|
mr_jargon
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Mister Jargon
Birthday: 1/20/1989
Gender: Male
Interests: Augustinianism, Ecclesiastical History, Eastern Christian Theology, Indian Philosophy
Occupation: Student
Message: message meEmail: email me
Member Since:
3/8/2005
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| (1) Is there an ultimate reality?
(2) Does the world have a purpose?
(3) Is there an ultimate Good?
Please leave your answers, writing as little or as much as you want or need to convey your thoughts & opinions. Send/recommend this post to others. If you write a post with your answers please link it here. I am looking for both quantity & quality. [Questions have been revised; thanks to Lovegrove.]
Sample Answers:
1. Whatever science discovers.
2. Nothing.
3. Whatever I happen to want. | | |
| [Note: I have posted the following lengthy quotation to initiate discussion on the validity & implications of Geisler's arguments concerning the nature of the Necessary Existent, not to construct a theistic argument. Geisler makes eight points concerning the nature of the Necessary
Existent. He argues that it must be (1) Pure Actuality, (2) Changeless,
(3) Nontemporal & Nonspatial, (4) Eternal, (5) One, (6) Absolutely
Simple, (7) "Infinite" & (8) Uncaused. I have separated the numbered points in order to make them easier to read.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A necessary existence is one that cannot not exist. The nonexistence of a necessary Being is impossible. If there is a necessary Being, then it must exist necessarily. There is no other way a necessary Being could exist than to exist necessarily.
(1) What is more, a necessary existence would be pure actuality with no potentiality whatsoever. If it had any potentiality with regard to its existence, then it would be possible for it not to exist. But this is precisely what a necessary existence cannot do; it is not possible for a necessary existence not to exist. Therefore, a necessary existence would be pure actuality with no potentiality in its being whatsoever.
(2) Also, a necessary existence would be changeless. Whatever changes must have the possibility for change. If change were impossible then it could not change. But a necessary Being has no possibility whatsoever.
(3) A necessary existence would have to be a nontemporal and nonspatial existence. If space and time involve a change of position and moment, then a necessary existence could not be either spatial or temporal in its being. Its being cannot change, and both space and time involve change.
(4) Further, a necessary existence would have to be eternal. If it ever did not exist, then it would be a possible existence. But it has no possibility at all with regard to nonexistence. Whatever comes to be is not a necessary existence, for whatever comes to be moves from a state of potentiality to a state of actuality with regard to existence. And a necessary Being has no potentiality whatsoever. Likewise, for the same reason a necessary Being could not ever cease to be. It has no possibility for nonexistence either.
(5) There can be only one necessary existence. What is pure actuality must be one since there is no way for one thing to differ from another in its being unless there is some real potentiality for differentiation. But in a being of pure actuality there is no potential whatsoever. Hence, there there is no real differentiation in it. All of it is one; there cannot be two or more, since neither would really be different from the other in its being.
(6) A necessary existence would have to be simple and undivided. It could not be composed of different parts or elements, there is no principle of differentiation in it; all is simply one. Further, whatever is composed could be decomposed or destroyed. But it is impossible to destroy the existence of a necessary Being. If it exists at all, then it must be, and it cannot not be. Hence, a necessary existence must be simple and undivided.
(7) A necessary existence would have to be infinite in whatever attributes it possesses. If it is knowing, then it must be all-knowing. If powerful, then it must be all-powerful. If good, then it must be all-good. The reason for this is simple enough: only what has potentiality can be limited. Limitation means that which differentiates the sphere of one thing from another. Pure actuality is being pure and simple; everything else only has being in one form or another depending on its limiting potential. The only limitations on pure actuality are those of possibility outside it. Even pure actuality could not know or perform the impossible.
(8) Finally, a necessary Being must be an uncaused being. Whatever is caused passes from potentiality to actuality, for that is what causality means. But a necessary Being has no potentiality and it cannot change. Therefore, it is clear that a necessary Being cannot be caused. And since a self-caused being is impossible, it must be concluded that a necesary Being is an uncaused being."
[Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics, p. 239-240]
| | |
| On what basis do certain humans exploit lower animals and yet consistently assert that other humans possess equal rights irrespective of their individual capacities & abilities in the framework of metaphysical naturalism? I have seen two answers:
(1.1) Biological likeness of the human species.
(2.1) Unique rational potentialities of the humanity-in-general.
Neither (1.1) nor (2.1) offers a stable basis for both the exploitation of non-human animals *and* the claim that each member of the human species possess equal claim to certain inalienable rights. Nevertheless, ExtremeGoatMaster asserts in response to one of my comments that:
You shouldn't treat a human being like an
animal because human beings think and feel on a much higher level than
their animal counterparts.
This obviously does not apply to each and every member of the human species at every stage of development, and it's always the case that these capacities are actualized in different persons in differing degrees. It could be (easily) deduced from the above statement that: (1.2)
Humans (or groups of humans) who think more proficiently (& feel more deeply) are indeed
better and worthy of more dignity and better treatment than other
humans who do not do so as well.
(2.2) Extremely young children & higher animals possess the same worth according to use of rational capacities.
(3.2) As rational humans exploit less rational beasts, so wise humans have the right to command less rational humans. | | |
| This is an old tradition of mine that I wish to revive. Here are the rules:
(1) Until May 31st, each person gets to ask me up to three questions.
(2) After May 31st, I will put the remaining questions together and answer them in an upcoming post.
(3) Questions may not be answered in order.
(4) Certain questions may be deferred to later post.
PS: I will try to answer questions as they come, but when I tried this before it became unmanageable.
PS2: I am leaving for this conference. Expect few comments from me until Monday.
| | |
| X: Somebody shot me! Call the ambulance!
Y: Define 'me.'
X: My leg you idiot, it's bleeding!
Y: So your leg is a person?
X: NO!
Y: Then nobody was shot, correct?
X: What?!
Y: Unless you are your leg or your leg is a person, then nobody was shot, and thus there is no need to call the ambulance.
X: Hand me your cell phone now!
Y: First 'me' was your leg & now 'me' is your hand? You contradict
yourself. State plainly whether or not 'me' is your leg or your hand.
X: BOTH!
Y: How can your hand and your leg be the same person? It would follow
that whatever is predicated of one must be predicable of the other.
Therefore, if your hand is physically unharmed, then your leg must be
whole as well and thus I have no reason to handover the phone because
there's been rampant deception from the start.
X: I can't believe this...
Y: Who's "I?"
X: ME!
Y: Here we go again...
[Copyright @ W.Ballow 2008]
| | |
|
