Metaphysics: The ACTUAL Key to Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

Edit mine of course.

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< My {epistemology}, as i already said, is “there is something”. And i try to use logical and systematic reasoning as my only tool. >>>[/quote]I said this about a year ago now. I know you’ve read it, but here is where it REALLY applies. I mean no deliberate offense. You know that by now.[quote]2+2 does not equal 4 without God because two, plus, equals and four all have no meaning without Him. The statement I just made has no meaning without Him. Every upcoming protestation to the contrary has no meaning without Him. As my man Van Til was fond of saying. God is Himself the emplacement upon which men mount the very weapons they attempt to use to destroy Him. They can’t help it.

Pagans jump and down, stamp their feet with red face glowing while they demand there be no circular reasoning. That is humorous at best. [b]When forced to face the foundation of their alleged beliefs, every time it comes down to the laws of logic. Laws which are invisible, immaterial, absolute and universal. Sound familiar? When I demand proof of the validity of the laws of logic they are trapped either re-appealing to those same laws which is circular or hypothetically looking somewhere else which destroys their authority.

Of course I also engage in circular reasoning and make no pretense otherwise because ALL finite reason is by definition and in the nature of the case eventually circular. It never reaches the termination point of ultimate resolution because it’s like finite see? The dead logic of unbelievers circles around THEM and hence never ultimately explains anything whatsoever. Mine circles around an infinite intellect and ultimately explains everything. They by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in themselves loudly proclaim what they fallaciously perceive as the brilliance of their own unavoidably content-less existence. I by utterly preeminent unconditional faith in the triune God of Christianity loudly proclaim HIS brilliance and rest assured that He is the explanation for everything.[/b]

It’s not that unbelievers do not advance true knowledge and hence contribute much good to the world. Of course they do, but they do it in spite of and not because of their own foundational beliefs. It’s only because my foundational beliefs are true that anything they do bears fruit. They hate that. They hate God. They are His enemies. Same as I was. That’s why Paul told us in Romans 1 that they “suppress” or as the Greek has it, they “hold under” the truth in their unrighteousness. Picture a beach ball in the water. They keep holding it down, while it keeps popping up. That’s how they attempt to hide from their true selves and the God who created them. Paul says they are without excuse. God has reveled Himself unavoidably everywhere and especially IN themselves as created in His very image fractured though it is in sin.

THAT is the discussion that has to happen or any quibbling about this or that particular proof or evidence has no genuine framework to even legitimately take place. [/quote]You are one of the most penetratingly analytical and just plain intelligent men I have ever talked to Kamui. However, when it’s all said n done you are left with the very VERY old warring models of pure transcendence and pure immanence with Aristotle’s own scale of being making an appearance along the way(unless you were actually rejecting that. It’s frustrating always bein in a hurry). The problem of the one and the many, quite inadvertently it appears, remains unsolved after all as well and yes, I DO know how primary it is which is why I brought it up then.

You’re a brilliant guy man and a joy to talk to. Your problem has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence on any level as I’ve said before. Your autonomous toolbox simply does not include wrenches large enough for the nuts you’re trying to turn. Neither does mine. In Christ, I get to use God’s toolbox by His grace through faith in Him.
EDIT:There actually ARE two entirely distinct ontological realities. Infinite eternal Creator and EVERYTHING else including us…

322

[quote]When forced to face the foundation of their alleged beliefs, every time it comes down to the laws of logic. Laws which are invisible, immaterial, absolute and universal. Sound familiar? When I demand proof of the validity of the laws of logic they are trapped either re-appealing to those same laws which is circular or hypothetically looking somewhere else which destroys their authority.

Of course I also engage in circular reasoning and make no pretense otherwise because ALL finite reason is by definition and in the nature of the case eventually circular. It never reaches the termination point of ultimate resolution because it’s like finite see? The dead logic of unbelievers circles around THEM and hence never ultimately explains anything whatsoever. Mine circles around an infinite intellect and ultimately explains everything.[/quote]

Mine logic circles around an infinite intellect too.
And in a way, i’m probably more a believer (of some kind of pantheism) than an unbeliever.

The main difference is not there.
It’s here :

[quote]
EDIT:There actually ARE two entirely distinct ontological realities. Infinite eternal Creator and EVERYTHING else including us…[/quote]

This is the very definition of “equivicoty of being”.
While I believe in univocity of being. My “god” has only one voice.

323

Please explain how the following two statements are reconciled or if in your view their reconciliation is unnecessary and why in either case. [quote]kamui wrote:<<< i try to use logical and systematic reasoning as my only tool. >>>[/quote][quote]kamui wrote:<<< Mine logic circles around an infinite intellect too. >>>[/quote]Is this logic that you here declare as your ONLY tool the logic of this infinite intellect you mention? Or is it your own or is there even a difference? If it belongs to this infinite intellect how do you access it and how do you know you have? If it is your own then you are proclaiming your own intellect as infinite in which case I DEFINITELY have some more questions for you =]

324

Not sure i can explain that clearly right now, so i will try to “show” you :

Step 1 :
radical skepticism. in order to find a first certain truth.
some kind of Epoche (not exactly the same as Descartes nor Husserl).

Step 2
“There is something”. Here is our first truth.

Step 3 :
This something appears to change. And it keep changing.
At this step, time and space can be slowly re-introduced, because we have a very basic, pre-verbal experience of it.
Things become plural. And there is already a “problem of the one and the many”.

Step 4 :
Here, we can start to re-introduce the concept of “me”. the division between subject and object.
And with it, we can re-introduce the concept of causality, and the law of logic.
at this point, we perceive some kind of order. Our everchanging experience is not the experience of a chaos, but the experience of a cosmos.

And we have to ask : “is this order in my mind only, or is it real ?”
There is only two possibilities.
If we answer with the former, we go back to step 1, and we will never escape from radical skepticism.
If we answer with the latter, we have to accept that the logical order we perceive comes from an actual property of this “something” that IS.

This something can now be defined as an absolute intellect.

Our own intellect is ontologically the same, but is infinitely inferior at the same time.
It is ontologically the same because we are parts of this something.
But our “part” of its intellect (the “tool” we get) is infinitely inferior because we are finite.

It’s enough to “trust” the law of logic.
it’s NOT enough to pretend that we understand the infinite intellect.

It’s not enough to know what reality is.
But it’s enough to know that reality IS, that it is logical in nature, and that we, as conscious beings, have “something to do with it”.

You know your God a lot better than i know the infinite intellect i acknowledge.

325

Kamui my friend? I won’t be able get to this tonight. I spent alotta time on a response I owed to Cortes in another thread. I cannot but be honest with you. I see the above post as a sort of wall with many holes and gaps in it that seem to be plastered over with wishful assumptions that appear contrived out of necessity

326

[quote]kamui wrote:
Not sure i can explain that clearly right now, so i will try to “show” you :

Step 1 :
radical skepticism. in order to find a first certain truth.
some kind of Epoche (not exactly the same as Descartes nor Husserl).

Step 2
“There is something”. Here is our first truth.

Step 3 :
This something appears to change. And it keep changing.
At this step, time and space can be slowly re-introduced, because we have a very basic, pre-verbal experience of it.
Things become plural. And there is already a “problem of the one and the many”.

Step 4 :
Here, we can start to re-introduce the concept of “me”. the division between subject and object.
And with it, we can re-introduce the concept of causality, and the law of logic.
at this point, we perceive some kind of order. Our everchanging experience is not the experience of a chaos, but the experience of a cosmos.

And we have to ask : “is this order in my mind only, or is it real ?”
There is only two possibilities.
If we answer with the former, we go back to step 1, and we will never escape from radical skepticism.
If we answer with the latter, we have to accept that the logical order we perceive comes from an actual property of this “something” that IS.

This something can now be defined as an absolute intellect.

Our own intellect is ontologically the same, but is infinitely inferior at the same time.
It is ontologically the same because we are parts of this something.
But our “part” of its intellect (the “tool” we get) is infinitely inferior because we are finite.

It’s enough to “trust” the law of logic.
it’s NOT enough to pretend that we understand the infinite intellect.

It’s not enough to know what reality is.
But it’s enough to know that reality IS, that it is logical in nature, and that we, as conscious beings, have “something to do with it”.

You know your God a lot better than i know the infinite intellect i acknowledge.
[/quote]

Is this similar to the ontological argument for the existence of God?

327

Yes and no.

The ontological argument starts with the idea of God, understood as the greatest being we can conceive of.
And from this point, it pretends to deduce the existence of God in reality.
this argument is wrong for many reasons, but that’s another story.

my “argument” can be simplified like this :
If we can know something (anything, actually), then the world is at least partially knowable. And if it is knowable, then it has/is an immanent intellect.
This intellect is necessarily absolute. If it wasn’t, truth could change, and would not be truth at all. And nothing would be knowable.

Strictly speaking, this argument is not even an argument. It’s a pure tautology.
Formally analyzed, the idea of a single truth does imply the idea of an absolute intellect.

But this argument doesn’t deduce nor affirm the existence of this absolute intellect in reality.
We can’t do that, because we can not disprove the idea that we actually do NOT know anything. (more precisely, we can’t do it with reason only, it requires faith).

In itself, this argument is not a proposition, it’s only a clarification of the problem. It shows us our two only choices.

328

Another thing :

this idea of an immanent absolute intellect is not totally heretic or pagan, yet.

In the Christian theology, the transcendant part of God (ie, the Father) immanently reveals himself in the world through the hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit. There need to be an immanent absolute intellect too. if it wasn’t, we would be entirely unable to understand the transcendant nature of God and the only possible theology would be a apophatic one.

the heretic idea is that this immanent principle is “enough”, and that we doesn’t need to (and actually can’t) add another transcendant “layer” to our epistemology.
In a way i could say that “i do not believe in God, i only believe in the holy spirit”.
Now that i think about it, that could be a great way to explain my position to christians.

329

[quote]kamui wrote:
Another thing :

this idea of an immanent absolute intellect is not totally heretic or pagan, yet.

In the Christian theology, the transcendant part of God (ie, the Father) immanently reveals himself in the world through the hypostases of the Son and the Holy Spirit. There need to be an immanent absolute intellect too. if it wasn’t, we would be entirely unable to understand the transcendant nature of God and the only possible theology would be a apophatic one.

the heretic idea is that this immanent principle is “enough”, and that we doesn’t need to (and actually can’t) add another transcendant “layer” to our epistemology.
In a way i could say that “i do not believe in God, i only believe in the holy spirit”.
Now that i think about it, that could be a great way to explain my position to christians.

[/quote]

And that doesn’t contradict 1st cause? Maybe a better way to put the question is do you believe existence is God? Doesn’t the first cause have to be outside physical existence?

330

physical or not, it doesn’t really matter here.
But no, a cause doesn’t need to be outside its effect. It only need to be distinct.

In medieval times, christian theologians made a distinction between three kind of causes :
transitive causes : the cause produces an effect exterior to itself and cease to exist as a cause in order to produce its effect.
emanative causes : the cause produces an effect exterior to itself and it still remains within itself in order to produce its effect.
immanent causes : the cause produces an effect within itself and remains within it in order to produce its effect.

If the first cause is a transitive one, we have a creation ex nihilo, a transcendant God, and a monotheism. But we still need to introduce an immanent principle at some point. (And that’s why Christianity has a trinity). In this case, the difference between the cause and the effect is ontological. The effect and the cause are different in nature, and they have nothing in common. Which is a paradox in itself.

If the first cause is an emanative cause we end up with a “panentheism”. “God” is both within the world and eternally beyond it. In this case, the difference between the cause and the efect is “chronological”.

if the first cause is an immanent one, we got a pantheism. God and existence are the same. or two side of the same coin. In this case, the difference between the cause and the effect is only “logical”.

331

Ruling out the first one seems sensible enough. But how on earth do you decide on which of the other two choices? It’s late, I’m out till tomorrow.

332

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Ruling out the first one seems sensible enough. But how on earth do you decide on which of the other two choices? It’s late, I’m out till tomorrow.[/quote]

I do not decide it, actually.

Panentheism is pantheism with a “bonus”.
Ontology does not need it.
Axiology does not need it.
Epistemology does not need it.
So i do not need it.
But since we can’t prove a negative, nor synthetically decide this one, i have to admit it may be true.

In other words :
As far as panentheism is concerned, i’m an agnostic.

333

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< As far as panentheism is concerned, i’m an agnostic. >>>[/quote]I have to be honest again. I see this agnosticism emerging as soon as the phrase and concept of “there is something” has fallen from your lips. From there on out uncertainty rules the day in spite of some very deeply analytical and elaborate intellectual machinations to escape it.

In other words, you know there is certainty and still have no idea where from, why or to what purpose. In further other words, you comfort yourself with a subjectively constructed belief system that in the end provides certainty in appearance only, but which falls prey to agnosticism when pursued to it’s unavoidable terminus.

Yes, I do see that your admission above is to agnosticism with respect to pantheism only, but as you appeared to agree with a few weeks weeks ago, uncertainty anywhere IS uncertainty everywhere or to quote Pat again, “To anything for certain you’d have to know everything for certain”. I agree with Pat.

334

With respect to panENtheism only. Not with respect to pantheism.
it’s the extra “EN” that is theoretically possible, but that can not be asserted from our finite perspective.
But it doesn’t really matter.

Since panentheism does “include” pantheism, we can be certain that, at least, pantheism is true.
And since pantheism is philosophically “complete” enough to give us the basis of an epistemology, an axiology and an ontology, this extra “en” is just an useless hypothesis that can be Occam’s razored without mercy.

And Pat’s formula is a sophism. Very close to a “moving the goalpost” fallacy, based on a confusion between “de facto” knowledge and “de jure” knowledge.
To know anything for certain, YOU don’t have to know everything for certain.
You just have to know that if you had an infinite intellect, everything would be knowable for you.
This is not exactly the same thing.

but anyway, if this formula were actually true, your own system could not escape its consequence.
Even the strongest belief in an omniscient God doesn’t make yourself omniscient, neither de facto or de jure, and it doesn’t give a direct access to His infinite intellect.
Especially not since your system states that there is an ontological, radical difference between His intellect and yours.

335

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Here’s a flabbergastingly good post from kamui about free will and how it may not be such a “problem,” per se. Would love to hear what you think about this conversation as it has currently veered, kamui. Your language skills have REALLY developed to meet your message, and sometimes reading your posts makes me feel like I am back in college, just discovering philosophy. Hell, you’ve had me clicking over to dictionary.com more than a few times recently!

[quote]kamui wrote:
just trying to answer one the question of the OP:

Certainly NOT off topic, is it? (^^)b[/quote]

Wow… crystal clear. No wonder he didn’t pop up in here on this subject, he said it already. [/quote]

But you don’t need to know all states of mind to predict certain behaviour, though.

If you believe a part of the mind, the self, is immutable or eternal, you require an either/or position, but this postition is not a necessaty for it depends on what your believe.

There are too many variables you’d have to take into account in order to make an accurate behavioural prediction all of the time, but you can predict some [or even most] behaviour some of the time.

I believe that most of our decisions are based on established primers, and aren’t all that free. We aren’t always aware of those primers and that gives us the illusion of being able to choose freely.

There’s a middle way here that is overlooked, imo. [/quote]

You’re right in that when it comes to freewill, it occurs far less frequently than we tend to think it does, but it still occurs.

What’s your middle?

336

[quote]kamui wrote:

With respect to panENtheism only. Not with respect to pantheism.
it’s the extra “EN” that is theoretically possible, but that can not be asserted from our finite perspective.
But it doesn’t really matter.

Since panentheism does “include” pantheism, we can be certain that, at least, pantheism is true.
And since pantheism is philosophically “complete” enough to give us the basis of an epistemology, an axiology and an ontology, this extra “en” is just an useless hypothesis that can be Occam’s razored without mercy.

And Pat’s formula is a sophism. Very close to a “moving the goalpost” fallacy, based on a confusion between “de facto” knowledge and “de jure” knowledge.
To know anything for certain, YOU don’t have to know everything for certain.
You just have to know that if you had an infinite intellect, everything would be knowable for you.
This is not exactly the same thing.

but anyway, if this formula were actually true, your own system could not escape its consequence.
Even the strongest belief in an omniscient God doesn’t make yourself omniscient, neither de facto or de jure, and it doesn’t give a direct access to His infinite intellect.
Especially not since your system states that there is an ontological, radical difference between His intellect and yours. [/quote]

I wish I knew where I said that or in reference to what. That doesn’t sound like something I would say as a general statement. With reference to empiricism, yes, but not in general. I have to believe I was discussing the stuff of science and the inherent weakness of empiricism. I do believe in absolutes and I do believe you can know things that are true.

337

[quote]pat wrote:<<< I wish I knew where I said that or in reference to what. That doesn’t sound like something I would say as a general statement. >>>[/quote]I know how tough it is for you to conceive of Pat, but he was actually participating in very substantive discussion with… GASP!!!.. me of all people =] If you didn’t have me on ignore you’d know that.

338

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I do not believe that Scripture contains the ENTIRETY of the apostolic preaching. I’m not saying there are other legitimate Scriptures; I am simply saying that I don’t subscribe to the belief that the entirety of apostolic preaching (i.e., everything they taught) is contained within the canon. >>>[/quote]Lemme take you one further, for now. I believe that only a relatively small FRACTION of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, the truth period, indeed the revelation itself of almighty God, is contained in the scriptures.
I see my fundamentalist brethren reaching for their stones =] . Finish that for me KK, if you would please. I have a feeling you know what I mean by that.
[/quote]

Haha well I certainly don’t want to disappoint… but I’ll say what I mean and you can tell me where I went wrong :). Jesus Christ, the true image of God the Father and ultimate revelation of his being, testified to in the Hebrew Scriptures and finally incarnated, is still seen only dimly, as in a mirror of polished brass. We do not yet know as we will know, but when he appears, we will know as we are known. Scripture mediates our encounter with Christ, but it provides only a window, a glimpse, never the entirety. Scripture, as a reflection of apostolic preaching, reveals what is necessary for salvation, but on this side of eternity, we can still only glimpse the God in whom all truth resides.

339

[quote]kamui wrote:
Believing in a personnal God doesn’t really help.
A personnal god will give you a few commandments, and a few “great purposes”, but he will not tell you his own mystery. So the greatest purpose will remain elusive and apophatic.
[/quote]

But that’s not the point either. Relating to God isn’t a means or shortcut to the wisdom of purpose. I would think it’s precisely the opposite. It’s about a functioning trust, not an inner sanctum of the mysteries of life.

340

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I do not believe that Scripture contains the ENTIRETY of the apostolic preaching. I’m not saying there are other legitimate Scriptures; I am simply saying that I don’t subscribe to the belief that the entirety of apostolic preaching (i.e., everything they taught) is contained within the canon. >>>[/quote]Lemme take you one further, for now. I believe that only a relatively small FRACTION of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, the truth period, indeed the revelation itself of almighty God, is contained in the scriptures.
I see my fundamentalist brethren reaching for their stones =] . Finish that for me KK, if you would please. I have a feeling you know what I mean by that.
[/quote]

Haha well I certainly don’t want to disappoint… but I’ll say what I mean and you can tell me where I went wrong :). Jesus Christ, the true image of God the Father and ultimate revelation of his being, testified to in the Hebrew Scriptures and finally incarnated, is still seen only dimly, as in a mirror of polished brass. We do not yet know as we will know, but when he appears, we will know as we are known. Scripture mediates our encounter with Christ, but it provides only a window, a glimpse, never the entirety. Scripture, as a reflection of apostolic preaching, reveals what is necessary for salvation, but on this side of eternity, we can still only glimpse the God in whom all truth resides.[/quote] I couldn’t possibly agree more with what you just said(unless you’re playin semantic games with me, but I don’t think so), BUT… that’s not what I meant LOL!!
I meant that since every last particle of reality on every level, IS revelation, and being that only a small portion of that reality is contained explicitly in the scriptures, then most of God’s truth is found elsewhere. However, scripture defines and governs all that elsewhere found truth in such a way as to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.