Tom, you just labeled me a newbie, crank, and dogmatist. — Joe Mello

Well I can see that 2 of the 3 fit pretty well. I myself am a crank, but I was a newbie.

You seem to like jumping to conclusions, I though that was a no-no in philosophy.

Wayfarer, thanks for the welcome.

The only thing I have to say to you, because you're certainly heading in the right direction, is coming to know the absolute truth about our existence is absolutely knowable. Most persons believe that everyone is simply opinionated because most persons don't sacrifice enough in the pursuit of absolute truth.

And it takes great sacrifice.

For just as we cannot see two sides of a coin at the same time, we cannot see absolute truth and our opinions at the same time.

In a word, God will not interrupt us when we are speaking to ourselves.

Garrett, your trust in your thinking is scary — Joe Mello

And you don’t see any of yourself in Garrett? For Garrett, rationality itself is the godhead, and for you, an omnipotent being is the godhead of rationality. These are two sides of the same rigid doctrinaire coin.

just as we cannot see two sides of a coin at the same time, we cannot see absolute truth and our opinions at the same time. — Joe Mello

Indeed.

A philosophy forum should be populated, at least, mostly with people who studied philosophy well enough to reason out basic logical problems. — Joe Mello

I suspect if you stick it out here long enough you may discover that 180’s background in modern philosophy is likely considerably more extensive than yours.

an infinite line of finite things is illogical.

An omnipotent God is not finite and therefore the only thing that could exist infinitely. — Joe Mello

It seems to me that an omnipotent God can only express its omnipotence within a universe of finite things and a universe without finite things would be unchanging and dead.

And, in saying this, I'm setting up where I will be coming from, which is not a materialistic view of the Universe (and ultimately Us) springing up autonomously and evolving unaided. — Joe Mello

My view is similar. Materialism only takes us so far. Not considering other possibilities seems to me to be generally unphilosophical.

Show me a scientific discovery where a scientist combines things and creates a totally different and greater thing. An ice cube is not it. — Joe Mello

So what? That makes your "principle" right?? Wtf?Show me a scientific discovery that proves what you are saying then, if that's how it goes. What kind of reasoning is that?? Don't you see the logical gap here?
Sorry but since science can't prove or disprove your hypothesis, makes it a simple opinion,despite how much you don't like it. Science set the principles not you.

No combination of lesser things can create a greater thing without something greater than the greater thing added to the lesser things. — Joe Mello

This principle seems false. Lots of little things can be combined to make a greater thing. A house of cards has greater complexity than any one of the cards composing it.

I do not find cheese by itself to be particularly nice, or tomato by itself, or bread by itself, or basil leaves by themselves. But combined as a pizza they become great. That greatness is nowhere to be found in the ingredients, but only in their combination.

If the word 'greater' is being used in a moral sense, as in 'morally better' then it also seems false, as immoral behaviour can sometimes create a morally good outcome. Imagine, for instance, that Dave believes substance x will poison and kill Jennifer and so he puts it in her drink out of a sadistic desire to kill her. That was immoral. Yet substance x is in fact the cure to a disease that Jennifer has and so Jennifer's life is prolonged and improved by what Dave did to her. Well, that's good - great! Dave's immoral action produced a morally good outcome. Out of some evil, some goodness has come.

And then there's God himself. God is omnipotent and so can do anything, which means that God has the power to make himself 'not God' - that is, the power to divest himself of some of his power, or knowledge, or goodness - yet at the same time give himself the ability to become God again. Well, if he exercises that ability, then there would exist a person who is less than God, yet is able to become God. And were that person then to exercise that power, we would have a combination of lesser things - a person who is less than God combined with an ability to become God - creating a greater thing: God.

I believe in God as firmly as can be, but I would counsel against any and all attempts to show that God's existence is mandated by the universe or by some principle, for that is to think that there is something above God that dictates to him. God does not exist of necessity. Exists, yes. But not 'of necessity', for that would be no God at all, but a creature who lacks the power not to exist. The creature who authors those principles - the ones that dictate God exists - would be the real power, and yet it is a manifest contradiction to suppose that there could exist a being more powerful than an omnipotent being. Therefore, God is the author of the laws of Reason and is not subject to them.

Using the example of life evolving from the elements, the metaphysical principle I provided can be thought upon like this:

Taking physical elements and adding to them a lesser thing, such as light, to create a living being would be an absurdity.

Taking physical elements and adding to them an equal thing, such as other elements, to create a living being would be an impossibility.

Taking physical elements and adding to them a greater thing, such as a living being, to create a living being would be a redundancy. — Joe Mello

The idea that things combined cannot create something greater depends on a notion of the natural
world as material objects in motion , which is an outdated idea from the vantage of many scientists and philosophers. Of course you are right , given the assumption that reality is physical objects in causal interaction. But more recent views on the nature of the real grounds things in interactions. It is the interaction that is primary, not the object. Time is the key ingredient in all interactions, which means that something creative and novel emerges from every event. This is why you cannot unfry an egg. And novelty begets novelty. If this is a god at work, it is a god that is continually surprised by what they produce, because their product talks back to them. It would be a god constantly changed by what it creates, rather than an omniscient blueprint simply reproducing itself in the world.

This is interesting. I don't have nearly as much training or professional background as you do, but I can appreciate what you're saying here. Thank you for bringing the words together that you have.

I too am looking forward to our discussions.

T Clark, show me where you have discussed this principle before. — Joe Mello

Emergence is not a philosophical principle, it's a scientific one, although it is not fully accepted. It has been discussed lots of times here on the forum, although I can't remember a specific discussion. Here's a link to a well-known paper - "More is Different" by P.W. Anderson.

https://www.tkm.kit.edu/downloads/TKM1_2011_more_is_different_PWA.pdf

life evolving from the elements — Joe Mello

Taking physical elements and adding to them an equal thing, such as other elements, to create a living being would be an impossibility. — Joe Mello

Life did not "evolve from the elements." Darwin was very clear that he did not know how life began and his theory has nothing to say about it. His theory of evolution by natural selection only applies to, oddly enough, the origins of species, i.e. changes in populations of organisms, by natural selection.

Our understanding of how life developed from non-living matter is not as well-established as Darwinian evolution, but scientists are making progress. Suggested reading - "Life's Ratchet" by Peter Hoffmann.

Show me a scientific discovery where a scientist combines things and creates a totally different and greater thing. An ice cube is not it. — ""Joe

A better example than an ice cube is a poetic metaphor, which produces a new meaning from prior linguistic elements.

human beings are the spokespersons for reality. There are no others.

Knowledge is the adventure of a lifetime when we seek it through talent, humility, sacrifice, experience, and so much more that the gift of our humanity has provided us.

I have found that a skeptic likes to look up into outer space because he has never discovered the greatness right where he stands, within himself.

Your ignorance of your own greatness will keep you from the knowledge of who you actually are until you breathe your last breath in this body and this knowledge is revealed to you in the next instant — Joe Mello

You're in need of lots of philosophical therapy. Stick around.

Only an omnipotent infinite being can be the logical beginning of a finite universe. — Joe Mello

(1) How do you know that the universe had a "beginning"? (Define "beginning" in this context just so I'm clear what you're talking about, Joe.)

(2) How do you know that the universe is "finite"? (Define which fundamental aspects of the universe are "finite" or if you mean it's "finite" in every fundamental aspect.)

(3) The universe is physical (regardless of whatever else it may be) and, insofar as it has a "beginning", so doesn't it follow logically that that "beginning" is also physical rather than "logical"?

(4) Also, when you say "logical beginning", which system of logic (e.g. Aristotlean? classical? mathematical? paraconsistent? deviant?) are you assuming is at work in (your) cosmogeny?

(5) How do you, Joe, validly infer from a "finite universe" to "an omnipotent infinite being" when conclusions cannot contain more – especially "infinitely" more – than is contained implicitly in their premises?

(6) Laatly, how does the answering with a greater mystery (e.g. "omnipotent infinite being") not merely beg the question of a comparatively lesser great mystery (e.g. "beginning of the universe")?

:chin:

180, a multi-universe is illogical

I'll begin taking statements like this seriously, Joe, if you answer at least one of my questions above in either a sufficiently scientific or coherently metaphysical manner. I'm quite confident from reading your posts that you haven't a clue as to what "a multi-universe" refers to. :roll:

A philosophy forum should be populated, at least, mostly with people who studied philosophy well enough to reason out basic logical problems.

:lol: It is, as you say, "mostly" ...

show me where you have discussed this principle before. — Joe Mello

Here's a link to a well-known paper - "More is Different" by P.W. Anderson. — T Clark

Forgot to include the link I referenced -

https://www.tkm.kit.edu/downloads/TKM1_2011_more_is_different_PWA.pdf

Contrary to what he aimed to demonstrate, Newton's physics work without the hand of God. — Fooloso4

Actually, Newton said his first law of motion requires the will of God. The fact that something existed in a specific way in the past, doesn't necessitate that it will continue to exist that way in the future. This is very similar to the problem with induction, in general.

Bartricks, God is the necessary being for the physical universe, and us, to exist. You have put the cart before the horse. I didn't say that God is mandated by the principle. You're confused.

Joshs, please don't be a cheerleader for somebody else unless you look good in a short skirt.

And you have displayed just silly notions of God, not anything profound.

If God created a world equal to himself, he would have to create himself.

A doorknob is perfect if it opens a door.

And God is perfect if he created a universe that works very well for the pinnacle of it, the human being, to live and to grow and to learn and to become great and to fail and to be free and to do so much else.

And God did, so he is.

180, I don't do well with bullet points.

And God isn't a "mystery" to me in the least.

After 7 years as a mystic letting God do the talking, and acquiring a scholastic education at the same time, belief became knowledge, and the mystery became truth.

And (this is the best part) truth became love.

magritte, I was a counselor for 12 years, so I was a therapist for 12 years.

And you forgot to show me where I went wrong in placing a human being at the pinnacle of creation.

Is it a dolphin?

A star?

Please tell me your profound discovery of creation's greatest reality.

It's the human personality, by the way.

I'm not remotely confused.

You agree, then, that God does not exist of necessity? God exists, but has the ability not to? And you agree, do you, that God can create something less great than God? That is, you agree, do you, that God can turn himself into something less great than God? And you agree, do you, that God can turn himself into something less great than God, but with the ability to become God again? And you agree, do you, that this lesser being could then turn itself into God, and thus that the lesser can create the greater, contrary to what you claimed?

God isn't necessary for the universe to exist. The universe can exist and God can exist and God can not have created the universe. And indeed, given the rather crappy nature of the universe it stands to reason that God did not create it, or us.

praxis, the physical universe is made up of only finite things. Nothing else.

But God's omnipotence is seen in the manner these finite things move and have their being.

For example, the Universe is moving outward from a single point in every direction, and with an ever-increasing speed.

Dark Energy is the physical force behind this movement of the Universe. And, although it is a finite power, it is acting like an infinite power. For how can a finite power move an object without that object slowing down after a time?

T Clark, you are providing examples of more complexity, not greater things.

A more complex molecule is still a molecule, not a living being ... not a thought.

Batricks, you're attempting to reason about God without doing the work it takes to do it well.

God does exist out of necessity, for nothing could exist without God.

We exist because he exists. We think because he thinks. We love because he loves. Etc.

And to see the imperfections in creation as a problem for the existence of God is to not know the value of the freedom that is the greatest gift to creation.

What good would it be for us to have been given, without any effort or growth or achievement on our part, a perfect life from birth?

We don't exist to exist, but exist to become like God, our father. And he receives his greatest glory through his children who become fully alive, just like any father does.

I wouldn't want it any other way. My joys are what they are only because of the sorrows that come and go.

the physical universe is made up of only finite things. Nothing else. — Joe Mello

Then if God exists, God is a finite thing. That’s rather disappointing. :sad:

praxis, go be a fool someplace else.

Oh, I see, God is not physical. Stupid stupid stupid me. I suppose that if God isn’t physical then nothing God does is finite. Doesn’t that meaning that it is impossible to do anything, since nothing God does can have a beginning or end?

Batricks, you're attempting to reason about God without doing the work it takes to do it well. — Joe Mello

Oh, I've done the work. I'm the most qualified person here, I assure you.

God does exist out of necessity, for nothing could exist without God. — Joe Mello

If God exists of necessity, then he can't not exist. And if he can't not exist, then he's not God, for there's something he can't do.

And you have just asserted that nothing could exist without God. You've made no case. Take you, for example. You are ignorant, are you not? Why would God create someone like you? If he created you, that'd be to his discredit. Yet you exist. So you did not need God in order to exist. Indeed, God would be insulted to have you credit yourself to him.

We exist because he exists. We think because he thinks. We love because he loves. Etc. — Joe Mello

Bollocks. Provide an argument. (Are we cruel because he's cruel? Do some of us rape because he rapes?).

What good would it be for us to have been given, without any effort or growth or achievement on our part, a perfect life from birth? — Joe Mello

Is God good? If you think being perfect without effort or growth is bad, then God is bad, no? Or less than perfect - becoming increasingly apparent that you don't really believe in God, but some imperfect hobbled creature who can't not exist.

We don't exist to exist, but exist to become like God, our father. And he receives his greatest glory through his children who become fully alive, just like any father does. — Joe Mello

The monks did a number on you, didn't they? Again, total bollocks. We exist with aseity, just as God does. Again, you think God would create you?? When you see a shitty doodle do you think 'ah, another Leonardo da vinci"? You're living in a world filled with imperfect people and you think God created them?!? Absurd and insulting to God. What have you done today God? Well, I've created some rapists and liars and murderers. And i have also created a universe and I am going to put the rapists and liars and murderers and all manner of other bungled and botched people into a world within it and furnish them with next to no knowledge of that world at all and let them flounder about it in it raping and lying and murdering each other. "Er, why?" I dunno - maybe some of them will learn love me or something.

Very silly, isn't it?

years of disciplined thinking, — Joe Mello

I have not seen any of this vaunted disciplined thinking so far in your posts. You just keep making smug assertions without justification and then accusing others of doing the same thing. Claiming other people's opinions are absurd, impossible, or illogical is not an argument.

a single wise person — Joe Mello

Nothing you have claimed so far has struck me as wise. If you are a wise person, your arguments so far have not shown it.

A philosophy forum should be populated, at least, mostly with people who studied philosophy well enough to reason out basic logical problems. — Joe Mello

Your argument so far has not shown any great talent for logic. You just keep repeating your assertions and calling them logical without demonstrating a chain of logical inference. Again, that's not an argument.

a multi-universe is illogical. There cannot be an infinite line of finite things. — Joe Mello

The two current theories that speculate on the existence of a multiverse do not require that it be infinite.

you forgot to show me where I went wrong in placing a human being at the pinnacle of creation. — Joe Mello

Here on the forum we usually expect people who make a claim to provide justification. It's not our job to show you where you went wrong. You're supposed to show why you're right. You haven't.

A more complex molecule is still a molecule, not a living being ... not a thought. — Joe Mello

You're saying I'm wrong without providing justification. Your just saying "Oh, yeah?" Well, yeah. There's a theme in all my comments - you don't provide justification, you just make unsupported claims.

A suggestion and request - If you will use the forums standard methods for referencing other peoples posts, it will be easier to respond. There are two methods. The simplest is to just use the "reply" button, the arrow at the bottom of each post next to the time marker. It doesn't show up unless you run the curser over it. The second, and more helpful, is to highlight the specific text you are referencing and then push the "quote" button that will show up following the highlighting.

Either method will notify the poster that you have responded and identify the text you are responding to.

go be a fool someplace else. — Joe Mello

@praxis has a history of making intelligent and useful posts here on the forum. You have... not.