OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 03:50:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Infinite regression v. Abrahamic God  (Read 1427 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« on: April 12, 2012, 10:16:33 AM »

Is the existence of an Abrahamic God irrational?

Proponents of infinite regression, namely that cosmic creation is the result of an infinite series of interdependent causes/effects (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down), state that:

  • If there is a (Creator) God, he must be self-sufficient.
    If God is not self-sufficient, how can he be God?
    If God is self-sufficient, there is no need for him to create anything.
    Therefore any act of creation by God is either purposeless or irrational.
    Since the world exists, therefore any belief in the existence of a God who created the world is either due to ignorance or irrationality.

The same argument applies if someone argues that God is some kind of "Principle" that is the source of all existences and tries to attribute a personality or purpose to that "Principle".

A Buddhist (and I am making a broad generalization here) does not regard one's experience as having any essential reality to it, whereas the theist does regard their experience as essentially real. They would have to, because they regard God as substantially real, meaning as an existent thing.  You cannot "become one" with something you regard as essentially real and then not experience your experience as essentially real.
This is why, when Buddhists have great experiences during meditation, they are usually advised to let go of those experiences as being anything essentially real, and to just keep meditating.

Consider the interesting case of one Mr. Kris Kringle. Most people would argue that Santa Claus either does or does not exist. But a Buddhist would say that a result cannot occur without a cause. So, on Christmas Eve, millions of children are excitedly pumped full of adrenaline and cannot go to sleep because they are waiting for Santa. Thus, Santa is the cause of their excitement and if something does not exist it cannot cause anything to happen. Since Santa Claus is a saint, then this effect on children must be considered as a religious experience, really not much different from any other.

Do you think then that a belief in Saint Nicholas is valid?

Logged

Tasting is Believing
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2012, 03:19:46 PM »

    Is the existence of an Abrahamic God irrational?

    Proponents of infinite regression, namely that cosmic creation is the result of an infinite series of interdependent causes/effects (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down), state that:

    • If there is a (Creator) God, he must be self-sufficient.
      If God is not self-sufficient, how can he be God?
      If God is self-sufficient, there is no need for him to create anything.
      Therefore any act of creation by God is either purposeless or irrational.
      Since the world exists, therefore any belief in the existence of a God who created the world is either due to ignorance or irrationality.
    [/list]


    Faulty logic.
    If there is a Creator then He is Other than Creation.
    If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions.
    "Purpose" and "rationality" are categories created by the sentient human mind.
    The sentient human mind is a created thing.
    Therefore the human mind cannot construct a purely logical argument about what would be 'rational' or 'irrational' behavior for a Transcendent God.


    (Christians do of course engage in a level of logical argument about theological concepts, but such argument begins with revealed axioms. God says that He is faithful and keeps His promises, so we can have a logical discussion about something like baptism or the Church and what God's promises with regards to those things might imply--but the fact that God is faithful and not capricious comes from revealed knowledge, not from any logical determination on our part or any external requirement placed on Him).
    « Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 03:20:41 PM by witega » Logged

    Ariel Starling - New album

    For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
    Aindriú
    Faster! Funnier!
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Cynical
    Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
    Posts: 3,918



    WWW
    « Reply #2 on: April 12, 2012, 07:08:30 PM »

    Someone doesn't create except for one's own use?

    I don't use my kids for anything, but I purposefully had them and love them.
    « Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 07:08:43 PM by Aindriú » Logged


    I'm going to need this.
    Big Chris
    Formerly "mint"
    Elder
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Inquirer
    Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
    Posts: 277

    I live by the river where the old gods still dream


    « Reply #3 on: April 17, 2012, 09:32:49 AM »

    Faulty logic.
    If there is a Creator then He is Other than Creation.
    If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions.
    "Purpose" and "rationality" are categories created by the sentient human mind.
    The sentient human mind is a created thing.
    Therefore the human mind cannot construct a purely logical argument about what would be 'rational' or 'irrational' behavior for a Transcendent God.


    (Christians do of course engage in a level of logical argument about theological concepts, but such argument begins with revealed axioms. God says that He is faithful and keeps His promises, so we can have a logical discussion about something like baptism or the Church and what God's promises with regards to those things might imply--but the fact that God is faithful and not capricious comes from revealed knowledge, not from any logical determination on our part or any external requirement placed on Him).

    "He is Other than Creation" - Creator and his creation are mutually exclusive? If so, then there can be no interaction between the Creator and the Created.
    "If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions." This means that there can no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created.

    If there can be no interaction between the Creator and the created, then the idea of a Creator is meaningless to the created.

    If there can be no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created, then there is not even an iota of hope that the created can ever know the Creator. If the created can never know the Creator in any meaningful way, then how can the Creator ever be definitve in meaning to the created? For example, if the Creator in truth, plays a humongous joke on the created by creating the created and portraying Himself, the Creator as good, while He, the Creator is really in truth, evil, how can the created ever be sure that that is not true? Since there can be no certainty regarding the Creator, the idea of the Creator is as good as irrelevant.

    Ergo, the idea of a Creator is either meaningless or irrelevant.
    Logged

    Tasting is Believing
    Aindriú
    Faster! Funnier!
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Cynical
    Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
    Posts: 3,918



    WWW
    « Reply #4 on: April 17, 2012, 10:56:07 AM »

    You assume that "other" means "wholly different" and not "above".
    Logged


    I'm going to need this.
    witega
    Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
    OC.net guru
    *******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
    Posts: 1,614


    « Reply #5 on: April 17, 2012, 07:29:17 PM »

    Faulty logic.
    If there is a Creator then He is Other than Creation.
    If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions.
    "Purpose" and "rationality" are categories created by the sentient human mind.
    The sentient human mind is a created thing.
    Therefore the human mind cannot construct a purely logical argument about what would be 'rational' or 'irrational' behavior for a Transcendent God.


    "He is Other than Creation" - Creator and his creation are mutually exclusive? If so, then there can be no interaction between the Creator and the Created.
    "If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions." This means that there can no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created.

    You're simply repeating the same logical mistake as in the original article. If God is truly Other then we simply can't make meaningful statements about Him based on our knowledge of this side of the gap. The logical conclusion of 'God is Other' is not "well then He can't do x'. It is that "well then I can't know what He can't do--if anything". Saying that 'if x, then y' applies to God requires that His existence be based on the same axioms as ours. Yet if He is truly a Creator, then He is creator of those axioms and stands above/beyond/outside them.

    Logic can lead to the valid point that the created cannot initiate any interaction with the Creator. But it cannot say anything at all (positive or negative) about the Creator's ability to initiate such interaction because in doing so, one is not talking about the Creator--but about the created mind's created conception of the Creator.

    An omnipotent God (assuming He exists) can interact with Creation in any way He chooses (fundamental to the definition of 'omnipotent') and in doing so can, if He chooses, be experienced by His Creation. But He can't be logicked into or out of existence.
    Logged

    Ariel Starling - New album

    For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
    Big Chris
    Formerly "mint"
    Elder
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Inquirer
    Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
    Posts: 277

    I live by the river where the old gods still dream


    « Reply #6 on: April 18, 2012, 08:39:48 PM »

    Faulty logic.
    If there is a Creator then He is Other than Creation.
    If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions.
    "Purpose" and "rationality" are categories created by the sentient human mind.
    The sentient human mind is a created thing.
    Therefore the human mind cannot construct a purely logical argument about what would be 'rational' or 'irrational' behavior for a Transcendent God.


    "He is Other than Creation" - Creator and his creation are mutually exclusive? If so, then there can be no interaction between the Creator and the Created.
    "If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions." This means that there can no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created.

    You're simply repeating the same logical mistake as in the original article. If God is truly Other then we simply can't make meaningful statements about Him based on our knowledge of this side of the gap. The logical conclusion of 'God is Other' is not "well then He can't do x'. It is that "well then I can't know what He can't do--if anything". Saying that 'if x, then y' applies to God requires that His existence be based on the same axioms as ours. Yet if He is truly a Creator, then He is creator of those axioms and stands above/beyond/outside them.

    Logic can lead to the valid point that the created cannot initiate any interaction with the Creator. But it cannot say anything at all (positive or negative) about the Creator's ability to initiate such interaction because in doing so, one is not talking about the Creator--but about the created mind's created conception of the Creator.

    An omnipotent God (assuming He exists) can interact with Creation in any way He chooses (fundamental to the definition of 'omnipotent') and in doing so can, if He chooses, be experienced by His Creation. But He can't be logicked into or out of existence.

    Please re-read this:
    "If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions." This means that there can no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created.
    If there can be no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created, then there is not even an iota of hope that the created can ever know the Creator. If the created can never know the Creator in any meaningful way, then how can the Creator ever be definitve in meaning to the created? For example, if the Creator in truth, plays a humongous joke on the created by creating the created and portraying Himself, the Creator as good, while He, the Creator is really in truth, evil, how can the created ever be sure that that is not true? Since there can be no certainty regarding the Creator, the idea of the Creator is as good as irrelevant. (Note that here, I’ve argued against YOUR definition of what is meant by “other”).

    Also note that my argument about the contraction of creation and self-sufficiency of God is logically sound since a self-sufficient God needs not create, and if you say that our existence is true, then any God that exists cannot be self-sufficient if the source of our existence is attributed to him. Go ask any one who studies logic.

    Now lets takes your assumption that God is above man's logic. I assume here you are making a distinction between God’s logic and man’s logic.

    If man is created by God, is man’s knowledge a sub-set of God’s knowledge? If yes, then man’s logic is also a sub-set of God’s logic. If man’s logic is a sub-set of God’s logic, what is logical to man is necessarily logical to God. So my logical argument of the contradiction between creation and self-sufficiency of God should also hold in God’s logic. But if my logical argument holds, then God’s logic cannot be God’s logic because God is no longer God under my argument.
    « Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 08:40:09 PM by mint » Logged

    Tasting is Believing
    Aindriú
    Faster! Funnier!
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Cynical
    Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
    Posts: 3,918



    WWW
    « Reply #7 on: April 18, 2012, 08:49:43 PM »

    You're still trying to confine God to our understanding. Our understanding, logic, and knowledge is limited to the rules and confines of our existence. God's existence is greater than ours, therefore our understanding isn't capable of encompassing His being.
    Logged


    I'm going to need this.
    Big Chris
    Formerly "mint"
    Elder
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Inquirer
    Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
    Posts: 277

    I live by the river where the old gods still dream


    « Reply #8 on: April 18, 2012, 09:10:41 PM »

    You're still trying to confine God to our understanding. Our understanding, logic, and knowledge is limited to the rules and confines of our existence. God's existence is greater than ours, therefore our understanding isn't capable of encompassing His being.

    That's very well to someone who believes God exists. It's a matter of faith. If you try to turn that in some kind of logical argument for someone else to accept the existence of God, it will be called speculation. There's no evidence or logic argument that demands the existence of God.
    However there is something that loses me. If that God is all mighty, then he is a sadistic. Otherwise he would end suffering. There would be no misery, sickness or death. So he is either good or all mighty. Our experience tells us that he can't be both. How do you solve this?
    Logged

    Tasting is Believing
    Aindriú
    Faster! Funnier!
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Cynical
    Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
    Posts: 3,918



    WWW
    « Reply #9 on: April 18, 2012, 09:20:06 PM »

    You're still trying to confine God to our understanding. Our understanding, logic, and knowledge is limited to the rules and confines of our existence. God's existence is greater than ours, therefore our understanding isn't capable of encompassing His being.

    That's very well to someone who believes God exists. It's a matter of faith. If you try to turn that in some kind of logical argument for someone else to accept the existence of God, it will be called speculation. There's no evidence or logic argument that demands the existence of God.

    You're not going to convince anyone of God through basic logical flows, and trying to contain God in one is impossible. Either way, your attempt is futile.

    However there is something that loses me. If that God is all mighty, then he is a sadistic. Otherwise he would end suffering. There would be no misery, sickness or death. So he is either good or all mighty. Our experience tells us that he can't be both. How do you solve this?

    He's good who allows free will. Allowing free will allows the free choice to choose evil. To choose good is to choose what is God (holy). You condemn yourself.
    Logged


    I'm going to need this.
    Tgebar
    Member
    ***
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Eastern Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: Antioch
    Posts: 84


    This is the edge now, it's all we're living for.


    « Reply #10 on: April 18, 2012, 09:31:22 PM »

    The problem of suffering is a necessary corollary of freewill, the understanding of which is dependent upon your valuation. All value-statement is empirically irrelevant, as mutability renders all understanding of good as ultimately temporal. The major difference between most educated theists and empiricists is that theists understanding of good is the achievement of that which can be appreciated in itself; this is an argument that has been hashed out much longer than most people are aware, and it is at its essence a question of values. Here are some essays that you may find interesting.

    http://bonald.wordpress.com/the-conservative-vision-of-authority/

    http://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-patriarchy/

    http://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-religion/

    http://bonald.wordpress.com/conservatism/

    http://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-tradition/

    http://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-human-sacrifice/ (the actual title of this is 'Human Sacrifice and the Eucharist', so you don't jump to conclusions)

    http://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-culture/

    http://bonald.wordpress.com/evolution-and-aristotle/

    In Defense of Natural Law:

    I - http://bonald.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/in-defense-of-natural-law-i-the-audacity-of-natural-law/
    II - http://bonald.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/on-natural-law-desires-and-goods/
    III - http://bonald.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/what-my-body-means-what-i-mean/
    IV - http://bonald.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/the-bodys-promise-the-minds-amen/

    This article also bears some relevance to your mention of the experience of reality as posited by Buddhism and theism: http://bonald.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/the-metaphysical-sickness-of-joseph-campbell/

    I suggest you carefully study all of these essays and articles for a full understanding of conservative valuation.
    « Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 09:32:03 PM by Tgebar » Logged

    Smiley
    witega
    Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
    OC.net guru
    *******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
    Posts: 1,614


    « Reply #11 on: April 18, 2012, 10:48:41 PM »

    Faulty logic.
    If there is a Creator then He is Other than Creation.
    If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions.
    "Purpose" and "rationality" are categories created by the sentient human mind.
    The sentient human mind is a created thing.
    Therefore the human mind cannot construct a purely logical argument about what would be 'rational' or 'irrational' behavior for a Transcendent God.


    "He is Other than Creation" - Creator and his creation are mutually exclusive? If so, then there can be no interaction between the Creator and the Created.
    "If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions." This means that there can no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created.

    You're simply repeating the same logical mistake as in the original article. If God is truly Other then we simply can't make meaningful statements about Him based on our knowledge of this side of the gap. The logical conclusion of 'God is Other' is not "well then He can't do x'. It is that "well then I can't know what He can't do--if anything". Saying that 'if x, then y' applies to God requires that His existence be based on the same axioms as ours. Yet if He is truly a Creator, then He is creator of those axioms and stands above/beyond/outside them.

    Logic can lead to the valid point that the created cannot initiate any interaction with the Creator. But it cannot say anything at all (positive or negative) about the Creator's ability to initiate such interaction because in doing so, one is not talking about the Creator--but about the created mind's created conception of the Creator.

    An omnipotent God (assuming He exists) can interact with Creation in any way He chooses (fundamental to the definition of 'omnipotent') and in doing so can, if He chooses, be experienced by His Creation. But He can't be logicked into or out of existence.

    Please re-read this:
    "If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions." This means that there can no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created.
    If there can be no meaningful interaction between the Creator and the created, then there is not even an iota of hope that the created can ever know the Creator. If the created can never know the Creator in any meaningful way, then how can the Creator ever be definitve in meaning to the created? For example, if the Creator in truth, plays a humongous joke on the created by creating the created and portraying Himself, the Creator as good, while He, the Creator is really in truth, evil, how can the created ever be sure that that is not true? Since there can be no certainty regarding the Creator, the idea of the Creator is as good as irrelevant. (Note that here, I’ve argued against YOUR definition of what is meant by “other”).

    Also note that my argument about the contraction of creation and self-sufficiency of God is logically sound since a self-sufficient God needs not create, and if you say that our existence is true, then any God that exists cannot be self-sufficient if the source of our existence is attributed to him. Go ask any one who studies logic.

    Now lets takes your assumption that God is above man's logic. I assume here you are making a distinction between God’s logic and man’s logic.

    I can read it as many times as you like and it doesn't change the logical fallacy you are committing. It is axiomatic for Orthodox (and many other monotheistic believers) that God is beyond all human (created/inherently finite) conception. If God is beyond all created conception, then, by man's own logic, God (in His existence, His capabilities, His motivations) is outside the topics subject to logical discourse. I am not making a distinction between "God's logic" and "man's logic" but between God and anything at all originating in creation (including the thoughts which arise from the created electrochemical activity in the created organ of the brain).

    Or to try it another way: You are engaged in the creation of a number of 'if x/then y' logical arguments. But if God is beyond all human conception, then there is no 'x' that you can put into the arrangement which is actually a valid statement. Because if you can formulate what 'x' means, then by definition, 'x' is a human conception, and if 'x' is a human conception, then it is 'not God'. Or in other words, the only logical arguments you can construct of the form 'if x/then y' are about a human (your) conception of God and not about the reality thereof.





    Quote
    If man is created by God, is man’s knowledge a sub-set of God’s knowledge? If yes, then man’s logic is also a sub-set of God’s logic. If man’s logic is a sub-set of God’s logic, what is logical to man is necessarily logical to God. So my logical argument of the contradiction between creation and self-sufficiency of God should also hold in God’s logic. But if my logical argument holds, then God’s logic cannot be God’s logic because God is no longer God under my argument.

    Um, you are making an unsupported leap there. If God is omniscient, then yes, all possible human knowledge would be a subset of what God knows. But knowledge does not equal logic (or vice versa) so you cannot assume that if x is a subset of y then b is a subset of d. Logic is a method for manipulating concepts, it is not the concepts themselves much less knowledge as concrete facts. Indeed, some of the most important innovators on the use of logic did so by explicitly attempting to cut off all knowledge in order to work from bare concepts (Socrates, Descartes, Hume--how successful any of them were is rather debatable, but that that was part of their attempted process is undeniable).

    So, logic is a way that man manipulates the abstract concepts created in his created mind. Just as techology is a way that man manipulates created objects and forces around him. But technology is not a 'subset' of how a transcendent God accomplishes or (can accomplish) things in manipulation of created objects and forces; it is in fact fundamentally different because it is a method by which one created thing manipulates another created thing. Why then should we (meaning those who start with the transcendence of God as an axiom) assume that logic is any different? Logic is how created human manipulate created thoughts. It may have no more relationship to how God 'manipulates' concepts (either those born in His Creation or in whatever might be the equivalent for His Uncreated self) than technology does to 'He spoke and they were created'.

    Logged

    Ariel Starling - New album

    For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
    witega
    Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
    OC.net guru
    *******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
    Posts: 1,614


    « Reply #12 on: April 18, 2012, 10:51:32 PM »

    You're still trying to confine God to our understanding. Our understanding, logic, and knowledge is limited to the rules and confines of our existence. God's existence is greater than ours, therefore our understanding isn't capable of encompassing His being.

    That's very well to someone who believes God exists. It's a matter of faith. If you try to turn that in some kind of logical argument for someone else to accept the existence of God, it will be called speculation. There's no evidence or logic argument that demands the existence of God.

    Absolutely--I've been disagreeing with you because you seemed to be saying that logic could be used to disprove God, but I would have disagreed with you just as much if you had argued the obverse (that logic can prove God).
    Logged

    Ariel Starling - New album

    For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
    witega
    Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
    OC.net guru
    *******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
    Posts: 1,614


    « Reply #13 on: April 18, 2012, 10:55:37 PM »

    However there is something that loses me. If that God is all mighty, then he is a sadistic. Otherwise he would end suffering. There would be no misery, sickness or death. So he is either good or all mighty. Our experience tells us that he can't be both. How do you solve this?

    I don't.

    Job 38 (for the harsh version). Holy Week through Pascha (for the glorious version).

    God's answer to the 'question of suffering' is not a logical discourse/explanation. It is the direct experience of His Glory (and His humility).
    Logged

    Ariel Starling - New album

    For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
    primuspilus
    Taxiarches
    **********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Christian
    Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
    Posts: 6,594


    Inserting personal quote here.


    WWW
    « Reply #14 on: April 19, 2012, 05:18:14 PM »

    Concerning this, I would ask the following:

    Ask the goldfish to explain existence outside the goldfish bowl.

    PP
    Logged

    "I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
    Gregory the Great

    "Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
    xariskai
    юродивый/yurodivy
    OC.net guru
    *******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox
    Posts: 1,437


    יהוה עזי ומגני


    « Reply #15 on: April 21, 2012, 07:44:57 PM »

    If God is self-sufficient, there is no need for him to create anything.

    Therefore any act of creation by God is either purposeless or irrational.

    Since the world exists, therefore any belief in the existence of a God who created the world is either due to ignorance or irrationality.
    "If a bachelor is self-sufficient there is no need for him to create art.

    Therefore any artistic creation by a self-sufficient bachelor is either purposeless or irrational.

    Since art exists, therefore any belief in the existence of a self-sufficient bachelor who created art is either due to ignorance or irrationality."
    « Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 07:47:07 PM by xariskai » Logged

    Silly Stars
    stanley123
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
    Posts: 3,809


    « Reply #16 on: April 21, 2012, 09:38:42 PM »

    There's no evidence or logic argument that demands the existence of God.
    I am not so sure about this. For one thing, do you accept the Big Bang or not? Please give a yes or no answer.
    If you say yes, which is what a whole lot of evidence indicates, then how do you explain the low entropy at the time of the Big Bang? according to Roger Penrose, the probability of such a state of low entropy is exceedingly unlikely, with the odds against it being something incredibly ridiculous like 10^10^123 to 1.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZki6lShUT8
    Logged
    Justin Kissel
    Formerly Asteriktos
    Protospatharios
    ****************
    Offline Offline

    Posts: 30,235


    that is not the teaching of...


    « Reply #17 on: April 21, 2012, 10:19:13 PM »

    There's no evidence or logic argument that demands the existence of God.
    I am not so sure about this. For one thing, do you accept the Big Bang or not? Please give a yes or no answer.
    If you say yes, which is what a whole lot of evidence indicates, then how do you explain the low entropy at the time of the Big Bang? according to Roger Penrose, the probability of such a state of low entropy is exceedingly unlikely, with the odds against it being something incredibly ridiculous like 10^10^123 to 1.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZki6lShUT8

    Do you realise how exceedingly unlikely it is for you, with your body constituted as it is down to the microscopic level, with your name and age and physical appearance, to come on the internet, and oc.net in particular, to be able and willing to type, to post a youtube vid, to talk about statistics, to make claims and arguments, and all on what humans call 4.21.12 in their artificially created time keeper... do you realise what the chances are of this coming about? to have all those factors lined up exactly as they are--or how we think they are? Nearly zero. Thus, IMO you do not exist. The chances are just too small. It's simply not believable. Sorry. Couldn't happen.
    Logged

    "I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
    Father H
    Archon
    ********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
    Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
    Posts: 2,611



    « Reply #18 on: April 21, 2012, 10:42:06 PM »

    Is the existence of an Abrahamic God irrational?

    Proponents of infinite regression, namely that cosmic creation is the result of an infinite series of interdependent causes/effects (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down), state that:

    • If there is a (Creator) God, he must be self-sufficient.
      If God is not self-sufficient, how can he be God?
      If God is self-sufficient, there is no need for him to create anything.
      Therefore any act of creation by God is either purposeless or irrational.
      Since the world exists, therefore any belief in the existence of a God who created the world is either due to ignorance or irrationality.

    The same argument applies if someone argues that God is some kind of "Principle" that is the source of all existences and tries to attribute a personality or purpose to that "Principle".

    A Buddhist (and I am making a broad generalization here) does not regard one's experience as having any essential reality to it, whereas the theist does regard their experience as essentially real. They would have to, because they regard God as substantially real, meaning as an existent thing.  You cannot "become one" with something you regard as essentially real and then not experience your experience as essentially real.
    This is why, when Buddhists have great experiences during meditation, they are usually advised to let go of those experiences as being anything essentially real, and to just keep meditating.

    Consider the interesting case of one Mr. Kris Kringle. Most people would argue that Santa Claus either does or does not exist. But a Buddhist would say that a result cannot occur without a cause. So, on Christmas Eve, millions of children are excitedly pumped full of adrenaline and cannot go to sleep because they are waiting for Santa. Thus, Santa is the cause of their excitement and if something does not exist it cannot cause anything to happen. Since Santa Claus is a saint, then this effect on children must be considered as a religious experience, really not much different from any other.

    Do you think then that a belief in Saint Nicholas is valid?



    I do not need to eat bacon.  But bacon is really good.  It is not irrational for me to eat bacon even though I do not need to eat bacon.  God didn't need to create, but He did, because it was good, even better than bacon (actually including bacon), and therefore it was not irrational. 
    Logged
    Father H
    Archon
    ********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
    Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
    Posts: 2,611



    « Reply #19 on: April 21, 2012, 10:42:28 PM »

    mmmmm

    bacon
    Logged
    Aindriú
    Faster! Funnier!
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Cynical
    Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
    Posts: 3,918



    WWW
    « Reply #20 on: April 21, 2012, 11:10:05 PM »

    There's no evidence or logic argument that demands the existence of God.
    I am not so sure about this. For one thing, do you accept the Big Bang or not? Please give a yes or no answer.
    If you say yes, which is what a whole lot of evidence indicates, then how do you explain the low entropy at the time of the Big Bang? according to Roger Penrose, the probability of such a state of low entropy is exceedingly unlikely, with the odds against it being something incredibly ridiculous like 10^10^123 to 1.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZki6lShUT8

    Do you realise how exceedingly unlikely it is for you, with your body constituted as it is down to the microscopic level, with your name and age and physical appearance, to come on the internet, and oc.net in particular, to be able and willing to type, to post a youtube vid, to talk about statistics, to make claims and arguments, and all on what humans call 4.21.12 in their artificially created time keeper... do you realise what the chances are of this coming about? to have all those factors lined up exactly as they are--or how we think they are? Nearly zero. Thus, IMO you do not exist. The chances are just too small. It's simply not believable. Sorry. Couldn't happen.

    Which ironically brings up another point. Hydrogen. The element that given enough time will learn to eat, sleep, crap, and post funny things under the name Asteriktos.  Cheesy

    Not to mention, that beside the absurdity of that probability, a complex series of codes (intelligence) cannot appear from random.
    « Last Edit: April 21, 2012, 11:11:43 PM by Aindriú » Logged


    I'm going to need this.
    stanley123
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
    Posts: 3,809


    « Reply #21 on: April 21, 2012, 11:12:37 PM »

    There's no evidence or logic argument that demands the existence of God.
    I am not so sure about this. For one thing, do you accept the Big Bang or not? Please give a yes or no answer.
    If you say yes, which is what a whole lot of evidence indicates, then how do you explain the low entropy at the time of the Big Bang? according to Roger Penrose, the probability of such a state of low entropy is exceedingly unlikely, with the odds against it being something incredibly ridiculous like 10^10^123 to 1.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZki6lShUT8

    Do you realise how exceedingly unlikely it is for you, with your body constituted as it is down to the microscopic level, with your name and age and physical appearance, to come on the internet, and oc.net in particular, to be able and willing to type, to post a youtube vid, to talk about statistics, to make claims and arguments, and all on what humans call 4.21.12 in their artificially created time keeper... do you realise what the chances are of this coming about? to have all those factors lined up exactly as they are--or how we think they are? Nearly zero. Thus, IMO you do not exist. The chances are just too small. It's simply not believable. Sorry. Couldn't happen.
    No, I don't believe that  it is that unlikely for someone in the USA, interested in Orthodoxy,  to come to the internet and enroll on oc.net.  It is nothing like the ridiculous odds against low entropy at the time of the big bang. The question was simply how do you explain the fact of low entropy at the time of the big bang? (Or perhaps you do not accept the big bang theory?)
    Logged
    stanley123
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
    Posts: 3,809


    « Reply #22 on: April 21, 2012, 11:53:38 PM »

    Is the existence of an Abrahamic God irrational?

    Proponents of infinite regression, namely that cosmic creation is the result of an infinite series of interdependent causes/effects (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down), state that:

    • If there is a (Creator) God, he must be self-sufficient.
      If God is not self-sufficient, how can he be God?
      If God is self-sufficient, there is no need for him to create anything.
      Therefore any act of creation by God is either purposeless or irrational.
      Since the world exists, therefore any belief in the existence of a God who created the world is either due to ignorance or irrationality.

    The same argument applies if someone argues that God is some kind of "Principle" that is the source of all existences and tries to attribute a personality or purpose to that "Principle".

    A Buddhist (and I am making a broad generalization here) does not regard one's experience as having any essential reality to it, whereas the theist does regard their experience as essentially real. They would have to, because they regard God as substantially real, meaning as an existent thing.  You cannot "become one" with something you regard as essentially real and then not experience your experience as essentially real.
    This is why, when Buddhists have great experiences during meditation, they are usually advised to let go of those experiences as being anything essentially real, and to just keep meditating.

    Consider the interesting case of one Mr. Kris Kringle. Most people would argue that Santa Claus either does or does not exist. But a Buddhist would say that a result cannot occur without a cause. So, on Christmas Eve, millions of children are excitedly pumped full of adrenaline and cannot go to sleep because they are waiting for Santa. Thus, Santa is the cause of their excitement and if something does not exist it cannot cause anything to happen. Since Santa Claus is a saint, then this effect on children must be considered as a religious experience, really not much different from any other.

    Do you think then that a belief in Saint Nicholas is valid?


    The existence or non-existence of infinite regression has nothing to do with Kris Kringle. Let's stop being ridiculous.
    As far as I know, the Borde Vilenkin Guth theorem  proves that time-like geodesics are past incomplete in inflationary models, which effectively rules out the possibility that the universe  (at least as far as what we know about it today) could be past eternal. 
    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012
    Logged
    Justin Kissel
    Formerly Asteriktos
    Protospatharios
    ****************
    Offline Offline

    Posts: 30,235


    that is not the teaching of...


    « Reply #23 on: April 22, 2012, 02:34:48 AM »

    There's no evidence or logic argument that demands the existence of God.
    I am not so sure about this. For one thing, do you accept the Big Bang or not? Please give a yes or no answer.
    If you say yes, which is what a whole lot of evidence indicates, then how do you explain the low entropy at the time of the Big Bang? according to Roger Penrose, the probability of such a state of low entropy is exceedingly unlikely, with the odds against it being something incredibly ridiculous like 10^10^123 to 1.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZki6lShUT8

    Do you realise how exceedingly unlikely it is for you, with your body constituted as it is down to the microscopic level, with your name and age and physical appearance, to come on the internet, and oc.net in particular, to be able and willing to type, to post a youtube vid, to talk about statistics, to make claims and arguments, and all on what humans call 4.21.12 in their artificially created time keeper... do you realise what the chances are of this coming about? to have all those factors lined up exactly as they are--or how we think they are? Nearly zero. Thus, IMO you do not exist. The chances are just too small. It's simply not believable. Sorry. Couldn't happen.
    No, I don't believe that  it is that unlikely for someone in the USA, interested in Orthodoxy,  to come to the internet and enroll on oc.net.  It is nothing like the ridiculous odds against low entropy at the time of the big bang. The question was simply how do you explain the fact of low entropy at the time of the big bang? (Or perhaps you do not accept the big bang theory?)

    Actually it's probably more ridiculous. If you let the universe go on for a trillion trillion more years it probably wouldn't happen again. The point is that all sorts of things happen that are immensely unlikely. I didn't even get into all the factors (not that I'd have time or know all of them), like the odds of the particular elements currently making up your body ending up there after having been forged in a star so far away that we can barely understand the distance. You can use the stats argument to say "Gee, all this is so unlikely, ANYTHING happening is so statistically unlikely that we might as well say that God did it" (though it'd be a God of the gaps thing and not much in the way of evidence). You can't use it to say "Gee, we're in a habitable/goldilocks zone, God did it" or "Gee, some of the stuff that scientists say happened seems quite unlikely to occur naturally, God did it". Well, I guess you can say it, if you either don't understand what you're claiming or you're intellectually dishonest.
    « Last Edit: April 22, 2012, 02:36:25 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

    "I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
    orthonorm
    Warned
    Hoplitarches
    *************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Sola Gratia
    Jurisdiction: Outside
    Posts: 16,622



    « Reply #24 on: April 22, 2012, 02:52:35 AM »

    This thread is example number one of why no one here should take much on this board seriously beyond what you might find expressed on a bumper sticker.

    At least the bumper sticker is honest about it's banality, regardless of the obliviousness of it's owner and reader.

    Logged

    Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
    FormerReformer
    Convertodox of the convertodox
    Site Supporter
    Archon
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Eastern Orthodox
    Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
    Posts: 2,441



    WWW
    « Reply #25 on: April 22, 2012, 03:18:40 AM »

    This thread is example number one of why no one here should take much on this board seriously beyond what you might find expressed on a bumper sticker.

    At least the bumper sticker is honest about it's banality, regardless of the obliviousness of it's owner and reader.



    This board, or all boards? It seems to me the Internet is a great breeder of banality, with me being the most banal of all.
    Logged

    "Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

    Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
    orthonorm
    Warned
    Hoplitarches
    *************
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Sola Gratia
    Jurisdiction: Outside
    Posts: 16,622



    « Reply #26 on: April 22, 2012, 03:39:36 AM »

    This thread is example number one of why no one here should take much on this board seriously beyond what you might find expressed on a bumper sticker.

    At least the bumper sticker is honest about it's banality, regardless of the obliviousness of it's owner and reader.



    This board, or all boards? It seems to me the Internet is a great breeder of banality, with me being the most banal of all.

    Shove your humility. And please take the bait of pointing out the grammatical errors I put in there to write me off.

    My posts are awesome.

    Logged

    Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
    stanley123
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
    Posts: 3,809


    « Reply #27 on: April 22, 2012, 09:03:40 PM »

    There's no evidence or logic argument that demands the existence of God.
    I am not so sure about this. For one thing, do you accept the Big Bang or not? Please give a yes or no answer.
    If you say yes, which is what a whole lot of evidence indicates, then how do you explain the low entropy at the time of the Big Bang? according to Roger Penrose, the probability of such a state of low entropy is exceedingly unlikely, with the odds against it being something incredibly ridiculous like 10^10^123 to 1.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZki6lShUT8

    Do you realise how exceedingly unlikely it is for you, with your body constituted as it is down to the microscopic level, with your name and age and physical appearance, to come on the internet, and oc.net in particular, to be able and willing to type, to post a youtube vid, to talk about statistics, to make claims and arguments, and all on what humans call 4.21.12 in their artificially created time keeper... do you realise what the chances are of this coming about? to have all those factors lined up exactly as they are--or how we think they are? Nearly zero. Thus, IMO you do not exist. The chances are just too small. It's simply not believable. Sorry. Couldn't happen.
    No, I don't believe that  it is that unlikely for someone in the USA, interested in Orthodoxy,  to come to the internet and enroll on oc.net.  It is nothing like the ridiculous odds against low entropy at the time of the big bang. The question was simply how do you explain the fact of low entropy at the time of the big bang? (Or perhaps you do not accept the big bang theory?)

    Actually it's probably more ridiculous. If you let the universe go on for a trillion trillion more years it probably wouldn't happen again. The point is that all sorts of things happen that are immensely unlikely. I didn't even get into all the factors (not that I'd have time or know all of them), like the odds of the particular elements currently making up your body ending up there after having been forged in a star so far away that we can barely understand the distance. You can use the stats argument to say "Gee, all this is so unlikely, ANYTHING happening is so statistically unlikely that we might as well say that God did it" (though it'd be a God of the gaps thing and not much in the way of evidence). You can't use it to say "Gee, we're in a habitable/goldilocks zone, God did it" or "Gee, some of the stuff that scientists say happened seems quite unlikely to occur naturally, God did it". Well, I guess you can say it, if you either don't understand what you're claiming or you're intellectually dishonest.
    There is evidence that the Universe had a beginning and that there was no infinite regression.
    Logged
    Skydive
    Moderated
    Elder
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Posts: 513



    « Reply #28 on: February 15, 2014, 01:25:03 PM »

    So the answer of the orthodox/creationist members that posted here including Father H, is that the creating act of God is purposeless?
    Logged

    "I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

    Robert Green Ingersoll
    JamesR
    Virginal Chicano Blood
    Warned
    Taxiarches
    **********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
    Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
    Posts: 5,889


    St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


    « Reply #29 on: February 15, 2014, 05:01:31 PM »

    • If there is a (Creator) God, he must be self-sufficient.
      If God is not self-sufficient, how can he be God?
    Says who? a priori statements can only go so far.

    Quote
    If God is self-sufficient, there is no need for him to create anything.

    "Need" doesn't mean He didn't still do it anyway

    Quote
    Therefore any act of creation by God is either purposeless or irrational.

    "Purpose" and "rationality" are manmade subjective terms, so they are irrelevant. It's almost as stupid as the "fine tuning" (whatever that means) argument.
    Logged

    Quote
    You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
    Quote
    James, you have problemz.
    stanley123
    Protokentarchos
    *********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Catholic
    Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
    Posts: 3,809


    « Reply #30 on: February 15, 2014, 06:14:29 PM »

    "If He is Other than Creation then He cannot be described, limited, or circumscribed by created categories or definitions."
    This is an assumption on your part and I believe it is unwarranted. Taking a real world example, some things can be known by their effects, even though they are not equal to their effects.
    Logged
    Father H
    Archon
    ********
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
    Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
    Posts: 2,611



    « Reply #31 on: February 16, 2014, 07:57:52 PM »

    So the answer of the orthodox/creationist members that posted here including Father H, is that the creating act of God is purposeless?

    If you cannot even tell the difference between purpose and necessity, then there is no purpose even talking to you.  There certainly is not the necessity to talk to you, but now there is also no purpose either.  Purpose and necessity may coincide, but they are not the same. 

    Post does  not need to create a fiber cereal.  Yet, it does, because there is a purpose.  If you cannot understand this, then... (well, I better take my grandmother's advice at this point)... 
    Logged
    Jovan
    High Elder
    ******
    Offline Offline

    Faith: Orthodox Christian
    Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Great Britain and Scandinavia
    Posts: 515



    « Reply #32 on: February 16, 2014, 08:08:24 PM »

    So the answer of the orthodox/creationist members that posted here including Father H, is that the creating act of God is purposeless?

    God is love wihout limits, to extend that love even though he does not need to seems to me, very purposeful to his own being.
    « Last Edit: February 16, 2014, 08:08:52 PM by Jovan » Logged

    “Belatedly I loved thee, O Beauty so ancient and so new, belatedly I loved thee. For see, thou wast within and I was without, and I sought thee out there."
    Skydive
    Moderated
    Elder
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Posts: 513



    « Reply #33 on: February 17, 2014, 10:27:43 AM »

    So the answer of the orthodox/creationist members that posted here including Father H, is that the creating act of God is purposeless?

    If you cannot even tell the difference between purpose and necessity, then there is no purpose even talking to you.  There certainly is not the necessity to talk to you, but now there is also no purpose either.  Purpose and necessity may coincide, but they are not the same.  

    Post does  not need to create a fiber cereal.  Yet, it does, because there is a purpose.  If you cannot understand this, then... (well, I better take my grandmother's advice at this point)...  

    Was there any purpose of the creating act then? What was/is that?
    « Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 10:28:17 AM by Skydive » Logged

    "I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

    Robert Green Ingersoll
    IoanC
    Archon
    ********
    Offline Offline

    Posts: 2,397



    « Reply #34 on: February 17, 2014, 10:42:25 AM »

    God is self-sufficient as who He is. His nature does not need anything from without. But man's nature is different than God's. God does not overlap man. God loves man as someone different than Himself.
    Logged

    Tags:
    Pages: 1   Go Up
      Print  
     
    Jump to:  

    Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
    Page created in 0.157 seconds with 62 queries.