PS4 Gamer — Sapientia

All you need to do is read the first section of Summa Theologica. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have. There's no need to patronize.

"Existence" participates in "God", such that God necessarily exists. But just like an animal is not necessarily a human being, existence is not necessarily God. — Metaphysician Undercover

But this seems to propose that there is something outside of God, namely existence. That's not something classical theists would want to maintain.

Aquinas recognizes that existence is something which God has, while you claim God and existence are one and the same thing. To say that God necessarily has the property of existence, because this is God's essence, is not the same thing as equating God and existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

I get this. What I still don't get is the purpose of the five proofs (or any other proofs a classical theist might concoct). What are they proving? That God possesses a property called existence? But that already presupposes that God exists, which is what the proofs are meant to demonstrate. It's a circular mess.

To define "God" as necessarily existing, is to say that God could not be conceived of in any other way than existing. This would be to conceive of something other than God. — Metaphysician Undercover

According to Aquinas. But why should I accept his conception of God? You conveniently ignored that question.

They're not describing a specimen in a bottle. — Wayfarer

No, they're just defining a different one into existence.

Being isn't a being. Existence isn't an existent. Existents are in existence. Existence isn't itself in existence. — Agustino

This is counter-intuitive to me. I don't know how I would object to it at the moment, but it just seems off.

We can but we're not too sure what we mean when we say it. — Agustino

Well hold on. You just got done saying that existence isn't itself in existence. If so, then Aquinas shouldn't be saying that God exists, period. You don't get off the hook by saying "we don't know what we mean when we say this." If you mean to say that existence isn't in existence, then God, as existence itself, cannot be in existence; hence it is impossible to prove that he is; hence also, and once again, my bafflement over the fact that he does proceed to try and prove just this.

God is a being — Metaphysician Undercover

No, he doesn't permit the indefinite article here, so far as I can tell. That's precisely the trap the classical theist wants to avoid.

I think you have provided a somewhat inverted and I believe, invalid interpretation. — Metaphysician Undercover

Great, then show me a passage in Aquinas or some other classical theist to this effect and I might believe you.

So the position is not that God must exist because God is existence, the claim is that God must exist because the very definition of "God" is that the being referred to by "God" exists. — Metaphysician Undercover

Does this not amount to the same thing? I ask anyone reading this to explain the difference here.

"Big Foot" is not defined as existing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually, I did just define him in such a way. Unless you're going to tell me that God has only one unambiguous definition, then my stipulation about Big Foot is perfectly justified. If you still don't like it, I could make up a word, like "fdjh" and say that this is defined as existing. How would you dispute that?

But who do you think knows better how to define God, a theologian such as Aquinas, or an atheist? — Metaphysician Undercover

That is indeed the question! Why should I accept Aquinas's definition and not another kind of theist's definition, or an atheist's definition? Who knows.

Can being itself be at all in any sense? — John

It's my view that it must be.

So, the being of a being is not something additional to the being, as a predicate would be additional to that which it is predicated of, then? — John

Yeah, I think so.

Remember that Ms. Ali rose to prominence in Dutch government based on claims she suffered abuses in a Muslim country, then, just when she was exposed by Dutch journalists that evidence showed that her real life story was completely different than what she claimed, she left the country to help right-wing extremists fan anti-Islamic sentiment in the US. They probably don't mind her criticism, (they are quick to criticize Islam, too), but she represents a trend toward racism. — swstephe

This is an outright smear. Nothing in her history shows her to be supportive of "right wing extremists" (I suspect you've set the bar rather low for this) or racism. Quite the opposite in fact.

No I suppose not. — Mongrel

X-)

I agree. Among world religions, Islam is the least amenable to the ideas of a secular state and freedom of speech, expression, and religion. This doesn't mean it has to be this way, as I think it does have the resources to change its disposition regarding such things, but nothing will change unless and until ordinary Muslims begin to change their views en masse. The so called "moderate Muslim," whom we should be defending, is a bit of an endangered species and under a double assault from both the fundamentalists in their religion and certain secular leftists who like to speak on behalf of all Muslims and thereby drown out voices other than the fundamentalist status quo.

I think that's a mischaracterization. — Mongrel

Nothing you said shows how it's a mischaracterization.

I know what you mean. What rank are you?

8-) (Y) How could I forget the Witcher series? Added.

Looks like that Oxford one is pretty expensive. What do you like about it? And is it a dictionary or what?

I can start by saying that right now I'm playing:

Battlefield 1 (really fun)
LotRO (technically been playing it off and on since it came out)
ESO
LoL (ditto)

>:O (Y)

Get a hold of yourself, man!

euphonious — csalisbury

God-y — csalisbury

auto-affectively — csalisbury

pathe — csalisbury

:-O

Pantheism is the belief that all of reality is identical with divinity, How does "Deus sit ipsum esse subsistens." separate or differentiate itself from such a claim or does it? — Cavacava

If by "all of reality" you mean "the sum total of all the things that exist," then, because God is not a thing, God is different from all of reality.

As of now I will say that contemporary theistic personalists see classical theistic conceptions of God as incorrect, usually based upon Scriptures, although there are some theological arguments brought up. — darthbarracuda

Despite the disagreement I have with classical theism that I sketch above, I do still tend to side more with it than with theistic personalism.

Is the totality of being the totality of beings, or something else besides? — John

Being itself seems to be something else besides the totality of being or beings.

Is the being of anything something separate from, or additional to, the thing? — John

I tend to agree with Kant that existence is not a predicate.

Is there any being where there isn't a being? — John

I don't think I understand the question.

Is being an idea, a quality, an entity or...what? — John

I have no idea.

Being itself cannot be said to be, because otherwise it would be a being . Similarly existence cannot be said to exist, because if it did it would be an existence or an existent. — John

Interesting. This may be one way classical theists would attempt to answer my objection, since I want to say that being itself cannot but be.

I would maybe reference Tillich's concept of God as the "ground of being", or "God above God" — Noble Dust

I like Tillich but find the use of the word "God" to describe "the ground of being" superfluous. The ground of being is, to me, just another way of phrasing Kant's thing-in-itself.

But Being itself isn't found within Being. Rather, it is Being. — Agustino

But this seems to say that being is being, which is a tautology.

we don't know what we mean and what we say when we say God exists — Agustino

According to what you have said and to classical theism as I understand it, we can't say God exists; hence my curiosity that classical theists like Aquinas still proceed to concoct proofs that he does.

For example, what does it have to do with anything said of God in the Bible? Being/existence itself, overall, that is, isn't sentient, it doesn't react to things, etc. That's limited to particular entities that exist. — Terrapin Station

Yes, well stated! This is another of my criticisms. I fail to understand the leap made from this vague God as being itself to the seemingly intelligent, personal character of God in the Bible or the Quran, one who has plans, gets angry, talks to people through burning bushes, etc.

Its a wonderful and rich history, much of it trying to respond in different ways to the ways in which God can relate to Creation without simply dissolving Him into it. Basically, while the identity of God and Being does 'solve' certain theological problems, it tends to actually open up a whole host of new ones. — StreetlightX

Indeed, well said.

You can do a thing of making God/Being the reservoir of potentiality and sustainer of relations(so the source of novelty, free will/desire & order) and then 'creation' is simply the actual, or existent - bodies in space. — csalisbury

You mean like in an Aristotelian sense? That would certainly reverse what people like Aquinas say, which is that God is pure actuality, not potentiality.

Materialism is ultimately no basis for any real metaphysic. Even the word metaphysic itself highlights this. — Noble Dust

I'm aware of the etymology of the word. I'm using it in the sense of a theory of the nature of the world. So materialism is one metaphysical theory.

your sass doesn't accomplish anything though. — Noble Dust

Actually it did. Look:

Fair enough, there's some opinion in my post. — Noble Dust

DAPL, Trump's election, systemic racism, Syria, other problems in other countries like Brexit — Noble Dust

Oh, so all of these are problems? Most informative.

the courtroom-language of Protestantism, which provides the backdrop for how the Conservative right thinks about the world — Noble Dust

Not all conservatives are Protestants.

The atheistic conception of human equality has no real metaphysical basis — Noble Dust

Actually it does. It's most often materialism.

The question for me is how forgiveness can be brought about in the real world — Noble Dust

It can't, without human beings fundamentally changing their nature.

Most religions and ethical culture groups (i.e. humanists), tend to think that part of our purpose here is to redeem the world. — schopenhauer1

Redeeming the world is different from personal redemption. I find that the latter is always prioritized and seen as a kind of prerequisite for the former.

kind of P.C. version — schopenhauer1

What?

Why do people need to be born into the world in order to redeem it? — schopenhauer1

Why indeed! This is a very important question. I would say that they quite clearly don't, and I think many religions would actually agree, if you read between the lines.

So, this whole "God is love" thing seems grammatically incorrect. Either that or there's equivocation at play here. — Michael

It's a rather vague phrase, certainly. It's from 1 John 4:8. Here's the full verse, which explains why I phrased it the way I did: "He who does not love does not know God; for God is love."

Yeah, that's another way of putting it, one that ends up sounding distinctly more like the doctrine of theosis, so Agustino might like it.

God is love, ergo, to love is to know God.
Sex is a form of love.
Therefore sex allows one to know God.

It seems Heister and Agustino disagree on the second premise. Is sex a form of love? I say no. It's neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for love.

apart of course from worrying what will happen to the child? — Agustino

Well, there are things called orphanages, which have existed for a very long time and still do. Are they as ideal as having a mother and a father? No. But they serve their purpose adequately enough, if they are properly supported.

The state shouldn't choose between the two evils. — Agustino

The state has an obligation to protect the life, liberty, and property of the individuals within it. That includes the fetus of the raped woman, so the state would have every right to make her carry the pregnancy to term. The child need not be raised by her, but it ought not to be prevented from being born.

So you don't see having to carry and raise the child of a man who raped you as an evil? — Agustino

No.

Why? — Agustino

Answering this might take us too far down a rabbit trail. Suffice it to say, I have not been convinced of what's so special about sex besides its conferral of physical pleasure. The latter is simply not enough to recommend it to me.

They aren't competing. I like a lot of both.

I said in those two cases abortion is still evil - only that less so than in the case — Agustino

I'm a little wary of classifying evil in degrees. If something is evil, then it's evil, and that's that.

But not to abort it is to punish the woman for the crimes of the rapist. — Agustino

I don't see this as punishing the woman. She was harmed in the act of rape, not in becoming pregnant.

To deny a married couple the possibility of using sex as a means of spiritual intimacy seems to me an evil. — Agustino

But I'm not denying them anything. They are free to engage in certain actions that might lead to certain consequences.

sex would serve both as a means of spiritual union — Agustino

I'm highly skeptical that the latter can be achieved by the former.

(1) the woman was raped [based on the principle that one shouldn't be forced to suffer the consequences of what was forced on them] — Agustino

(3) the family of the woman and her partner does not have the means necessary to care for the child [based on the understanding that in a relationship / marriage, the couple may inadvertently end up having a child despite their best attempts not to], then the act loses from its immorality and can quite possibly be regarded as a necessary evil. — Agustino

I disagree with both of these exceptions. Abortion is not morally permissible in cases of rape or lack of family care. In the first case, the fetus is not to blame for the woman being raped, the rapist is. To abort it is to punish the fetus for the crime of the rapist, which is wrong. In the second case, the care of the child becomes society's obligation. To abort the fetus simply because the family cannot provide for the child doesn't excuse the risk the couple took in having sexual relations. If they didn't want a child and knew they wouldn't be in a position to raise one, then they ought not to have engaged in such behavior in the first place.

the fetus has not developed many if any such attachments — MonfortS26

It would be emotionally and otherwise attached to its mother.

Have you heard of Animals as Leaders? Seems like they might be up your alley.

I remember the act, but the acronym was not clear to me at first. Sue me.

Are you just being coy about this or really think that people are better off financially than 30 years ago? — Question

Well, technically they're not. Their incomes have risen. Have they risen as fast as in previous decades? No, so one could say that they're flat, which I've never denied. But you still haven't put your finger on the cause.

The free market is not to blame per se; but, we've had neoliberal/laissez-faire/free market reign for a while now — Question

And how do you define this slash marked collective? If the free market is not to blame, then it's not to blame, which pulls the rug out from under your main argument in the OP.

the CRA — csalisbury

The what?

Uh, okay.

Maybe I'm just an idiot, Cavacava, so why don't you fill me in on the alleged contradiction.

So, in reality, people are even poorer than expected or rather have become much poorer relative to where they stood some 30 years ago. — Question

Possibly. That doesn't mean the free market is to blame, though.

I don't think they are mutually exclusive — Question

Neither do I, but since you've failed to specify any policies you think are bad as well as, for that matter, those you think are good, then I can only make assumptions about what you're trying to say.

so yea real household income rose because wives left the home and went to work — Cavacava

And? I don't see why Sowell would dispute this or how it affects the points he's making.

Well for starters people can't afford their mortgage — Question

Then they shouldn't have gotten one to begin with. That's an easy one. The government also shouldn't be forcing certain banks to offer risky loans to under-qualified people, which was the primary catalyst for the housing bubble and subsequent crash.

I do not think leaving the invisible hand to do its 'work' is safe or rational. — Question

History refutes your feelings here.

What about it? I don't find that people are greatly prevented from doing so. The US allows for a high degree of upward mobility that's on par with other developed nations around the world. Secondly, not everyone wants to move up the socioeconomic ladder. Some people, including some poor people, will refuse to do so even if granted every opportunity to do so. Willful ignorance and apathy are not to be underestimated. Other people, such as myself, don't desire great wealth. Thirdly, if you care about people moving up the ladder, then the only method that's consistently been proven to work throughout history is the free market, or the "invisible hand," as you put it, while clearly using that phrase mockingly. Higher degrees and amounts of government planning and regulations, as I am going to assume you are in favor of, have been colossal failures, as the 20th century showed in abundance and places like Venezuela show today.

I don't know. I don't claim to be an expert in economics and nor do I make claims I wouldn't know how to substantiate, but to honor your request, you might take a look at Thomas Sowell's perspective, who is on the right of the political spectrum, if only so that you will be more informed regarding the issue in question (as opposed to appearing blinkered when someone challenges you):

It has often been claimed that there has been very little change in the average real income of American households over a period of decades. It is an undisputed fact that the average real income–that is, money income adjusted for inflation–of American households rose by only 6 percent over the entire period form 1969 to 1996. That might well be considered to qualify as stagnation. But it is an equally undisputed fact that the average real income per person in the United States rose by 51 percent over that very same period.

How can both these statistics be true? Because the average number of individuals per household has been declining over the years. Half the households in the United States contained six or more people in 1900, as did 21 percent in 1950. But, by 1998, only ten percent of American households had that many people.

The average number of persons per household not only varies over time, it also varies from one racial or ethic group to another at a given time, and varies from one income bracket to another. As of 2007, for example, black household income was lower than Hispanic households. Similarly, Asian American household income was higher than white household income, even though white per capita income was higher than Asian American per capita income, because Asian American households average more people.

Income comparisons using household statistics are far less reliable indicators of standards of living than are individual income data because households vary in size while an individual always means one person. Studies of what people actually consume–that is, their standard of living–show substantial increases over the years, even among the poor, which is more in keeping with a 51 percent increase in real per capita income than with a 6 percent increase in real household income. But household income statistics present golden opportunities for fallacies to flourish, and those opportunities have been seized by many in the media, in politics, and in academia.

A Washington Post writer, for example, said, “the incomes of most American households have remained stubbornly flat over the past three decades,” suggesting that there had been little change in the standard of living. A New York Times writer likewise declared: “The incomes of most American households have failed to gain ground on inflation since 1973.” The head of a Washington think tank was quoted in the Christian Science Monitor as declaring: “The economy is growing without raising average living standards.” Harvard economist Benjamin M. Friedman said, “the median family’s income is falling after allowing for rising prices; only a relatively few at the top of the income scale have been enjoying any increase.”

Sometimes such conclusions arise from statistical naivete but sometimes the inconsistency with which the data are cited suggests a bias. Long-time New York Times columnist Tom Wicker, for example, used per capita income statistics when he depicted success for the Lyndon Johnson administration’s economic policies and family income statistics when he depicted failure for the policies of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Families, like households, vary in size over time, from one group to another, and from one income bracket to another.

A rising standard of living is itself one of the factors behind reduced household size over time. As far back as 1960, a Census Bureau study noted “the increased tendency, particularly among unrelated individuals, to maintain their own homes or apartments rather than live with relatives or move into existing households as roomers, lodgers, and so forth.” Increased real income per person enables more people to live in their own separate dwelling units, instead of with parents, roommates, or strangers in a rooming house. Yet a reduction in the number of people living under the same roof as a result of increased prosperity can lead to statistics that are often cited as proof of economic stagnation. In a low-income household, increased income may either cause that household’s income to rise above the poverty level or cause overcrowding to be relieved by having some members go form their own separate households–which in turn can lead to statistics showing two households living below the poverty level, where there was only one before. Such statistics are not inaccurate but the conclusion drawn can be fallacious.

Differences in household size are very substantial from one income level to another. U.S. Census data show 39 million people living in households whose incomes are in the bottom 20 percent of household incomes and 64 million people living in households in the top 20 percent. Under these circumstances, measuring income inequality or income rises and falls households can lead to completely different results from measuring the same things with data on individuals. Comparing households of highly varying sizes can mean comparing apples to oranges. Not only do households differ greatly in the number of people per household and different income levels, the number of working people varies even more widely.

In the year 2000, the top 20 percent of households by income contained 19 million heads of households who worked, compared with fewer than 8 million heads of households who worked in the bottom 20 percent of households. These differences are even more extreme when comparing people who work full-time and year-round. There are nearly six times as many such people in the top 20 percent of households as in the bottom 20 percent. Even the top five percent by income had more heads of household who worked full-time for 50 or more weeks in a year than did the bottom twenty percent. In absolute numbers, there were 3.9 million heads of household working full-time and year-round in the top 5 percent of households and only 3.3 million working full-time and year-round in the bottom 20 percent.

There was a time when it was meaningful to speak of “the idle rich” and the “toiling poor” but that time is long past. Most households in the bottom 20 percent by income do not have any full-time, year-round worker and 56 percent of these households do not have anyone working even part-time. Some of these low-income households contain single mothers on welfare and their children. Some such households consist of retirees living on Social Security or others who are not working, or who are working sporadically or part-time, because of disabilities or for other reasons.

Household income data can therefore be very misleading, whether comparing income differences as of a given time or following changes in income over the years. For example, one study dividing the country into “five equal layers” by income reached dire conclusions about the degree of inequality between the top and bottom 20 percent of households. These equal percentages of households, however, were by no means equal percentages of people, since the poorest fifth of households contain 25 million fewer people than the fifth of households with the highest incomes. Increasing income inequality over time also becomes much less mysterious in an era when people are paid more for their work, because this means that people who don’t work as much, or at all, lose opportunities to share in this income rise. In addition to differences among income brackets in how many heads of households work. The top 20 percent of households have four times as many workers as in the bottom 20 percent, and more than five times as many full-time, year-round workers.

No doubt these differences in the number of paychecks per household have something to do with the differences in income, though such facts often get omitted from discussions of income “disparities” and “inequalities” caused by “society.” The very possibility that inequality is not caused by society but by people who contribute less than others to the economy, and are correspondingly less rewarded, is seldom mentioned, much less examined. But not only do households in the bottom 20 percent contribute less work, they contribute far less skills, based on education. While nearly 60 percent of Americans in the top 20 percent graduated from college, only 6 percent of those in the bottom 20 percent did so. Such glaring facts are often omitted from discussions which center on the presumed failings of “society” and resolutely ignore facts counter to that vision.

Most statistics on income inequality are very misleading in yet another way. These statistics almost invariably leave out money received as transfers from the government in various programs for low-income people which provide benefits of substantial value for which the recipients pay nothing. Since people in the bottom 20 percent of income recipients receive more than two-thirds of their income from transfer payments, leaving those cash payments out of the statistics greatly exaggerates their poverty–and leaving out in-kind transfers as well, such as subsidized housing, distorts their economic situation even more. In 2001, for example, cash and in-kind payments together accounted for 77.8 percent of the economic resources of people in the bottom 20 percent. In other words, the alarming statistics on their incomes so often cited in the media and by politicians count only 22 percent of the actual economic resources at their disposal.

Given such disparities between the economic reality and the alarming statistics, it is much easier to understand such apparent anomalies as the fact that Americans living below the official poverty level spend far more money than their incomes–as their income is defined in statistical studies. As for stagnation, by 2001 most people defined as poor had possessions once considered part of a middle class lifestyle. Three-quarters of them had air conditioning, which only a third of all Americans had in 1971. Ninety-seven percent had color television, which less than half of all Americans had in 1971. Seventy-three percent owned a microwave, which less than one percent of Americans owned in 1971, and 98 percent of “the poor” had either a videocassette recorder or a DVD player, which no one had in 1971. In addition, 72 percent of “the poor” owned a car or truck. Yet the rhetoric of the “haves” and the “have nots” continues, even in a society where it might be more accurate to refer to the “haves” and the “have lots.”

No doubt there are still some genuinely poor people who are genuinely hurting. But they bear little resemblance to most of the millions of people in the often-cited statistics on households in the bottom 20 percent. Much poverty is imported across the southern border of the United States that immigrants cross, legally or illegally, from Mexico. The poverty rate among foreign nationals in the United States is nearly double the national average. Homeless people, some disabled by drugs or mental problems, are another source of many people living in poverty. However, the image of “the working poor” who are “falling behind” as a result of society’s “inequities” bears little resemblance to the situation of most of the people earning the lowest 20 percent of income in the United States. Despite a New York Times columnist’s depiction of people who are “working hard and staying poor” in 2007, Census data from the same year showed the poverty rate among full-time, year-round workers to be 2.5 percent.

I'm just asking for an economic policy of Reagan's or Thatcher's that has caused wage stagnation, as you originally claimed. You also said "policies" in the plural, but I'll take just one.