[PAX] first time philospopher

[Barnabas]

The poit of this thread is for me to test out if I'm starting to grasp the concepts and rules(or lack there of) of philisophy.

I gladly welcome constructive criticism, how ever if your thoughts are along the lines of "oh look the little christian thinks he's a philosopher" then please keep said thoughts to yourself.

So feel free to rip me apart as long as you have the intention of rebuilding me.

I figured if I'm going to start i mas well start big and so i decided what could be bigger then God.

1st premise

A: the universe exist

B: things that exist have a cause of existence

conclusion: that the universe must logicaly has a cause of existence

2nd premise

A: the universe has a cause of existence

B: no thing is it's own cause of existence

Conclusion: the universe must of had cause of existence seperate from itself

3rd premise

A: the universe has a seperate casue of exsistence

B: a cause must be greater then it's effect

conclusion: the caue of the universe is greater then the universe

4th premise

A: energy is finite

B: causes require energy

Conclusion: the amount of causes must be finite

5th premise

A: all things have a cause

B: causes are things

Conclusion: all causes have a cause, there are an infinite amount of causes

6th

A: there are an infinite amount of causes

B: the amount of causes must be finite

Conclusion: contraditiction, there must be an initial cause that does not require energy, does not have a beginning, and is greater then its effect

7th

A: there is an initial cause that does not require energy, does not have a cause, does not have beginning, must be greater then it's effect(the universe)

Conclusion: this cause is God



I'd like to state that this has no bearing on any particular religion(but does have bearing on a large amount of religions) and at best is a diestic claim.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Where did you get premise 3:B?

Why did you reject both the 4th and 5th conclusions in order to avoid the contradiction between them? Only one needs to be rejected.

 

[Krumplenump]

Rattling through your premises I reached the conclusion I was expecting: That there is a god.

Now all this tells me is that you pondered similar conundrums those of a scientific disposition ponder: Why do things exist and what's beyond the universe. We do not know the answer to that, but you are evidently - and arguably understandably - dissatisfied with having no answer so you use 'god' as the ultimate solution. Maybe it's comforting, and you have every right to take comfort in that. But this has no bearing on it's plausibility whatsoever.

I am quite content with not knowing, and therefore will naturally rally around those who openly admit to not [yet?] knowing, but who are devoted to discovering should the evidence arise.

As a side note, I should point out that religion was humanity's first attempt at philosophy. I dare say you are experimenting with somewhat outdated material.

 

[Shai Gar]

third conclusion is false

You try to prove a conclusion you are believing beforehand. A philosopher thinks logically, without disregarding other possibilities.

Greater OR Equal power. You are ignoring the possibility of a univere collapsing into dense enough to explode into a new universe...

 

[enfp can be shy]

2nd premise

A: the universe has a cause of existence

Does it?

 

[Poetic Justice]

Sorry, This is nonsense

Please apply this question to all of your premises:

"How do you know?"

I doubt you'll be able to answer more than a couple of times

 

[Nik]

Barnabas, if you're not already familiar with St. Thomas Aquinas, you may find his work both interesting and useful. He developed a series of proofs, as well, for the purpose of defending the concept of God.

More modern philosophy scholars have posed challenges to some of your points, like the one about an infinite regression of prior causes. That doesn't make those challenges ipso facto correct but if you're set on defending the sort of argument put forth by Aquinas, it might be worth your time to consider them.

 

[NeverAmI]

Aquinas pulled heavy influence from Plato, who believed in universal archetypes. Plato, to paraphrase, believed that man has universal archetypes imposed from a universal entity, and that things we find in material existence simply 'participate' in such an archetype. So there is the archetype of a horse, and a horse we see in nature only participates in such an archetype, never attaining the full perfection of the archetype.

That might be a bit of an interesting read if you find Aquinas enjoyable, even if Plato is considered a 'pagan' in more modern Christian terminology.

 

[bamf]

Descartes' Discourse on Methods and Meditations on First Philosophy might interest you. I can't remember for sure (it's been a while since I read it) but I think he tackles god in mediation three? Check it out, you might like it.

 

[NeverAmI]

Descartes' Discourse on Methods and Meditations on First Philosophy might interest you. I can't remember for sure (it's been a while since I read it) but I think he tackles god in mediation three? Check it out, you might like it.

I am definitely looking forward to reading this one.

FYI you can find any of these texts at Project Gutenberg. They have almost anything done before 1900 and even some after.

http://www.gutenberg.org

 

[The Jester]

If there must be a cause for the existence of the universe, then what is the cause of the existence of a god?
Because if you can't accept the fact that it just always has been there, how could you accept it that god wasn't created?

 

[Jasmine85]

A: the universe exist

Define universe. Prove it exists.

B: things that exist have a cause of existence

You do not know this is universally true.

A: the universe has a cause of existence

Requires proof.

B: no thing is it's own cause of existence

Requires proof.

...
Aside from the above being unproven...

Conclusion: this cause is God

Is not a logical deduction. You haven't defined God for a start.

To get to the conclusion you desire, you must prove a 1 to 1 uniqueness between God and "there is an initial cause that does not require energy, does not have a cause, does not have beginning, must be greater then it's effect(the universe)"


Then I will ask you the follow up question: what caused God's existence?

 

[The Jester]

Then I will ask you the follow up question: what caused God's existence?

To which he'll response: but god is infite, which makes me wonder: what makes you think the universe isn't infinite?
(Oh yea credit to NAI.)

 

[Nik]

Aquinas pulled heavy influence from Plato, who believed in universal archetypes. Plato, to paraphrase, believed that man has universal archetypes imposed from a universal entity, and that things we find in material existence simply 'participate' in such an archetype. So there is the archetype of a horse, and a horse we see in nature only participates in such an archetype, never attaining the full perfection of the archetype.

That might be a bit of an interesting read if you find Aquinas enjoyable, even if Plato is considered a 'pagan' in more modern Christian terminology.

Excellent recommendation. It's always pleasant to find another reader of Plato. I often wonder what it would have been like if Socrates had been able to engage in a conversation with the Christian apostles. I think the old man would have welcomed and enjoyed the opportunity.

 

[NeverAmI]

My curiosity about God is the definition of which would reside around whether God is a conscious entity. And what is consciousness, wouldn't one be required to think in order to be conscious? If God was infinite, and had full comprehension, then why would thought be required?

I had always figured thought was required only if you had limited comprehension, you think in order to attain higher comprehension. So is my definition of consciousness wrong?

If god was infinite, and contains full comprehension, and the forces that rule the universe are the same, then wouldn't we all be arguing the same?

I always wonder why something with full comprehension would ever require or set up something of finite comprehension, why need it? Someone once told me, "it is what it is." Well then, that puts us back to square one.

Commonly why I avoid metaphysical/theological philosophy. Still fun for me to ponder occasionally, as long as I don't expect to gain too much from it.

 

[NeverAmI]

Excellent recommendation. It's always pleasant to find another reader of Plato. I often wonder what it would have been like if Socrates had been able to engage in a conversation with the Christian apostles. I think the old man would have welcomed and enjoyed the opportunity.

Oh that would be a delight!

I really wish the works of Protagoras, all of the Sophists really, would have survived, they all seem so interesting to me.

 

[Shai Gar]

NAI, you are making the assumption that god thinks or has a consiousness... There could be a third or thirtieth option to consider with such an undefined omnipotent entity.

 

[NeverAmI]

NAI, you are making the assumption that god thinks or has a consiousness... There could be a third or thirtieth option to consider with such an undefined omnipotent entity.

I am not assuming, I am asking.

 

[Jasmine85]

I think part of the problem where "understanding the origin of everything" fails, is that we have a tendency to assume some absolute things about time and existence.

We all should know now that time is relative. Time is not an absolute. Time is something that only exists between things in a relationship.

I often wonder if existence may be similar: That if things don't exist in themselves, only within relationships. We see some strange things in quantum mechanics that kind of agree with this idea.

But propositional logic doesn't really gel with that construct. Because if existence is relative, then truth is also relative. So we would need to reformulate logic.

Any takers? hwell:

 

[Faye]

Well, I would never question whether or not you are philosophical enough to be a philosopher. I think a philosopher, in the western sense, is anyone who studies philosophy. Everyone has their own philosophies, but to really become a philosopher, you have to study philosophy.

How do you study philosophy? Well, I don't think it is necessarily about reading, though if you engage in reading, that typically helps. You can study anything and be philosophical about it. So studying philosophy is really more of an action, and that action is sometimes defined as practicing death.

This is kind of difficult to grasp. I don't think there are any specific basic rules or concepts in philosophy that one needs to grasp in order to be a philosopher like there are in say.... biology. But, I would recommend that, if you haven't already, start with The Apology by Plato. That is, in my opinion, one of the most important early documents in western philosophy (it's a good read). Reading things such as this are a good way to distinguish oneself from being a theologian or mathematician.