From: Mark Steven Heyman (MarkHeyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Apr 23 2005 - 05:21:51 BST
On 22 Apr 2005 at 11:36, hampday@earthlink.net wrote:
Okay, I inadvertantly substituted the word "action" for "effect" in stating
the causality principle. Does that make it "incorrect"?
msh says:
What makes your interpretation of the principle wrong is that you
extend it to mean that even the Big Bang had a cause. Because the
the BB is considered to be the beginning of time, there is no BEFORE
and therefore it is meaningless to say that the BB had an antecedent,
proximate cause.
But let's nevertheless allow such an extension of the causality
principle, for the sake of argument. So God, Essence, caused the BB.
What caused God? See, this is Philosophy 101 stuff, and it's sort
of astounding to me that you claim your metaphysics is rational, that
you believe philosophical investigation supports your thesis, and
yet you are apparently unaware that all of the arguments for the
existence of God were refuted long ago. I've asked several times for
your answer to Hume's refutation of the Intelligent Design argument.
You give no response, yet continue to claim that ID is a strong
argument for the existence of Essence. Is this your idea of a
philosophical discussion?
As long as you claim that your metaphysics of essence is a viable
philosophical theory, I don't see how you can honestly avoid
answering such questions. On the other hand, if you simple say that
your system of belief is faith-based and therefore not subject to
rational scrutiny, you are off the hook. But you want your Essence
and your Philosophy too, and therein lies the contradiction.
ham:
But "primary cause" is a fundamental principle, even in the absence of time.
My point was that finite entities and their perceived properties do not
arise from nothingness -- ex nihilo -- they require an uncreated source
which is not limited by space and time.
msh:
See above. In the absence of time, the causality principle is
meaningless. Even in the presence of time, any notion of an
uncreated source, primary cause, unmoved mover is logically
indefensible, unless you simply assume the truth of what you are
trying to prove.
msh before:
Isn't this [Essence] really just a stealth theistic way of referring to
God? Given your own (incorrect) principle of causality, is it not
fair to ask what caused this anthropocentric essence? In other
words, in what way does your idea of an uncaused cause avoid the
multitude of unanswered refutations of the Ontological argument for
the existence of God?
ham:
The word "God" can conjure up a variety of images, depending on whom you're
talking to. I wanted to avoid such images and connotations like "Supreme
Being", "Divine Providence", "Heavenly Father", etc., which are incompatible
with Absolute Essence. It wasn't that I'm "sneaking in a divinity" only to name it later;
I simply wanted to be precise in terms of the fundamental concept. But, yes, if you
can conceive of God as transcendent, absolute and undifferentiated, then God
can name your Essence.
msh:
Great. But you haven't answered my question. See last sentence, above.
Ham before:
Essence is immutable: it is the indispensable "uncreated"
source of all things that transcends the limitations of finitude.
msh before:
How does your last sentence, above, differ from this: God is
immutable: he is the indispensable "uncreated" source of all things
that transcends the limitations of finitude.
ham:
Except for the gender reference, it states the concept quite well.
msh says:
Ok, then let's use the word God; it'll be less confusing.
And what is your reason for believing such a statement? As there is no evidentiary or
logical basis for such a belief, I can conclude only that you believe
this as a matter of faith.
ham:
What is anyone's reason for believing something?
msh says:
I'm asking for philosophical reasons, since you claim your thesis is
able to withstand philosophical inquiry. People believe all sorts of
things for all sorts of reasons, very few of them philosophical.
ham:
To begin with, I believe the total concept, not just the "statement".
msh:
Well, let's focus on the statement:
God is immutable, the indispensable "uncreated" source of all things
that transcends the limitations of finitude.
You say of this sentence:
ham:
It is intuitively credible,
msh:
To you, maybe. To me, it is just religious jargon.
ham:
it resolves the SOM dichotomy, and it offers a meaningful link between Value
and the autonomy of individual Freedom -- a significant connection,
incidentally, that is missing in the MoQ.
msh says:
There is no connection between Value and individual freedom in the
MOQ? We must have read different books. Every being, if it is
physically and psychologically free to do so, makes countless Quality
choices, every day. There is a direct connection between Quality and
individual autonomy.
Thanks,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The first step in a fascist movement is the combination under an energetic leader of a number of men who possess more than the average share of leisure, brutality, and stupidity. The next step is to fascinate fools and muzzle the intelligent, by emotional excitement on the one hand and terrorism on the other." - Bertrand Russell MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 23 2005 - 05:41:44 BST