properties of existence.)

As much respect as I have for Ghazali (+ bishop berkley) i must still fault them for accepting that one most tempting of human assumptions: cognito ergo sum. They went far (with questioning our conception of causality) but not far enough. Ghazali for example also believed in free-will, ignoring all the issues with that can of worms.

 

[Dogbrain]

Agreed Dogbrain, that was a no brainer. Lets see how you do with this one:



Any problems here ? Remember that al-Ghazali is considered a top notch Islamic scholar. Are you on board with this argument ? Are you familiar with the ideas around "self-assembly" ? Do you see a fit with this approach ?

1. There is neither evidence nor logically necessary proof that infinite regress cannot occur. It is just an idea that many appear to find too icky to accept. "Ick factor" has yet to be accepted as a rigorous technique.
2. It argues from necessity.

Really, this "ontological" stuff shouldn't have fooled anyone.

 

[farhan]

c0de: So what was the "cause" of God's existence?

Ghazali: I said "begins to exist." God did not have a beginning.

c0de: if existence is a property shared by us and God alike, then how can you claim that our existence had a beginning, but God's didnt??

If God exists and his existence was not caused -> then a way to solve these (very dire) empirical issues is to say that God exists, but we do not (i.e have any inherent properties of existence.)

Thats the opinion of Ghazali the philosopher, not Ghazali the sufi. His thesis in Mishkaat-al-anwar is very much similar to yours. God is the light of lights, the real existence, while the rest is a reflection, an apparent/conceptual existence. Being is a divine attribute, creation get it on lease, just like any other attribute, love, creativity etc. Creations cant have any inherent properties since they only have individuated qualities of God, just like a reflection.

 

[c0de]

Thats the opinion of Ghazali the philosopher, not Ghazali the sufi. His thesis in Mishkaat-al-anwaris very much similar to yours. God is the light of lights, the real existence, while the rest is a reflection, an apparent/conceptual existence. Being is a divine attribute, creation get it on lease, just like any other attribute, love, creativity etc. Creations cant have any inherent properties since they only have individuated qualities of God, just like a reflection.

My opinion of Ghazali (the sufi, not the philosopher) just increased considerably. Thanks.

 

[Bertrand_Russell]

Ghazali for example also believed in free-will, ignoring all the issues with that can of worms.

You don't believe in free will ????

 

[c0de]

You don't believe in free will ????

nope.......

 

[juantoo3]

What about the connection to materialism ?

In what sense?

Pantheism ? Panentheism ?

What? G-d as "in all," permeating all? How would that possibly change any outlook from that of G-d as some distant overlord?

Is the creator analogous to the universe ?

The Gaia premise?

To reality ?

Why should G-d *not* be real?

Why not ? Or why ?

Dunno.

I think the struggle humanity has long had is in trying to find G-d on its own terms, to paint a face on G-d. I am as guilty as the next person, by tradition I continue to reference G-d as "he." But in my mind I do not "see" G-d as male or female or even human. Whether my view is closer to truth *as reality* remains to be seen, and until I cross the veil I have no way of knowing.

Does G-d, or some spiritual aspect of G-d, permeate all of creation? I think that is a reasonable possibility. If so though, it would certainly suggest that either G-d has a weird sense of humor (platypus), or has little to no direct concern over piddling trivialities of human day-to-day existence (would negate any objective source of morality).

 

[juantoo3]

Does everyone agree with this ontological argument ?

Sounds pretty close to what I know as the "Prime Mover" argument.

I think the wildcard is physics, particularly how matter behaves in a vacuum. The two extremes, chaos and clockwork, really seem to me more about establishing and reinforcing memetic turf.

Just thinking in print: G-d or no G-d, what does it matter to a gazillion gazillion gazillion atoms of matter superheated in an explosion so massive we simply can't adequately imagine? Atoms spin. Atoms combine and continue spinning. This spinning cycles and cycles and order creates itself out of imagined chaos...simply because of the nature of matter: gravity, electricity, strong and weak nuclear forces.

The question then to my mind, is did G-d create all of the universe, in one fell swoop and set it on auto-pilot? Or is this earth somehow a more "hands-on" project He's got going on here? Is G-d really who we think He is?

Logically, one can argue that G-d simply isn't even necessary, provided the matter resources somehow existed. Just as logically, one can argue G-d is that matter...that G-d was created when matter was created. And then, it can also be argued that G-d isn't what we have led ourselves to believe all along, but rather is a wayward traveler who maybe stops by from time to time to check on His little petrie dish experiment He's got going on on this planet...

 

[Bertrand_Russell]

1. There is neither evidence nor logically necessary proof that infinite regress cannot occur. It is just an idea that many appear to find too icky to accept. "Ick factor" has yet to be accepted as a rigorous technique.
2. It argues from necessity.

You are correct here Dogbrain. Nothing icky about infinite regress, any more than any other infinitude (infinite integer prime numbers, no problem).

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Does using the term "God" even get us anywhere? It seems to me that instead of using an amorphous, baggage laden, potentially anthropomorphic marker, it would be better to name, or at least describe the process(es) we have in mind. The purpose of existentialism, in my mind, is to describe the actualities of existence without resorting to self-perpetuation of functionalism.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

Does using the term "God" even get us anywhere? It seems to me that instead of using an amorphous, baggage laden, potentially anthropomorphic marker, it would be better to name, or at least describe the process(es) we have in mind. The purpose of existentialism, in my mind, is to describe the actualities of existence without resorting to self-perpetuation of functionalism.

There's merit in what you say here, Chris. I think for most of us though, in some form or other, that functionalism serves a core memetic purpose. In fairness it can be argued that that purpose is imposed on otherwise unwilling participants in the majority of cases, and that is most likely for a political expediency. Still, I do believe that the largest majority of those so inclined are at least morally better off than had they been turned loose on the world as a blank slate to reinvent the wheel as it were regarding morality and ethics.

A final thought to consider, I alluded to briefly earlier in response to BR, "why shouldn't G-d be real?" I agree that our collective mythos designed to establish an image in our minds differ enough to create a very confused image were we to try to amalgamate every major idea into a unified whole. That alone though is no reason to presume G-d doesn't exist...rather, to my mind, it serves to reinforce the notion that He does in fact exist, though likely not in any form we would immediately recognize (hence the conflicting views).

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Does using the term "God" even get us anywhere? . . . without resorting to self . . . functionalism.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
God is the Absolute Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Because God is Absolute, He is his own Person.
That Absolute Person must be known precisely as he Absolute exists ---all other forms/thoughts/Ideas of God are only indications of that Absolute Person.

God's Absolute Personality of Godhead Status indicates that He is absolutely His own Persona. This absolute status is only known through the Vedas where His Absolute Personality is spelt out.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::
On the other hand:

When all varigated phenomena is erased,
when all Space is erased,
when all time is erased . . .

A] there still exists the potential for "Three-Dimensions".

B] there still exists the potential for "Locomotion"

By my use of the appellation "Potential", I am saying that even in a situation devoid of matter & energy & time & Space . . . there is still Potential for "Three-Dimensions" along with "Locomotion" ---irregardless of who/what/how initiates creation or whether there is an absolute state that transcends material phenomena ---there exists as a pre-creation/substratum/pre-requisite meta-physical blank page that ALLOWS for even empty space to occupy itself before its creative play:

"Three-Dimensions" along with "Locomotion" lay fallow until it is utilised ---yet interestingly, never are these "3-Dimensions" along with "Locomotion" actually a manifest; they don't manifest as entities unto them selves and yet they underlie all potential possibilities.

You can't measure "Three-Dimensions" along with "Locomotion".
You can't make them under your control ---they are a nuetral state that allows even the void to come and go as epochs pass into oblivion again and again.

When all is erased there sits "Three-Dimensions" along with "Locomotion"; selflessly, or as the prime self?

C] there still exists the potential for "onomatopoeia"
[onomatopoeia = the naming of a thing or action by a vocal imitation of the sound associated with it (such as buzz or hiss). Onomatopoeia may also refer to the use of words whose sound suggests the sense.
from Gk. onomatopoiia "the making of a name or word" (in imitation of a sound associated with the thing being named), from onomatopoios, from onoma (gen. onomatos) "word, name" (see 'name') + a derivative of poiein "compose, make" (see 'poet').]


http://www.interfaith.org/forum/when-all-phenomena-is-erased-12841.html