...when we talk about material objects we are talking about matter with form, and form is what is created and destroyed. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is interesting and insightful. I don't think I would ever think of it.

form is what is created and destroyed — Metaphysician Undercover

Does form exist without substance (matter)? This would have to be the case if form is destroyed and matter not. However, if this is the case, then a given form, once destroyed, could never reappear at a later time. By this line of reasoning, destroy but one wheel and forevermore the wheel can never reappear. You don't believe this do you?

If form and substance are inseparable, when a material object is smashed up or vaporized, is there any more destruction of one or the other? Is it that, instead, form and substance are really just reconfigured endlessly?

"God is self-caused" is incoherent because it would mean that God is prior to Himself in time, and that seems to be contradictory. — Metaphysician Undercover

Talk to just about any Christian and she will tell you God exists outside of time.

Talk to just about anyone and she'll tell you God, by definition, cannot have a creator other than God. So God, by some means, must be self-created.

Précisément! Hence, the OP's claim that the philosopher will not find God.

Is philosophy even searching for "God"? I've always thought philosophers seek wisdom (i.e. greater understanding).

Is philosophy even searching for "God"? I've always thought philosophers seek wisdom (i.e. greater understanding). — 180 Proof

Si comprehendis non est deus.

Yes, philosophers are not even looking for "God" so the question of "finding" it is moot. I take Rabbi Abraham Heschel at his word: God is in search of man rather than the other way around.

Yes, philosophers are not even looking for "God" so the question of "finding" it is moot. I take Rabbi Abraham Heschel at his word: God is in search of man rather than the other way around. — 180 Proof

Indeed, one must say then Sophia is seeking man and not the other way round. These kinda strangeness are all part and parcel of our journey which is, as you said, the destination. I should watch some movies.

Indeed, one must say then Sophia is seeking man and not the other way round. — Agent Smith

One must be on the vagabond road freely thinking in order maybe to be found by Sophia rather than hold up warm and dry, well-fed and smug in some cozy destination (dogma) merely believing.

One must be on the vagabond road freely thinking in order maybe to be found by Sophia rather than hold up warm and dry, well-fed and smug in some cozy destination (dogma) merely believing. — 180 Proof

I don't understand why the brain is so god damn important. When a person goes into shock, as due to blood loss, the first organ to be shut off is the brain (we feel faint and eventually pass out), and blood is redirected to the cardiorespiratory system. Perhaps this too is a case exemplified by what you said earlier.

I don't think there's anything that maps to 'the uncreated' in contemporary scientific or philosophical thought. Perhaps you could point to 'the singularity' that preceded the 'big bang' but that is by definition outside the purview of science. Lawrence Krauss' book Universe from Nothing tried to present the quantum vacuum as the source of everything but it was savaged by critics because of his deficient understanding of 'nothing'. (Try saying that without irony.) This is laid out pretty clearly by a philosophical theologian in The Metaphysical Muddle of Lawrence Krauss. He starts by saying:

There is a certain desperation apparent in the attempts of various authors to eliminate God from an account of the origins of the universe. For, at bottom, what motivates such attempts is the desire to overcome the very incompleteness of the scientific project itself - I call it anxiety over contingency. ...
That reality is intelligible is the presupposition of all scientific endeavours: that the intelligibility science proposes is always subject to empirical verification means that science never actually explains existence itself but must submit itself to a reality check against the empirical data. This existential gap between scientific hypotheses and empirical verified judgment points to, in philosophical terms, the contingency of existence. There is no automatic leap from hypothesis to reality that can bypass a "reality check."

(see the article for further detail).

This is not to say that I myself understand what 'the One' or 'the uncreated' or any of the equivalent expressions from philosophy and religion really mean. I'm of the view that accounts of such an understanding rely (as I've said before) on the attainment of 'the unitive vision' (of which perhaps Spinoza's intellectual love of God is an example.) This in turn requires a kind of non-discursive grasp or insight into the nature of being which is very difficult to attain and rarely realised in practice.

That said, this kind of vision is not necessarily theistic in nature, for example, in Buddhist philosophy, there is no suggestion of 'divine union'. Although having said that, the convergences between Buddhist contemplation and Christian mysticism have been often documented by (for example) Thomas Merton and his successors (including the Zen Catholic movement.)

Many deep and difficult issues of interpretation here, of course.

Let me outline a simple reason why a philosopher might not find God.
It is at the simplest a confusion of faith with belief.

If you ask a fan of Ipswich town FC. which is the greatest football club, they will tell you it is Ipswich Town FC. If you ask them about the next game, they will tell you that Ipswich will win. And if you point out that Ipswich almost invariably loses and often come bottom of the league, they will be hurt, but not dismayed. To be a fan is to be a loyal supporter and keep the faith in good times and bad times. To be an Ipswich fan is not wrong as a matter of fact, nor is it even a matter of fact that Ipswich will lose their next game.

It is not that the facts do not matter; the win is all important, and the loss is a heavy blow, but faith covers them both and amplifies them both. Faith is what makes these things matter at all. I am not a football fan, and I couldn't care less about Ipswich Town FC. I can therefore afford to be philosophical about their chances. But the only people who care about my analysis, are the Ipswich fans.

So if you are not a fan of god, you will always miss out on the excitement, and think yourself very wise.

Is philosophy even searching for "God"? I've always thought philosophers seek wisdom (i.e. greater understanding). — 180 Proof

But "God" is one of the greatest mysteries of human existence. So if a philosopher seeks wisdom, then knowing about God would be a high priority. It's the mystery outlined by unenlightened above. What makes people stand up for, and defend in faith until the bitter end, something they know through probability to be incorrect, yet they still have hope for. The common portrayal is that these faithful people are being deceived by someone else, some higher-ups. This is a deception which builds the faith so that the people can be herded like a flock. However, "deception" implies that the deceivers, those "higher-ups", know something which the deceived do not. So to uncover those secrets is fodder for the philosopher.

Does form exist without substance (matter)? — ucarr

It may. Form is what is actual, and matter is potential. The argument from Aristotle is that if there ever was a time when there was potential without any actuality (what is called "prime matter") there would always be potential without actuality because potential with no actuality would not have the capacity to actualize itself. Therefore this would never result in anything actual. But what we find is potential with actuality, matter with form, so pure potential (prime matter) is ruled out. as impossible. Therefore anything eternal must be actual, and form may be prior to matter.

That form is prior to matter is understood in the following way. Each and every occurrence of an object, or material thing, is not a random occurrence of matter, a thing is an organized state of matter, it has a form. By the law of identity a thing is necessarily the thing which it is. It is impossible that a thing is not the thing that it is. So when a thing comes into being, the form of the thing is necessarily prior in time to the material existence of the thing, as the cause of, or reason why the thing is the thing which it is, and not something else.

However, if this is the case, then a given form, once destroyed, could never reappear at a later time. By this line of reasoning, destroy but one wheel and forevermore the wheel can never reappear. You don't believe this do you? — ucarr

Of course I believe that. Each object, wheel in your example, is unique, with a proper identity all to itself, as indicated by the law of identity. When one material object is destroyed it will never reappear, time does not repeat itself.

Talk to just about any Christian and she will tell you God exists outside of time. — ucarr

There is a little trick of equivocation in respect to the meaning of "time" which might help to understand this problem. By materialist principles the concept of "time" is tied to the activities of material things. If material things are moving, time is passing. Therefore under this conception of "time" there is no time without material things. God however, being the creator or cause, of material things, must be prior to material things and is therefore "outside of time" according to this conception of "time". That of course appears to be incoherent, to have something (God) which is prior in time, (as the cause of time), to time itself.

But this just demonstrates that there is a problem with the materialist conception of "time". When "time" is tied to the material existence of things, in that way, the possibility of time which is prior to the occurrence of material things is ruled out. Then the actuality (form) which is necessarily prior to material objects as the cause of their existence, is rendered unintelligible, as "an act" without time is incoherent.

Therefore to understand the theological conception of "God", as creator of material existence, it is necessary to dismiss that faulty conception of "time" which places God as outside of time. Aristotle's arguments showed God to be eternal, as outside time, by that conception of "time". This made it impossible to properly apprehend or understand God, "God" being incoherent, as an activity or cause which is outside of time, i.e. prior to time. However, the logic which places activity, or actuality, (Form) , as prior to the material existence of things, is sound. This indicates that the conception of "time" which ties it to the material existence of things is faulty. Nevertheless, that conception of "time" persists in most technical usage of "time", and "God" remains unintelligible to most educated people.

Précisément! Hence, the OP's claim that the philosopher will not find God — Agent Smith

If that's true, Augustine was no philosopher, as he thought he--more than anyone--had found him.

If that's true, Augustine was no philosopher, as he thought he--more than anyone--had found him — Ciceronianus

The OP is quite clear as to why philosophers will fail ... in the quest for God. I don't know if St. Augustine was a philosopher or not, I'm not familiar with his work.

Overview – We’re examining the form/substance relationship. The important questions of the role of time, persistence and God are also thrown into the mix.

...what we find is... matter with form... — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Our empirical experience of reality always finds form and substance interwoven. Do you have any empirical experience of form and substance in separation?

I argue that: form without substance is an unreachable abstraction; substance without form is an unintelligible chaos. This leads to the claim that form and substance are essential attributes of existence.

There is the question “Does language, by naming them separately, artificially separate form and substance?” If this is the case, then probably debating issues that separate them is just an undecidable word game. Each side can make endless arguments for their priority, respectively, thus demonstrating their equivalence WRT priority.

By this line of reasoning, destroy but one wheel and forevermore the wheel can never reappear. — ucarr

Let me make sure we’re not sinking into a type/token confusion here.

In my above quote, I’m talking about destruction of form of wheel as a generality, as a type of form. That means destruction of all possible actualizations of said form. After such a destruction – which I think not possible – no particular, empirically real wheel could ever appear.

Each object, wheel in your example, is unique, with a proper identity all to itself, as indicated by the law of identity — Metaphysician Undercover

Your above quote tells me you’re talking about form of wheel as a token and not as a type.

By materialist principles the concept of "time" is tied to the activities of material things. If material things are moving, time is passing. Therefore under this conception of "time" there is no time without material things. God however, being the creator or cause, of material things, must be prior to material things and is therefore "outside of time" according to this conception of "time". That of course appears to be incoherent, to have something (God) which is prior in time, (as the cause of time), to time itself. — Metaphysician Undercover

In making your argument here, you’re presupposing God is in time and, moreover, that time WRT God is insuperable. You need firstly to establish the logical necessity of this supposition. If you can do this you will then be in position to establish the logical necessity of “God prior to time” being incoherent.

But this just demonstrates that there is a problem with the materialist conception of "time". When "time" is tied to the material existence of things, in that way, the possibility of time which is prior to the occurrence of material things is ruled out. Then the actuality (form) which is necessarily prior to material objects as the cause of their existence, is rendered unintelligible, as "an act" without time is incoherent. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is Platonic idealism. At its center stands Plato’s realm of ideal forms, of which material likenesses within the everyday world are imperfect and transient copies.

Clearly, you think tokens of form can be destroyed, but not the postulated Platonic types from which they’re supposedly derived.

This throws us into examination of the “essence precedes existence” premise.

As a metaphysician, you’re a Platonist, an objective idealist.

So, you think time is metaphysical in the sense of immaterial. Also, you’re a dualist in the sense of immaterial things, forms, being the causes of material objects.

Once God is confined to time, some questions arise: “Did time precede God?” “If time precedes God, doesn’t that imply God has a cause other than God?” “If God and time are co-eternal, doesn’t that imply time was not caused by God, a contradiction of God as creator of all?”

"God" is one of the greatest mysteries of human existence. So if a philosopher seeks wisdom, then knowing about God would be a high priority. — Metaphysician Undercover

What we "know about" (which?) "God" is that it is "the greatest mystery" – the (ultimate) inexplicable "answer" to every question that begs them all. Recognizing that "God" does not explain anything (re: mythos) is what motivated the Presocratic proto-scientists (physiologoi) in Ionia & Elea to speculate on rational explanations (logos) of nature (phusis) and our minds (nous). IMO, to seek explicable wisdom is incompatible with seeking inexplicable "God".

Yes. Our empirical experience of reality always finds form and substance interwoven. Do you have any empirical experience of form and substance in separation?

I argue that: form without substance is an unreachable abstraction; substance without form is an unintelligible chaos. This leads to the claim that form and substance are essential attributes of existence. — ucarr

Why have you replaced my word, "matter" with "substance"? There is nothing to prevent the conception of substance without matter, such as the conception of independent Forms. So form without matter might be substance without matter. Matter is not essential to substance.

In making your argument here, you’re presupposing God is in time and, moreover, that time WRT God is insuperable. You need firstly to establish the logical necessity of this supposition. If you can do this you will then be in position to establish the logical necessity of “God prior to time” being incoherent. — ucarr

I told you the logic of this. God acts as a cause of the material world. Any act requires time to occur. Therefore the idea that God is prior to time, is inconsistent with the idea of God having actual existence, or God as the actual creator of the world. Therefore to think of God in both ways, as creator, and as prior to time, is incoherent.

"God" is one of the greatest mysteries of human existence. So if a philosopher seeks wisdom, then knowing about God would be a high priority.
— Metaphysician Undercover
What we "know about" (which?) "God" is that it is "the greatest mystery" – the (ultimate) inexplicable "answer" to every question that begs them all. Recognizing that "God" does not explain anything (re: mythos) is what motivated the Presocratic proto-scientists (physiologoi) in Ionia & Elea to speculate on rational explanations (logos) of nature (phusis) and our minds (nous). IMO, to seek explicable wisdom is incompatible with seeking inexplicable "God". — 180 Proof

True mon ami, very true. Story-telling (mythology) must've be a really big deal to prephilosophical/prescientific cultures. It was their way of grasping (explaining) reality and it probably satisfied their curiosity, especially that of the younglings, more inquisitive but equally credulous/gullible.

The shift to natural explanations took place, as per Wikipedia, with Thales of Miletus at the head of the pack. The rest is history of course.

Instead, the pursuit of God is a deeply personal and meaningful journey that is often based on faith and intuition rather than logic. — gevgala

It's worth noting that intuition, like instinct, can be valid/correct/useful despite not being able to put precise or exacting words to it. You don't know why or how exactly you feel something to be true, and yet in some cases it is true.

Thus intuition and the subconscious are very closely linked. I do think the subconscious has a set of knowledge, beliefs and level of awareness that the conscious mind cannot directly access and yet is still influenced by.

Intuition is like the deep, visceral, yet permeating voiceless guide that says "yes there is something not quite right about that person, they are unsettling, don't trust them, stay alert" or "yes, this is the right choice for your career, you know this is what you want despite all the reasons against it."

This is why we often use the heart as a stand-in for the source of intuition and the brain as the one for logic.
You dont have proof of how you know. You cannot articulate it. But you do know it.

Intuition of course can also be wrong. Just as some logics are correct and others are erroneous as they presume something, or forgot to factor something into the logical process. Hence why so many plausible theories (ones that seem logical) fail when tested.

Logics can contradict one another (logical paradoxes). Intuition in these cases may be yet another tool to overcome such obstacles.

What we "know about" (which?) "God" is that it is "the greatest mystery" – the (ultimate) inexplicable "answer" to every question that begs them all. Recognizing that "God" does not explain anything (re: mythos) is what motivated the Presocratic proto-scientists (physiologoi) in Ionia & Elea to speculate on rational explanations (logos) of nature (phusis) and our minds (nous). IMO, to seek explicable wisdom is incompatible with seeking inexplicable "God". — 180 Proof

Wow that's a really great insight. Got me thinking a lot.

The philosopher is not seeking God and so to say the philosopher will not find god is like saying the doctor will not find the bomb.

I don't understand why the brain is so god damn important. When a person goes into shock, as due to blood loss, the first organ to be shut off is the brain (we feel faint and eventually pass out), — Agent Smith

On the contrary, perhaps the brain is so important because it is the first thing to suffer when the body is in a state of crisis. Of all the body components, is the most sensitive to change. Because it is so complex, and thus demands so much control to maintain its function.

The top of the pyramid (brain) certainly crumbles when the base (body) is eroded. The base of the pyramid does not neccesarily fall if the top is eroded. Its a hierarchy of stability and order. The most susceptible to change is the most perceptive which is good. But also the most vulnerable.

Possible. Really, nothing can be ruled out can it?

Possible. Really, nothing can be ruled out can it? — Agent Smith

It seems not for now :)

:up:

Why have you replaced my word, "matter" with "substance"? — Metaphysician Undercover

No important reason. I'm accustomed to form and substance as a set. I perceive form and matter as being interchangeable.

It's true substance has a meaning other than matter. It can mean quality.

Do you think quality has form? More generally, do you think abstractions have form?

Any act requires time to occur. — Metaphysician Undercover

Self-creation of God took time to occur?

that God is prior to time... is inconsistent with the idea of God having actual existence... — Metaphysician Undercover

Time predates God?

Possibility needs to be demonstrated, not assumed. The default position(Null hypothesis) is to reject the possibility of a claim until facts can falsify our initial rejection. An example I used in the past was that of Alchemy. Alchemists spent time and resources to turn lead in to gold when our current knowledge informs us that the chemical transmutation of elements impossible. So there is a price to pay when someone thinks that there is nothing to lose when accepting a "deepity".

The philosopher is not seeking God and so to say the philosopher will not find god is like saying the doctor will not find the bomb — Agent Smith

My take on that would be that "the philosopher shouldn't seek God until he has access to objective epistemology pointing to the existence and ontology of God(s).

:up:

Let me outline a simple reason why a philosopher might not find God.
It is at the simplest a confusion of faith with belief.

If you ask a fan of Ipswich town FC. which is the greatest football club, they will tell you it is Ipswich Town FC. If you ask them about the next game, they will tell you that Ipswich will win. And if you point out that Ipswich almost invariably loses and often come bottom of the league, they will be hurt, but not dismayed. To be a fan is to be a loyal supporter and keep the faith in good times and bad times. To be an Ipswich fan is not wrong as a matter of fact, nor is it even a matter of fact that Ipswich will lose their next game.

It is not that the facts do not matter; the win is all important, and the loss is a heavy blow, but faith covers them both and amplifies them both. Faith is what makes these things matter at all. I am not a football fan, and I couldn't care less about Ipswich Town FC. I can therefore afford to be philosophical about their chances. But the only people who care about my analysis, are the Ipswich fans.

So if you are not a fan of god, you will always miss out on the excitement, and think yourself very wise. — unenlightened

-I think your conclusion has a huge problem.Your conclusion is not supported by your example.
First issue with your example is that the both results(win-loss) on the next game are possible. That is not true for god. We don't know whether such an agent is possible.
Second issue, not all fans are blind to the facts of their team and not all fans of the opponent team believe they will win. You are adopting an extreme position to make your case.
There are fans that acknowledge strengths and weaknesses in both teams, are aware of the previous matches,how they performed and they are willing to inform their expectations accordingly.
In the case of the God claim, we don't have only two positions (fans of god vs not fans). We have skeptics, scientists, agnostics gnostics etc etc.
In order to choose the reasonable Default position we only need to evaluate the claims, take it to account the available facts (if they are any) and use the rules of logic, avoid fallacies to arrive to best informed thesis.

It's an analogy, that you are taking literally in order to try and undermine.

So I'll try a different one. I am a fan of justice. This does not mean I think justice exists, it means I am committed to the cause; I strive for justice, i cheer for it. And you can explain that life is complicated and knowledge is never absolutely certain so on, so I am wrong to think there can be perfect justice, but you will be missing the point, as you have missed my previous point.

In order to choose the reasonable Default position we only need to evaluate the claims... — Nickolasgaspar

This is why a philosopher cannot find god; he cannot make a commitment to anything, but must always be weighing and evaluating and reasoning. It's a very good recipe for thinking, but a very poor one for living.