Now let me ask you: show me a member of the clergy, or of any religious organization or congregation, or anyone else, indeed, who can prove the existence of god. I bet you that you can show me no one. — szardosszemagad
I myself am generally sympathetic to the design arguments. But, the same argument will do nothing to sway someone who hasn't got a predisposition to believe it. — Wayfarer
But as several other people have noted, you can't prove[ it one way or the other. — Wayfarer
No, I think your posing a false dichotomy. I have tried to explain it, will leave it there. — Wayfarer
What do you think Buddhists would make of it? They don't believe that God created the Universe, but they also don't think that things just randomly happen. So they don't fit into your dichotomy. — Wayfarer
I also think its intelligent design, but I don't think we are the sculpture, or anyone or anything else. I think the design is in atoms. The outcome is left to chance. Atoms self-assemble into sentient beings. — MikeL
Nah, you've misunderstood the point. The answer was "I am that I am" and it was given in an unpronounceable series of letters (i.e. no vowels). The vowels were added later to make it pronounceable. The point was that God can be who or whatever he wants to be. We humans like special titles and designations because they help us to quickly organize information, but invariably we end up giving the titles special meaning which go beyond organizational utility. — John Days
Even if your suggestion that "I am that I am" is correct in the sense of an eternal present, we're talking about the creator of time/space/matter in this context. How can you suggest that a being who is able to exist outside of time/space/matter is somehow contradicting itself by saying, "I exist right now"? — John Days
this requires reference to context, not personal feelings. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't think you read my post. — Metaphysician Undercover
If God is said to be "now" in an absolute sense, then this contradicts the premise that "now" is relative. — Metaphysician Undercover
Actually, I did give context. Here it is again... — John Days
God wanted to make it clear to both Moses and pharaoh that he was not just another name on the long list of Gods to be trotted out and categorized into his appropriate box. He didn't need a special title to prove anything to pharaoh". — John Days
The context is that of a CREATOR who is able to exist in the past, present, and future all in the same instant, AND is able to exist outside of all 3 of those concepts at the same time. — John Days
What I meant by "context", is the context in which the statement was used, the bible, not the context of your personal example. I have no doubt that you can produce an example which would make what you're saying make sense, but we need to consult the context in the Bible, to see what was meant. — Metaphysician Undercover
I guess the other issue here is whether order is primordial, or chaos is primordial. If order is primordial, then chaos would emerge out of order. But if chaos was primordial, then the contextual order you make reference to would be emerging out of pure randomness no? Then that primordial randomness would create both the contextual order and the unpredictable randomness we notice inside of the contextual order.When we speak of randomness, we are talking about unpredictable events enmeshed within a contextual order. Take the two most common examples of randomness, gambling devices and radioactive decay. A six-sided die can provide one of six results {1,2,3,4,5,6}. It doesn't come up with zero, or seven, or 19. A decaying radioactive atom will emit particles which can be theoretically described. It doesn't turn into a pink elephant or become a six-sided die.
Randomness is, therefore, enmeshed in a context of order. We do not have even language to describe what "decontextualized randomness" would look like. What is probably the closest word to describe it is irrational, but used with the full apparatus of imagination, something which we rarely do (and when we do it we often recoil from it in horror).
In other words, the dichotomy order x randomness ought to be named order x irrationality. — Mariner
Why would you say chaos is unlimited potency? Afterall, potency without act is nothing.Chaos is unlimited potency — Mariner
I would characterise chaos as lacking in pattern/predictability/explanation. Whereas I would characterise order having pattern/predictability/explanation.How else would you categorize chaos and order? — Mariner
Well potency cannot actualize itself - infinite potency (in the absence of act) is just infinite nothing - it doesn't do anything, it cannot do anything. In what sense is potency without act something? In the sense that it could be something if acted upon?Nope. Potency without act is something. Nothing is no thing. In nothing, there is no potency. — Mariner
Well potency cannot actualize itself - infinite potency (in the absence of act) is just infinite nothing - it doesn't do anything, it cannot do anything. — Agustino
In what sense is potency without act something? In the sense that it could be something if acted upon? — Agustino
Well I think it's wrong to say chaos cannot do anything, that's precisely my problem in fact. I view chaos as something that DOES something, but does it without pattern and unpredictably, and quite possibly without reason either.It does not do anything and cannot do anything, but that does not make it "nothing". It makes it "something which cannot do anything". Pretty much congruent with chaos. — Mariner
Yes, I am quite familiar with what Aristotle did there. Basically, there is a category between act (being) and absolute nothing and that is potency.Prime matter (as per Aristotelian usage), or "stuff" for our modern-day sentences, is something. It is undetermined (since any determination is an act), but it is something nonetheless. — Mariner
I don't think so, because in my mind chaos is actually something which acts. That's why I'm confused when you try to tell me that chaos is infinite potency.By the way, chaos as defined in mathematics has very little to do with chaos as used in metaphysics (and in everyday discourse, too). — Mariner
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.