Here's maybe an odd little nugget that might clarify the problem with such Thomistic reasoning. I've already mentioned this problem, but it might be helpful to expound and expand it.

6. Since He is absolutely simple, His willing and thinking are identical.

So we should be able to substitute his will for his thinking.

So what god wills, god thinks, and what god thinks, god wills. Hence he cannot think what he does not will, nor will what he does not think.

So he cannot think about what might have been the case had I not written this paragraph. To think about it would have been to will it, and hence to make it so.

Perhaps then Thomism commits to Lewis' counterfactuals - that every possibility is an actuality. That would be an odd result.

Following the way of using equivalence just set out, we could substitute "God" for "Father, or for "Son", or for "Holy spirit"; but not "Father" for "Son", and so on.

The substitution is not transitive.

So yes, it does set out something of what is implied in the idea of a trinity.

Without doing the calculation, I suspect that this would result in modal collapse. That might not be a good outcome.

As I said, Thomists will be able to mount a defence for each of these objections.

Must a glass that is called "half empty" necessarily be a different, distinct metaphysical entity from the same glass when referred to as glass "half full?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Can you substitute "half-empty" for "half-full"? In most cases, yep. We call those cases "extensional contexts", and we may use substitution for our definition of equivalence. Doing so drops the whole archaic discussion of "real metaphysical distinctions" and "beyond the category of being".

Seems to be a much cleaner approach.

I thought retribution semantically referred to restoration. — Bob Ross

ok, that makes sense of some of the things you have said. Thank you.

Retribution has a curious etymology, apparently referring back to considerations between the three tribes of Rome - from tri..., tribe, tribune, tribute, and retribution. So it originally had more of the flavour you suggest. Now it is about punishment.

You never address what I write though — Bob Ross

I devoted just under three hundred words to directly addressing a single paragraph, .

But I'll do it again, for your 36-point argument.

I think it a terrible argument. It pretends to be syllogistic, to be of the form of a series of syllogisms, but mixes metaphorical statements, leaps over unarticulated premisses, sliding from ontological claims to personalistic language, without logical mediation. The pretense of syllogistic form masks a series of conceptual sleights of hand, category shifts, and metaphorical intrusions.

This is the nature of the Thomistic style, featuring notions such as divine simplicity, pure actuality, pure intellect, and causal emanation via knowing and willing, all of which are to say the least questionable.

Despite claiming god to be a simple, it juxtaposes will and intellect; subject and object; father and son and so on. But those distinctions are the very thing denied by divine simplicity. The argument rests on this contradiction. Now we know that a contradiction implies anything, so we should be wary of an argument that is so dependent on contradiction.

Then there's the idea that if god thinks something is real, it becomes real. Let's set aside the issue of how this debars god from thinking about things that are not real - the common "what if..." of modality. In thinking about himself he somehow brings about the Son. Is the Son then the same as that thinking, and so not more than a thought, or is the Son a second being caused by God's thinking of himself - in which case he is not simple, not One Being? These and other objections will result from the very notion that to think something, for god, is to create it, since in doing so god must drop the distinction between existing and being thought about. But we have that distinction for good reason.

In more modern terms there is a play on the use of the existential operator, a slide from using it as second order predicate to a first order predicate, that is invalid in ordinary predicate logic. Assigning a predicate to an individual presumes there is an individual, it cannot create that individual. See Inexpressibility of Existence Conditions.

Then there is the point I made earlier, the use of anthropomorphic language on which the charge of presuming what you wish to conclude rests. Is this language built into the argument, or is it stretching abstract reasoning to meet revelation? It smells like Anselm's "...and this we all call god"; a conclusion unsupported by the proceeding argument, but fitting it neatly into already accepted doctrine. A slight of hand.

Let's look at a sample.

. 6. Since He is absolutely simple, His willing and thinking are identical.
7. Therefore, Him willing something as real is identical to Him thinking of something as real.
8. Therefore, when He thinks of something as real it must create something.

It's not a syllogism, since it misses the hidden assumption that thinking of something as real necessarily makes it real. God, then, can' think of things that are not real, something that is routine for us. So what we have here is a loaded metaphysical claim, not a deduction, as well as the contradiction in being an absolute simple and yet having identifiable will and intellect.

Reiterating, one problem is that the argument assumes divine simplicity but proceeds by introducing various juxtapositions and differentiations.

Another is that it unjustly slides from the language of necessity into the language of revelation.

Another is that it apparently invalidly moves from a second level existential predication to a first level existential predication - it derives the existence of a thing from it's properties.

Another is the ambiguity of key terms such as "create", "real", "person" and so on.

And the main objection, that it is guided by a doctrinal target.

Now I am sure you will be able to mount a defence for each of these objections. That in itself is problematic, since it will add to the count of 36 lines... Sure, you are able to add and add and add, explaining to yourself why this argument makes sense - but is that enough? Don't you aslo want an argument that others will accept? At what point do you give up the whole enterprise as a Bad Lot?

I've already done so.

It's a curious calculation. Other policies that would save that many lives would be quickly adopted. Yet this policy is resisted so ardently in the US, and not elsewhere.

That is a discord that is worth following up on.

:rofl:

I hadn't read your other post until you replied to me directly, but thanks for providing an example of the pathology I am pointing too. Yes, the US has this more in common with Brazil and Mexico than with France, the UK and Australia.

Is that a good thing?

I generally supported the Australian Governments Covid precautions. — Wayfarer

As do I. The misrepresentation of the policies notwithstanding.

What's perhaps most interesting here is the extent to which folk are willing to not see what your graph so plainly shows - or to attempt to explain it away, or change the subject.

Plainly, they want their guns and will not be swayed.

Now psychosis is "a mental state where a person loses touch with reality, experiencing symptoms like hallucinations and delusions."

Madness.

I want you to demonstrate to me where the argument from change, going back to Aristotle, depends on divine revelation to demonstrate the existence of God. — Bob Ross

But that's not what I pointed out. The conclusion that god is father, son and spirit is not a cogent consequence of natural theology, but is dependent on revelation.

I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN. — Bob Ross

I noted that earlier. I don't much mind what you choose to call yourself. I'm trying to address what you have written.

Do you have anything to contend with in terms of the actual concepts of divine simplicity, pure actuality, etc.? — Bob Ross

Those terms are at least specialised Thomist terminology with their own language game, or perhaps just language on vacation, verging on word salad.

You are pretending to know my motivations for accepting arguments like the one from change; and you are painfully mistaken. — Bob Ross

I attempted to infer what might justify your accepting what to me appear quite odd, idiosyncratic bits of language. In doing so I made reference to why others have done much the same.

It appears that you are trying your best to give a logical and reasoned account of a narrative that is inherently incoherent. I'm sorry if pointing this out appears disrespectful, but looking into logic and language is what we do here. You seem to be justifying an iron age myth using Greek logic. We might have moved on since these things were fashionable.

Blessed are the cheese-makers, for they shall inherit the earth. — frank

Obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

Seesm to me there has been some movement in your position. That's good.

My point was that we don’t have to agree on what is sinful to agree that if we sin then there must a punishment; and from there my argument begins. — Bob Ross

Justice, then, is fundamentally about restoring the order of things and not punishment — Bob Ross

It remains that a just god would not seek punishment s such, but restitution and restoration.

Eternal damnation remains inexplicable.

I've giving you every reason to believe that I believe that I can justify my claims through natural theology; and you keep acting like I haven't done that. — Bob Ross

Yes, you believe that you have justified your claims through natural theology. But have you? Again, the trinity and the son of god, which you apparently believe are conclusions of your argument, are actually ad hoc add-ons. Look again at your second paragraph, for example, where you move from an impersonal absolute simple to "him" to

The Father is the one that is known; and the Son is the knowledge of Himself. — Bob Ross

There is no argument there that reaches the conclusion that a simple must also be three, just a confusion of misused words. I haven't payed much attention to your actual arguments becasue as arguments, conclusions reached from premises, they are truly dreadful.

"God is absolutely simple". Ok, a stipulation, god has no parts. "His pure act of will and pure act of thought are identical". Where does the "He" come from? Despite having no parts we can differentiate his will from his action... how's that? But Ok... "He creates by willing something as real" yet "His will and thought are identical", and "His perfect knowledge of Himself is Him thinking of Himself as real" and so on... again and again differentiating parts within the thing that has no parts. "Him knowing Himself generates something real out of Himself"... then isn't he no longer one, and no longer simple? Yes, since "His object of knowledge of this creation is Himself", and yet isn't he seperate from his creation? "He is both subject and object" and yet he is still simple, and undifferentiated... And then, like a rabbit pulled from a hat, "The Father is the one that is known; and the Son is the knowledge of Himself." Where did the father and the son come from? Why those words?

Becasue the bible describes god as male and the father and the son.

That's not natural theology. (Spinoza does a much better job of taking this style of argument to it's natural consequence, but the pantheist conclusion is not in keeping with revelation, and so is not acceptable to Christians)

Now we might accept that a paragraph such as that might serve to express a divine mystery, and not be dependent on things such as coherence and validity, but not if you offer it as a piece of philosophy, and so ground it in that narrative.

That's not a man of straw, but a reflection on what you have actually written. I do not believe I am being unfair to your position, but showing its inadequacies.

That gun is far more likely to kill you or someone you love than a home invader.

You are kidding yourself, and putting your family in danger.

Sad, but that's it.

They’re full because it’s a good pyramid (ponzy) scheme. — Punshhh

It is, but I suspect that's more process rather than cause.

I think your equation of Thomism with scientific method risible.

What to make of the shenanigans of the Nationals, wanting to drop zero emissions?

So bring on the Revolution...!

The root of the whole issue is the equation of weapons with civil liberty. — Wayfarer

Yep.

And no, I don't see it as a distraction. — MrLiminal

That explains a lot.

Countries that have banned guns also have wealth inequality and violent criminals. — MrLiminal

:rofl: Such logic!

Remember this?


Don't get me wrong, the demise of US democracy is a tragedy.

So @Bob Ross might be right? Trivially, of course. The methodological point stands.

You will have a hard time justifying Thomism on falsifications grounds, but if you think you can, go ahead. Using Popper to justify Aquinas would indeed be against time. But trivially, not invalid.

There's a hint of becasue the theory hasn't been shown to be wrong, it must be right somewhere here. I doubt, and hope, that Bob is not content with a demonstration that he might not be wrong. I hope he wants more than just that.

So, basically following a time-tested (or perhaps yet to be tested?) plan (or theory, if it has yet to be tested) and sticking to it. Basically, following the scientific method to a tee. What an odd phrasing when the two concepts are one and the same. — Outlander

What?

You think science assumes its conclusions and then argues for them? What two concepts are the same - Thomism and science?

A weak sauce, indeed.

You equate "the government" with the President. The US constitution effectively elects a king. But there were - until recently - other powers to keep that monarch in check. The breach of the separation of the powers we see now was not prevented by your owning guns.

The argument that owning guns keeps the government in check rings very hollow.

Indeed, this whole argument, this discussion of gun control as a democratic principle, is a Furphy, a distraction. The US failed to provide an adequate mechanism for social support, allowing a gross disparity in the distribution of wealth. The result is, unsurprisingly, an oligarchy.

The issue is equitable distribution of power, not of guns.



SO which...

I do think that our guns would help prevent an authoratative regime shift. — Bob Ross

or

(gun owenership) prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. — Bob Ross

You want your cake and to eat it.

A part of restoration is a price being paid to the victim in some form proportionate to the crime. I agree with you: I think you are talking passed my points. — Bob Ross

You can see the advantages of restorative practices, to the extent that you now seek to subsume them into your retributive account of justice. I'll count that as progress.

But which is to be master? Is the purpose of justice to punish the wicked, or is it to restore the good?

And what possible place could there be for eternal damnation in a restorative practice?

I can't make sense of eof such a view. It appears morally culpable.

I understand why you said that, because you are assuming I believe in the Son of God because of the Bible. I don’t. — Bob Ross

Well, no, since for several posts you have made it clear that your belief is somewhat different. I understand that.

That framing - "the argument from change, essences/existences, contingency/necessity, parts vs. wholes, etc." - is Thomism. So what you are saying is that you accept a framing that derives from revelation, while claiming that it does not depend on revelation... A long stretch.

That second paragraph, for example, in positing such things as an "absolute simple", supposing "pure act of will" makes sense, and so on, adopts a very particular view of how things are. It is very far from neutral, and has been used for centuries to defend christian revelation.

Seems to me that you are getting exactly what you set out to find, which no doubt is most satisfactory.

So while you might believe that your views derive from a neutral natural theology, it does not look that way to me. It looks like you have adopted a particular anachronistic account in order to achieve an already chosen outcome.

I was asking you what you think the best possible totality of creation would be. — Bob Ross

And you think that @RogueAI is suitably placed to answer that question? RogueAI, are you happy with that responsibility? And are you, Bob, in a position to assess RogueAI's response? You don't know if a world without carnivores is metaphysically possible without removing the possibility of the virtues, free will, and eudaemonia, so you say. Do you have a basis for saying it is impossible? That's what theology has to claim, if it is to explain how the world as it is is the will of a loving and omnipotent being.

Isn't "I don't know" a good response here, rather then taking on a convolute, ad hoc and unsatisfactory doctrine?

Retributive justice focuses on punishing the perp, as seen hereabouts. Restorative justice focuses on fixing the problem.

Which focus should a loving and beneficent being choose?

What's the purpose here?

Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. — Bob Ross

This is the USA we are talking about? So having guns is preventing the downfall of your democracy, unlike those other western nations were there are gun controls...

Hows' that working out?

My arguments didn’t rely on scripture. I keep telling you this, to no avail. — Bob Ross

But that's not so. You do make use of scripture. I explained this, here:

Your post relies on god's having a son, and an ontology that includes sin and the dignity of god and damnation and so on. These are from scripture and revelation. So the arguments there are not examples of natural theology. — Banno

These ideas derive from scripture, not natural theology.

It's about synthesizing justice and mercy. — Bob Ross

You take it as granted that justice involves retribution. See the SEP article for some critique of that view, and consider if it is an ad hoc move. Your "synthesis" takes it as granted that God will seek to punish, not to restore and mitigate.

...they need rehabilitation which would normally be in the form of a punishment — Bob Ross

Rehabilitation is punishment? No wonder the jails are so full.

The alternative on offer to retribution is not natural justice, but restorative justice.

I really hadn't anticipated that restorative justice would be such a foreign concept here. It seems neither you nor have heard of it.

How odd.

:grin:

Presumably there is a theology that explains all this...

Not much. The list of Western Nations that maintain capital punishment has one member. What is it about that nation that makes this so? Is it, at least in part, adherence to a retributive notion of justice? I think this might be an interesting topic for a sociologist to follow up on.

A quick google search will provide plenty of articles justifying capital punishment, from Christians.

...retribution is required for justice... — Bob Ross

I don't agree. as this is somewhat a side issue, I'll refer you to the SEP article, which might give you som idea of the problems thereof. it's conclusion begins:

Retributive justice has a deep grip on the punitive intuitions of most people. Nevertheless, it has been subject to wide-ranging criticism. Arguably the most worrisome criticism is that theoretical accounts of why wrongdoers positively deserve hard treatment are inadequate. — SEP

Retribution is more a caricature of justice than an implementation.

One consequence of this is that a retributive god appears to be morally questionable.

...my belief in based solely on natural theology — Bob Ross

My understanding of "Natural Theology" is that it does not rely on scripture, revelation or mystery. Your post relies on god's having a son, and an ontology that includes sin and the dignity of god and damnation and so on. These are from scripture and revelation. So the arguments there are not examples of natural theology.

Further, they take these revealed notions as givens, and present arguments for them, rather than subjecting them to analysis. Now an ad hoc assumption is one that is adopted specifically to maintain a given position n the face of an objection. In that regard, the post is ad hoc. That's about the logical structure of the argument. If you choose to see it as belittling and dismissive, that's down to you.

We don’t have to start with the question of whether God exists to decipher God exists.… — Bob Ross

That's not the issue. I'm saying that theology takes revelation as given and seeks to show how it can be made consistent. It doesn't just assume that god exists, but attempts to make coherent the whole revealed shemozzle. It is not a branch of philosophy, although it has links with philosophy. Philosophy isn't only defined by content but also by method. Theology lacks the neutrality of philosophy.

Thomism may appeal to you because it helps justify some of your beliefs - I don't know. But Thomism is one small, somewhat anachronistic approach, with considerable problems of it's own making. So using it to frame natural theology is itself presumptuous.

Acoss breakdown of Australian taxation. Good information.

The biggest voices need to admit Australia is a low-taxing nation before joining the economic reform conversation

The various methodological issues raised here apply to theology generally, not just catholicism.

Much the same goes for the specific issues as well, a consequence of the poor method seen in theology.

The discussion is not specific to Catholicism.

If you imagine that God does actually exist theology makes sense. — Punshhh

Rather, if the God described by some given theology makes sense, then that theology makes sense. It's not as if there are no alternative views on God, nor various ways in which folk have attempted to provide a coherent account of god. There is no "theology", there are "theologies".

Almost as if they were made up.

Although as I was saying to Frank, Catholicism took its theologies too far. Where it became an apology for controlling populations. — Punshhh

If Catholicism is right, then if Catholicism does indeed demand "controlling populations", then controlling populations would thereby be right.

I'm not seeing much here apart from the tautology that if some doctrine is right, then it is right.

One aim (of justice) is certainly punishment. — boundless

That's one view.

It suggests that justice is concerned with retribution, with affirming a moral order, with giving folk what they deserve.

A clearer view might be that justice involves equity and fairness rather than retribution. On such a view, the aim would be to repair or mitigate the harm done, and re-integrate and reform the wrong doer.

Punishing folk doesn't thereby fix the problem, or take away the injury.

But again there is a methodological point here. The Book says that punishment will occur, so it is not open to the theologian to question whether justice ought include punishment. That's a given. All that remains is for the theologian to attempt to show how this is coherent with a loving god.

Hence your rather long post excusing god's approach.

There's also the issue, raised elsewhere in the forums, of how an eternal punishment can ever be proportional.

A few side issues: Karma is not about punishment, but about restoring a balance. It is far more an example of restoration than retribution. The suggestion that a slave ought pay for their release is quite remise. And there's somewhat more to addiction than mere akrasia.

well, yes, although I would relate this back to my two ways to philosophy thread. theology has to be more discursive than critical. Philosophy should be more critical than than discursive. .

That most Christian of Western nations is the one that still allows capital punishment. The acceptability of retribution, indeed the equating of retribution and justice - hadn't thought of that as a Christian attribute.

Each biblical reference here supports the methodological point that theology presupposes its conclusion.

Perhaps we are arguing semantics then. — MrLiminal

Well, yes - we are discussing whether theology is a part of philosophy, and that means discussing whether "philosophy" can be appleid to things theological.