There might be an error even here. Perhaps at least some of what you call "abstract objects" are things we do, not things we find. — Banno

Processes are not a problem. Swimming, runnning, etc. are universals.

Those with a background in philosophy may recognise what I am suggesting as deriving from philosophy of language. Instead of looking for the meaning of the terms we use, stand back and look at how they are used. — Banno

True, the language we develop has indications of what exists but if our interest is ontology, language is subordinate to reality. In the middle ages, language included much talk of "witches" but that didn't mean witches really exist.

'things we do', which is a set, and therefore an abstract object — Tate

I see problems with defining abstract objects in terms of sets because it seems you need a definition of the universal before you can decide what is or is not in the set. For instance, "American" is used to refer to people in the U.S. and also to anyone living in Canada, Chile, Cuba, etc. (i.e., North and South America taken as continents, not a particular country.) We need to understand the meaning of "American" before we can define the set.

The aether is a medium for waves, both these concepts have links to the physical (water waves/ripples). — Agent Smith

You originally asked: " Can you give me an example, one will do, of a pure abstract object and by that I mean an (abstract) object that has no links whatsoever with the physical world?"
"no links" is vague. The aether doesn't exist; but you believe something which doesn't exist has links to the physical world? OK. How about the green pixies who built my home? They don't exist, either, but do they have links to the physical world because "built my home" is part of their description? And what about "the green pixies who did not build my home"? Do they have links to the physical world? If so, I don't understand what you mean by "have links".

there's a controversy with regard to whether math is invented or discovered. — Agent Smith

True and most working mathematicians say discovered; i.e., they accept Mathematical Platonism, which says mathematical objects exists "out there." True, our minds apprehend them but "triangles exist only in our mind" seems wrong. A geometry teacher is not trying to teach about what exists in his/her mind but the triangle "out there." Question: suppose I say triangles exist in my mind and they have four sides. How could anyone dispute what I say? Sure, triangles in another person's mind might have three sides but so what? Triangles in someone else's mind might have five sides. Clearly a definition of triangle is needed. Would you agree that definitions exist in the external world not only in our minds?

they view all objects as individuals — Richard B

If all objects are viewed as individuals, it seems that some types of knowledge would be difficult or even impossible. Yes, I could gain knowledge about this particular object but I couldn't apply that knowledge if I encounter a similar object later because I wouldn't recognize the two objects as being instances of the same universal.

Example: "Fire burns" uses the universal "fire" to describe a general law of nature. If I walk up to a camp fire and recognized it as an instance of the universal "fire" then I know it will burn me. But if I view everything as an individual, then the camp fire is an new object and I won't know it burns until it's too late.

Why would I need to hypothesize that inhabitants who use universals can perceive some Platonic realm, when I simply can appeal to our make up that favors detecting commonalities and creating language of universals vs detecting differences and name individuals? — Richard B

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. How do we create a language of universals without acknowledging the existence of universals?

Can you have an idea of "tree" without having first perceived more than one tree? — Harry Hindu

Sure, just as we can have the idea of a unicorn without ever having seen one.

What is the difference between the idea of the universal tree vs the particular tree? — Harry Hindu

A particular tree is a concrete object which we recognize as an instantiation of the idea of a tree. The idea of a particular tree is the idea, say, of the oak tree in my yard.

What does the idea of two look like in the mind independent of the scribble, "2" or "two" and independent of the observation of two particulars? — Harry Hindu

What does the idea of two look like? It has various properties: synonym for pair; the first natural number after one; the only even prime number, etc.

How do you know that you are holding the idea of 2 in your mind independent of these forms — Harry Hindu

Is the idea of "two" independent of observation of two particulars? Yes. I grant that empirical experience often leads the mind to ideas but I regard the ideas as pre-existing. Just as when I take a walk, I see a rock that was there before I saw it. Similarly, the idea "two" existed before anyone thought of it.

Of course, my perception of the rock may not be 100% accurate. Similarly, someone might believe 2 is not prime, or conversely prime but not the only even prime. In this case, they don't see the idea clearly and need to be educated.

But if "two" was my own personal creation, then who is to say I'm wrong if my "two" is not prime?

From where did we get the idea of two if not by first observing more than one thing? — Harry Hindu

My view is that ideas already exist in the mindscape, just as trees exist in the landscape. Seeing a pair of apples may awaken our mind to the idea of two, but the idea already exists. Any being which lacks the mental capacity will never perceive the idea "two." Imagine an earthworm, for instance, crawls over two pebbles. I doubt the idea of two ever enters what mind it has.

How did you come to experience the universal by observing just one pattern (a particular) of rough brown patches and smooth green patches? — Harry Hindu

See previous answer. All ideas exist in the mindscape. Some minds (like ours) access ideas to make sense of sensory input. We find an idea in the mindscape that fits what we observe.Newton found F=ma. Einstein found different ideas which better describe what we observe.

So, in my view, the idea 2+2=4 has existed for all eternity. We didn't invent it; we discovered it.Of course, the idea is independent of the symbolism. The Roman Numerals II + II = IV express the same idea.

Brief defense of universals, bolds added. — Wayfarer

Yes, thank you.

But universals do not exist in this sense; we shall say that they subsist — Russell, World of Universals

OK, if we require “exist” to apply to only things in space/time, then universals don’t exist but they subsist.
But if we make this requirement of "exist", then it seems “is” and “was” are fundamentally different.
In 1861, I could have said “Lincoln is president” and indeed Lincoln existed in space/time then.
But today, if I say “Lincoln was president” I speak of someone who does not exist today in space/time.
So "is" applies to things which exist, but "was" sometimes does not? Rather, "was" sometimes applies to things which subsist? I don't see any logical problem but if feels wrong to me to require "exist" to only refer to things in space/time.

Can you give me an example, one will do, of a pure abstract object and by that I mean an (abstract) object that has no links whatsoever with the physical world? It should exist only in the mind is what I'm saying. — Agent Smith

How about the following? "Luminiferous aether or ether ("luminiferous", meaning "light-bearing") was the postulated medium for the propagation of light. It was invoked to explain the ability of the apparently wave-based light to propagate through empty space (a vacuum), something that waves should not be able to do."
The luminiferous aether is an abstract object that the universe fails to instantiate.

What could this mean “we don’t directly experience concrete objects” I see a tree, I go over to touch the leaves, smell the bark, hear the creaking of the branches, or taste the fruit it produces. How more direct can we get? — Richard B

Suppose you see a hurricane on TV. You directly experience the TV's light and sound; you indirectly experience the hurricane. Similarly, you indirectly experience the tree; you directly experience light, sound, touch, taste, odor. The idea is similar to the "brain in a vat" thought experiment (which was the basis for the movie The Matrix).

I have no further comment on abstract objects, but I do have something to say about all these purported "illusions" the mind creates. . . . Secondly, the generalization from such "illusions" is dubious - — Agent Smith

“Illusion” suggests what I experience is unreal, a misapprehension. It suggests something that occurs occasionally.

I have only five physical senses. Based on my sense input, ideas arise in my mind. My sense input is real. The idea in my mind really exists and is an attempt to model what is stimulating my physical senses.

The process occurs not occasionally, but rather at all times throughout my life, from when I acquire object permanence at a few months of age to death.to death.

I experience the properties of the unknown thing-in-itself one way; other beings (such as the color-blind person) may experience the unknown thing-in-itself differently. But that doesn’t mean I misapprehend the thing.

So, I don't think “illusion” is appropriate.

This way however, we may at least indirectly experience an abstract tree - through experience of concrete objects and their concrete causal associations in the brain. — litewave

Our five physical senses limit us to experiencing sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell. So, we don’t directly experience concrete objects. (I have no special “tree-sensing” sense with which I can directly experience a tree.)

The tree (which you refer to as the “abstract tree”) is an idea I experience in our mind; it what my mind really experiences.

A somewhat similar situation is that when you watch a TV or computer monitor, all you can see is light. But based on the light you see, your mind experiences ideas such as people, sand, ocean, clouds, etc.

T Clark: A good OP. Well-written, clear, and interesting.
Thanks.

T Clark: We overlay an abstract coating on the world as it is.
I’d say we overlay an abstract coating on what our senses tell us, but as to the thing-in-itself or the world as it is, we have only the indirect evidences of our sense data.

T Clark: This is all very philosophical and presumptuous, which, like "abstract" and "universal," often mean just about the same thing.
True I’m stating a philosophical position, but I wouldn’t call it presumptuous.

Bartricks: The mind is not a sense.
We see trees in the “landscape” with our eyes. We see ideas in the “mindscape” with our minds.

Bartricks: for minds alone have ideas
I’m taking the position that ideas exist independent of minds. Otherwise, if our minds create the ideas then if you and I discuss the number 2, we are discussing two different things: the number 2 that your mind creates and the number 2 that my mind creates. But if the number 2 exists independently, then we can discuss a single topic, i.e., the number 2.

NOS4A2: Isn’t the mind, too, an abstract object?
Just as sight is an abstract object but seeing itself is a sense, I’d say the mind can be thought of as an abstract object, but the mind in action, encountering thoughts, is a sense.

NOS4A2: If you experience the world through the five senses, what being and with what kind of senses do you experience abstract objects?

The mind.Abstract objects are ideas.

“What does it even mean to "directly" or "indirectly" experience something?”

An analogy: Imagine indirect experience as watching a baseball game on TV, as opposed to being in the park. We don’t directly experience the tree; our senses play the role of TV.


“Then the two particular apples are also universals?”

Apple is a universal. A particular apple is an instantiation of the universal called “apple”.


“How did you come to know the number 2 if not by seeing the scribble, "2" and seeing two of something, like seeing two apples?”

We become acquainted with some universals by seeing particulars. We see two apples, two trees, two people and see an abstract similarity which we call “two”. The abstract similarity is a universal which we perceive with our mind, not our five senses.


“It seems to me that universals stand for all the existing things in that set . . . “

Without the idea of two, we cannot apply the idea of two to a pair of apples. Example, I define “xyz” as the set of all xyz things. Not a very useful definition.

Moreover, the set of all existing two things is constantly changing. If I eat one of the two apples, then the “set of all existing two things” has changed. If two atoms are crushed out of existence in some neutron star in another galaxy, the “set of all existing two things” has changed.


“Does the idea, "cat" exist in the same way as a physical cat?”

Ideas exist in the “mindscape.” Physical cats exist in the physical world.


“What are you talking about when you talk about your experiences. Are you talking about something abstract or something concrete?”

Experience is concrete. I physically experience rough brown patches and smooth green patches, which lead me to mentally experience a universal, i.e., the idea of a tree.

Bartricks: You have provided no argument. . . . What’s your case?

The original post is more of a person observation about the desirability and undesirability of two views: 1) we came out of the universe and are natural beings versus 2) we came into the universe from heaven or some other supernatural place and are supernatural beings, i.e., eternal souls.

As to evidence for view 1), sciences which address our origin support the idea we came out of the universe. For instance, the most abundant elements in the universe in order are: hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen. Helium is a “noble gas” that doesn’t combine easily with other elements. The most common elements in the human body in order are: hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen.

As to evidence for view 2), there is none. The existence of the supernatural has never been demonstrated. True, many people find the idea of an eternal soul comforting, and many religions teach it. But in my view, none of that constitutes evidence.

Jack Cummings: I first became confused about the idea of life after death seeing this as conflicting.

Yes. Saint Augustine (presumedly) has been in heaven for about 1,500 years, in the company of God, enjoying the beatific vision. But if the world ends tomorrow, Augustine gets his body back. Is that suppose to make him happy? “Well, gosh, I thought I was happy before but now that I’ve got this old thing back, I know what happiness really is.” It’s absurd.

I believe Jews believed in the resurrection of the body, Greek believed in souls, and the Church merely threw both ideas in the pot with little regard for logical consistency.

Alkis Piskas: So, not only it is not impossible to knowingly sin, but we always know that we sin.

As far as I can see, you don’t address evidence in the original post but merely assert the contrary.

But if you believe we always know when we sin, then you should be able to say if stem cell research is a sin, capital punishment is a sin, abortion is a sin, masturbation is a sin, contraception is a sin, etc. Of course, you can give your opinion about such questions. But other people would disagree. And a few centuries ago, if you said burning witches or owning slaves was a sin, the great majority of Christians would have disagreed with you.

God has failed to make his will and laws known to us. So, we struggle to determine right and wrong. In the U.S. the struggle once led to a civil war, with both sides feeling that God was on their side.

Certainly, the clergy think highly of themselves.
But the great majority of Catholics don't care, or even know, what is in the catechism.

But you seem to be confirming the OP's view about "folk" versus theological views.
So, what is your point? The OP has:

Good people living forever in heaven and evil people living forever in hell is a common, widely held belief in Christianity. It’s fair, I think, to judge Christianity on its common beliefs, not the beliefs of a relatively small group of scholars. (Two billion Christians versus how many Christian theologians?)
It would be unfair to do otherwise.

What about that, if anything, do you disagree with?

They are simply two different views. That catechism view is the minority view.

Baker: Ordinary Roman Catholics are usually not fluent in the Catechism of the RCC; they have their own folk beliefs.

You ignore the beginning of my post.
IN CATHOLIC SCHOOL, I was taught 1) if you died with an unforgiven mortal sin, you went to hell forever, 2) a child over the age of reason (i.e., 7 years old) could commit a mortal sin, 3) intentionally missing Mass on Sunday was a mortal sin.

I didn’t learn the above from kids on the street. I learned it from nuns and priests. If fact, most Catholics do not believe intentionally missing mass, using contraception, etc. are mortal sins that could send them to hell.


Baker: I asked you which Roman Catholicism you think is the right one. I think this is the question you need to answer in order to address the OP.

They are simply two different views. That catechism view is the minority view.


Hanover: There's nothing interesting in defeating the weakest form of a position.

There’s something very interesting in defeating the most popular, widespread form of a position, a position that motivates people’s votes.


Hanover: I should reject Christianity because under close analysis it doesn't provide adequate answers . . .

OK, different Christian denominations have contradictory view about how to get saved. Jesus and/or the Bible don’t provide an adequate answer.

Baker: “Art48 What do you think is true Catholicism?
That which is declared in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, or that which is held by a considerable variety of people who claim to be Catholics? Or something else altogether?”

I don’t know what Catholicism is true. My point is that there are at least 2 types of Catholicism: that of the average Catholic and that of the Catholic theologians. Each type could probably be broken down further. See response to Agent Smith below.


Bitter Crank: “If you somehow manage to follow the plainly spoken teachings of Jesus”
I don’t find the teachings plainly spoken. Neither do Christian denominations; that’s why there are so many of them. Even about the supremely question of how to be saved, denominations disagree.


Agent Smith: “Folk religion is basically an introductory course to religious doctrine.”
In Catholic school, I was taught 1) if you died with an unforgiven mortal sin, you went to hell forever, 2) a child over the age of reason (i.e., 7 years old) could commit a mortal sin, 3) intentionally missing Mass on Sunday was a mortal sin.

Do you know of any Catholic theologian who accepts those teachings? Any theologian who says “Yes, poor Johnny Smith skipped Mass last Sunday and suddenly died. Poor kid is now in hell begin torture, forever.” Or, “Mr. Jones was a decent enough person. But he only went to Mass on Christmas and Easter. Now he’s suffering incredible torments with little Johnny Smith.”

In my experience, theologians often teach something quite different that what I learned in Catholic school, not merely a more nuanced version.

I like sushi: Note: ‘physics’ as a ‘habit’ of the universe? How is that any different to physics as ‘laws’ of the universe?

Laws are prescriptive; habits are descriptive.

When I taught in college, students would generally take more or less the same seat every class. Some students would sit in the exact same seat throughout the semester. That was their habit. But there was no law that said where they had to sit.

Additionally, law suggests a law giver, perhaps a God outside the universe that constructed the universe to act in certain ways.

Habit suggests that the universe merely does what it does, without any external law giver.

Hanover,

Thanks for your response. Some comments.

As to your first paragraph, pointing out that the views of theologians are “subtly nuanced” does nothing to explain what points of the OP are, in your view or in the view of theologians, incorrect.

As to the remainder of your post, I can only guess what the point is. It points out a conflict between universalism (all will be saved) and the view that only some will be saved. Universalism does contradict the first point of the OP. But universalism is a minority view among Christians; it’s not normative. What the large majority of Christians believe is that people ultimately end up in heaven or hell.

So, as far as I can tell, your points are:
1) Theologians have a more subtly nuanced view than the OP presents.
2) The uncommon, non-normative view of Christian universalism contracts point 1. of the OP.

Did I miss anything?

Hanover: a literalist caricature

I claim Christianity says that eventually there will be only heaven and hell.
If that is not correct, please tell us 1) where it’s incorrect and 2) what is the correct view.
Prediction: you can’t.

It is not I who invented the theology you call distasteful and unlikely.
A search for truth involves pointing out problems and flaws in belief.
I can think of no better way to employ my time than searching for truth.

Full path to shadow illusion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Checker_shadow_illusion.svg

‘Miracles are not against nature, but against what we know of nature’ ~ St Augustine

So as what we know of nature expands, so-called miracles disappear.
Case in point: lightning.

Space Dweller: What do you consider "new theology"?

Glad you asked.
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf

I see where you're coming from but if God is physical light then God is absent in a dark room.
I think you're on the right track. Here's a PDF you may like.
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf

"I think you are misrepresenting the design argument."

The OP clearly states what I mean by the design argument.
The argument by design briefly is that the universe is like a machine; machines have intelligent designers; like effects have like causes; therefore, the universe as a whole has an intelligent designer, which is God.

No one owns a copyright on "design argument" so if you decide that phrase means something else, fine.

“We need to look at the Kalam cosmological argument's single/unitary cause as a sufficient cause (can be single) and not as a necesary cause (can be/are multiple).”

Aren’t necessary conditions a subset of sufficient conditions?
Isn’t the same true for necessary and sufficient causes?
Think about it and let me know if you disagree.

Occam's razor is a reasonable response but if we change Premise 1 we are no longer talking about the Kalam as it's presented. Let's call Kalam + Occam's razor "Kalam 2"

Kalam 2 has some problems (which it shares with the original Kalam) but that would be the subject of another post so as not to divert this post.

Haglund,

But existing religions disagree and use an inferior way of knowing that often leads to untruth; such religions serve State but not necessarily truth. — Art48
Can't the same be said of science nowadays?

No.

Religions use an inferior way of knowing - faith and authority – and so cannot agree. Christianity can’t even agree on how to be saved. And religion has dogma, which cannot be rejected.

Science uses a better way of knowing – loosely called the scientific method. Science converges to reality. Scientists throughout the world accept the sciences of chemistry, biology, etc. while religions have had thousands of years to converge, but haven’t. Ask a Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist what happens after death and you’ll get contradictory answers.

Tom,

“And you are probably aware that reason is a key tool used by Christian apologists to argue for god - with a long history of Greek philosophy influencing church arguments (ontological and cosmological).”

I don’t find the apologist arguments I’ve seen (for example, William Lane Craig) convincing. Apologists IMHO embrace reason only in so far as it supports dogma.
Here’s a YouTube clip discussed this further.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ene62RkIwNo

“This is a standard trope we often read. But apart from being a rhetorical device, does it get us anywhere?”

It describes part of the Wall.

“This is a standard trope we often read. But apart from being a rhetorical device, does it get us anywhere? You could also reverse this idea, as other commentators have done, and argue how special, how extraordinary and improbable it is that on this tiny spec of the universe, conscious life exists - it must be by design, given the odds against it.”

The intelligent design argument is an example of using reason only in so far as it supports dogma. If God designed the universe so that conscious life can exist, then God also designed the universe so that childhood cancer could exist.

By truth I mean correspondence with reality.

From an article I'm writing.

Today, we know the universe is billions of years old, not thousands. We know bacteria and viruses cause disease, not sin and demons. We know there are (literally!) more stars in the universe than grains of sand on all Earth’s beaches. Scientists believe there are roughly as many planets as stars.

Imagine on some distant planet, beings who look like rabbits worship the Great Rabbit who created everything. Or imagine spider-like beings who worship the Great Mother Spider who spun out the web of the universe. Old Theology would call such “Gods” false Gods. Or, more charitably, it might call them personifications of the one, true God.

New Theology regards the Gods of planet Earth as personifications of the one true God: the ultimate ground of existence, the foundation of reality.

I'd say that "God" is not a genuine explanation.
Neither is "Well, that's just the way things are" a genuine explanation.

A basic objection to a physical explanation for consciousness is that finding physical correlates fails to explain consciousness. Here's an 8-minute YouTube clip that makes this point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qTAYIV8FLo