...So to say that existence is necessary is reasonable. To posit that existence has a universal and non-dual source, or ground, or field, may be a step too far for many, but to oppose that hypothesis is not an act of the intellect, but of the will. To refuse to go that far is intellectual conservatism, or humility, but it's not a refutation.

Would you say that courage exists? Or colours? Or hypotheses? Or ideas?

SC

I suppose I think of phenomena as primarily physical, and epiphenomena as the effects of primary phenomena. That they exist in this kind of way is affirmed by observation and interpretation. We define "courage", for example, as steadiness under fire or in the face of adversity and when we see behaviour that appears to correspond to that we call it by its name. But the epiphenomenon does not "exist" in the sense of being measurable or observable under a microscope.

However, even if we observe behaviour that seems to indicate courage, we have to ask to what extent the courage is a product of free will. If all the conditions in a person's life to that point lead inexorably to those behaviours, i.e. they are determined, can we say that the person's behaviour is courageous or just "behaviour"? If a fireman risks his life to rescue someone from a burning house, and then says it was "just the training kicking in", was the fireman courageous? We tend to think so, and that the fireman is just "modest", another epiphenomenal attribute.

Leibnitz put forward the "principle of sufficient reason", and Schopenhauer expanded this to four forms (Wikipedia:Principle of Sufficient Reason). In brief, what this principle is saying is that a set of determining conditions (causes) is always present, and the presence of these causes is sufficient to determine the outcome. Effectively, the principle of sufficient reason negates the possibility of free will, a quandary for Schopenhauer who, though he diligently followed the logic of his argument, nevertheless found consolation in the Upanishads, which assume free will**. So the question is: Should we admire the brave fireman or just shrug our shoulders and say "Well, whaddaya expect?"?

For a religious slant on this topic the following article is of interest. The author argues that "reductionism" - obviously identifiable with an atheist or agnostic view - "flattens" reality to the extent that love, compassion, courage, goodwill, etc all become merely an outcome of physical processes and that, if this position is taken to its logical conclusion, it would make the world a very difficult place to live in. Of course, reductionism may be correct; he's just pointing out the price we have to pay if it is.

http://opinionator.b...-flat-or-is-it/

** However, some proponents, e.g. Cameron Reilly, of the Upanishad-based Advaita Vedanta openly reject free will.

My argument is that a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, etc etc

The very same all knowing God who was unable to find Adam and Eve who were hiding their nakedness after eating from the tree of knowledge..

Unsatisfactory, I know, but if you believe in a God, he must be over and above the realm of human minds.

That should be 'a god', 'God' is the Christian god. If the Christian god, or any other god, is outside the human mind then we could never know of it (metaphysical) but if we were to know of it (physical) then the metaphysical must touch the physical at which point it can be tested. Nothing so far though.

You seem to forget that the Old Testament has been superseded by the New.

Second paragraph. Quite right. I should have left out 'a'. No, there is no reason why the metaphysical can be tested. The incomprehensibility of omnipotence makes the impossible possible. Simple!

Well all 3 religions apparently say "Let us create man in our image" Only Christianity believes in the Holy Trinity. So in Islam, and Judaism. who is us?

What does the Trinity have to do with being made in 'our' image? Also remember that only Christians believe Jesus was the son of God and the Trinity is just a fudge trying to show how Jesus could be both God's son as well as God's son's father. If that sounds weird, it is weird.

You seem to forget that the Old Testament has been superseded by the New.

The OT contains The Fall and commandments. At the very least you have to take the OT à la carte which is indeed often done, a little too handy don't you think?

Second paragraph. Quite right. I should have left out 'a'.

I rather hoped you would decapitolize God as it would not leave you in the unenviable position of having to explain why specifically the Christian god

No, there is no reason why the metaphysical can be tested. The incomprehensibility of omnipotence makes the impossible possible. Simple!

The point I poorly attempted to get across was that in order for the physical to know anything about the meta physical the information must pass between the two. At the point where this information enters the physical we can test.

Well all 3 religions apparently say "Let us create man in our image" Only Christianity believes in the Holy Trinity. So in Islam, and Judaism. who is us?

What does the Trinity have to do with being made in 'our' image? Also remember that only Christians believe Jesus was the son of God and the Trinity is just a fudge trying to show how Jesus could be both God's son as well as God's son's father. If that sounds weird, it is weird.

Only that some try to answer the "Who is us?" With the us is the holy trinity.

You seem to forget that the Old Testament has been superseded by the New.

The OT contains The Fall and commandments. At the very least you have to take the OT à la carte which is indeed often done, a little too handy don't you think?

Second paragraph. Quite right. I should have left out 'a'.

I rather hoped you would decapitolize God as it would not leave you in the unenviable position of having to explain why specifically the Christian god

No, there is no reason why the metaphysical can be tested. The incomprehensibility of omnipotence makes the impossible possible. Simple!

The point I poorly attempted to get across was that in order for the physical to know anything about the meta physical the information must pass between the two. At the point where this information enters the physical we can test.

The Old Testament starts with a Creation myth the sequence of which is remarkably near the truth, considering that it was produced by a tribe who had no reason to think the earth was anything but flat, and who had no idea of history before their own time (3,000 or more years ago). The Fall is a mythical explanation of how human beings discovered the difference between right and wrong, which they must have done at some stage in their development. The Ten Commandments are summarised by Christ in His two commandments, Love God and Love thy neighbour.

I'm a Catholic, as I've said several times on this forum, and therefore I only believe in one God.

The existence of God is either devastatingly simple (which I believe it has to be as the Christian message was aimed at all people, not just the geniuses) or devastatingly complex, as the mediaeval scholastics, the Enlightenment philosophers and their successors have made it. If we have free will (and we wouldn't be contributing to this discussion if we hadn't), it is a choice between believing in God or not. If we could prove His existence, we would not have free will; therefore His existence cannot be proved.

If we could prove His existence, we would not have free will; therefore His existence cannot be proved.

Not sure if this syllogism works, IB.

Shouldn't it be:

If we could prove His existence we wouldn't have free will

We can't prove His existence, therefore we have free will.

But it still rests on the meaning of "His existence". If we define "God's existence as "that which must necessarily exist, as His essence is existence", then "God exists" is a tautology and, hence must be true. This is the Thomist argument:

P1. Existence is that which makes every form or nature actual. Existence is actuality as opposed to potentiality.

P2. There is no potentiality in God; only actuality.

P3. God is his essence.

C1. Since God is actuality his essence is existence.

Trouble is, non-Thomists think this argument is sleight of hand.

They say that “existence” is a predicate and can’t be incorporated into the subject without making the sentence meaningless. “Existence exists” doesn’t really tell us much, especially if we’re still looking for a First Cause (God), that is clearly more than just “existence”.

I think you're right that the "existence" of God/the Ground of Being/Brahma or any of the supreme being's 99 names will never be proven, but I'm not sure if it has anything to do with free will, unless you believe that an act of faith is the right response to a test God gives to humankind. But in what way is an act of faith a superior response to mystery than an act of resignation, refusal or indifference to the unknowability at the bottom of existence?

Personally, I think the act of faith in a ground of being which underpins and pervades all beings ("that by which the universe is pervaded, but which nothing pervades" - Adi Shankara), is reasonable and closes the circle, but I don't think I could convince a determined skeptic of it. Indeed, I don't think I'd want to. It would be better for him to arrive at such a view through his own experience. If his experience and reflection leads him to different conclusions, then who am I to dispute them?

I liked both these previous two posts.

Neither is in total accord with my thinking and beliefs but both express more clearly than I couild at least two facets of my core thinking.

Thanks guys. I am interested in the subject, but when trying to research it on my own I become bored with the simple arguments and confused by the more complex discussions - not knowing a lot of the phrasing codes and what they stand for.

As I am now listening to the BBC Proms, I am relaxed and appreciate the simpler side.

If we could prove His existence, we would not have free will; therefore His existence cannot be proved.

Not sure if this syllogism works, IB.

Shouldn't it be:

If we could prove His existence we wouldn't have free will

We can't prove His existence, therefore we have free will.

But it still rests on the meaning of "His existence". If we define "God's existence as "that which must necessarily exist, as His essence is existence", then "God exists" is a tautology and, hence must be true. This is the Thomist argument:

P1. Existence is that which makes every form or nature actual. Existence is actuality as opposed to potentiality.

P2. There is no potentiality in God; only actuality.

P3. God is his essence.

C1. Since God is actuality his essence is existence.

Trouble is, non-Thomists think this argument is sleight of hand.

They say that “existence” is a predicate and can’t be incorporated into the subject without making the sentence meaningless. “Existence exists” doesn’t really tell us much, especially if we’re still looking for a First Cause (God), that is clearly more than just “existence”.

I think you're right that the "existence" of God/the Ground of Being/Brahma or any of the supreme being's 99 names will never be proven, but I'm not sure if it has anything to do with free will, unless you believe that an act of faith is the right response to a test God gives to humankind. But in what way is an act of faith a superior response to mystery than an act of resignation, refusal or indifference to the unknowability at the bottom of existence?

Personally, I think the act of faith in a ground of being which underpins and pervades all beings ("that by which the universe is pervaded, but which nothing pervades" - Adi Shankara), is reasonable and closes the circle, but I don't think I could convince a determined skeptic of it. Indeed, I don't think I'd want to. It would be better for him to arrive at such a view through his own experience. If his experience and reflection leads him to different conclusions, then who am I to dispute them?

Yes, I do think a leap of faith is needed... and that presupposes a willingness to make that leap. I simply don't know what happens to those who seriously investigate/think about spiritual things but just can't make that leap. I'm reluctant to think that they are damned.

By the way, I think defining things gets us into trouble....or, if you like, into a philosophical Scylla and Charybdis.

Yes, I do think a leap of faith is needed... and that presupposes a willingness to make that leap.

I was raised Catholic and I believe in God, but I have never been sure that Jesus is what he is made out to be by Christians. I have prayed many times to show me somehow if Jesus is the way, but never gotten an answer (that I recognized). I'm not sure what else I could do as a leap of faith, other than force myself to simply commit to a belief that I just do not have.

Yes, I do think a leap of faith is needed... and that presupposes a willingness to make that leap.

I was raised Catholic and I believe in God, but I have never been sure that Jesus is what he is made out to be by Christians. I have prayed many times to show me somehow if Jesus is the way, but never gotten an answer (that I recognized). I'm not sure what else I could do as a leap of faith, other than force myself to simply commit to a belief that I just do not have.

UG, I thought I covered that in the rest of that paragraph. I simply don't know the answer.

Talking of being raised Catholic, check this one out. I had to double check the link to make sure it was not the Onion.

https://www.theproudatheist.com/blog/theres-an-epidemic-of-seductive-boys-claims-old-catholic-priest/

Talking of being raised Catholic, check this one out. I had to double check the link to make sure it was not the Onion.

https://www.theproud...atholic-priest/

But it is an anti-religious rag, isn't it?

Well, you wouldn't go straight to that website for an attempt at objective and dispassionate journalism.

There's a bit more here: http://online.wsj.co...df4aba43f0.html

It's worth noting, too, in light of the website's heading, that in the interview with NCR, Fr Groeschel made the point that the "seducers" were often girls. The original interview has been scrubbed.

This old priest was obviously indiscreet in what he said. That can happen when you try to look at something from several angles. There's a danger that you'll miss the main point and that you'll be insensitive to the suffering of people who have been victims.

Of course NCR, the Franciscans of the Renewal, and Father Benedict himself have been apologizing profusely. Quite apart from the need to do so when one has genuinely done wrong, that's what people have to do in a litigious, censorious and easily offended society. To say or do something politically incorrect (e.g. George Galloway's reference to "window-lickers", the Greek olympic athlete's joke about the number of Arab immigrants in Athens, the two Australian swimmers posing with guns) brings down on one's head a deluge of complaints and a storm of righteous indignation. The perpetrators then apologize profusely and abjectly (and then get sent home in the Greek athlete's case). It's encouraging to see that George Galloway is refusing to, but I expect he'll have to issue some weazel-word statement eventually to appease the self-righteous and the rent-seekers.

I seem to remember a time when our democracies were more robust and people could be criticized for what they said, but not humiliated and forced to issue apologies. It seems ironic that such an ill-judging sort of man as George Galloway is standing up for a return to maturity in how one responds to ill chosen and badly directed words.

Yes, I do think a leap of faith is needed... and that presupposes a willingness to make that leap.

I was raised Catholic and I believe in God, but I have never been sure that Jesus is what he is made out to be by Christians. I have prayed many times to show me somehow if Jesus is the way, but never gotten an answer (that I recognized). I'm not sure what else I could do as a leap of faith, other than force myself to simply commit to a belief that I just do not have.

UG, I thought I covered that in the rest of that paragraph. I simply don't know the answer.

If there was an answer you wouldn't need 'faith'.

If there was an answer you wouldn't need 'faith'.

Exactly.... and you wouldn't have free will either.

From today's Daily Telegraph (UK version)

Even a theory of everything has limits

Stephen Hawking’s new series attempts to comprehend the cosmos – but no 'grand design’ can give us all the answers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/9534181/Even-a-theory-of-everything-has-limits.html

The article is an introduction to a new Stephen Hawkinge TV series, which I shall watch and report on, for those unfortunate enough not to be in the UK this year.

a 30 yr old Muslim Thai started working for me a few weeks ago. We've had a few conversations touching on religious issues. He's probing to see whether I might go with the Muslim thing. I won't, but I don't want to come down like a ton of bricks, so I listen to some of what he says. He starts by expressing concerns about what happens when a person dies. I say, we turn to compost, worm food, and go bury me by a tree. He's unclear on specifics, but seems to be very intent about his unclear views. I asked him, when people go to heaven, do they stay the same age as when they die? He couldn't answer that, except to say you can't take money to heaven. I knew that, even if I don't believe in heaven or hell. So I asked him if we can take clothes to heaven (or get them there?), because without clothes, everybody would be naked, and that's a real big no no in every religion, is it not? He couldn't answer that either, but resorts to mumbling something about 'there are four levels of language in Arabic,' and that I should google it all, .......etc. Not much to report, sorry.

a 30 yr old Muslim Thai started working for me a few weeks ago. We've had a few conversations touching on religious issues. He's probing to see whether I might go with the Muslim thing. I won't, but I don't want to come down like a ton of bricks, so I listen to some of what he says. He starts by expressing concerns about what happens when a person dies. I say, we turn to compost, worm food, and go bury me by a tree. He's unclear on specifics, but seems to be very intent about his unclear views. I asked him, when people go to heaven, do they stay the same age as when they die? He couldn't answer that, except to say you can't take money to heaven. I knew that, even if I don't believe in heaven or hell. So I asked him if we can take clothes to heaven (or get them there?), because without clothes, everybody would be naked, and that's a real big no no in every religion, is it not? He couldn't answer that either, but resorts to mumbling something about 'there are four levels of language in Arabic,' and that I should google it all, .......etc. Not much to report, sorry.

I think going to heaven is a bit less corporeal than going to Skegness, and perhaps not intended to be taken as literally as going to Mecca for the Haj. Unfortunately, a lot of us interpret spiritual issues within the confines of the temporal world in which we currently find ourselves.

Some people will tell you, for example, that the devil is from St Helens

SC

a 30 yr old Muslim Thai started working for me a few weeks ago. We've had a few conversations touching on religious issues. He's probing to see whether I might go with the Muslim thing. I won't, but I don't want to come down like a ton of bricks, so I listen to some of what he says. He starts by expressing concerns about what happens when a person dies. I say, we turn to compost, worm food, and go bury me by a tree. He's unclear on specifics, but seems to be very intent about his unclear views. I asked him, when people go to heaven, do they stay the same age as when they die? He couldn't answer that, except to say you can't take money to heaven. I knew that, even if I don't believe in heaven or hell. So I asked him if we can take clothes to heaven (or get them there?), because without clothes, everybody would be naked, and that's a real big no no in every religion, is it not? He couldn't answer that either, but resorts to mumbling something about 'there are four levels of language in Arabic,' and that I should google it all, .......etc. Not much to report, sorry.

I think going to heaven is a bit less corporeal than going to Skegness, and perhaps not intended to be taken as literally as going to Mecca for the Haj. Unfortunately, a lot of us interpret spiritual issues within the confines of the temporal world in which we currently find ourselves.

Some people will tell you, for example, that the devil is from St Helens

SC

Well, the devil won't go to Cornwall because he's afraid the Cornish will put him into a pasty; they put everything else in.

Anyone who thinks heaven is a remake of the corporeal world we live in needs his head seen to in this world first. Maidu raises some of the obvious points. Nor is it sitting on clouds and playing harps. I am afraid we shall have to wait until we get there (or not) to find out what it is really like.

There's a Zen koan that goes something like this:

A zen master is host to a samurai. The warrior comes in, still wearing his sword, and asks the master; does heaven and hell exist?

The master comments on the sword, saying it looks tarnished and unsharpened. The Samurai gets offended and angry, pulls out his sword, and threatens to slice the master in two.

The master lowers his head and says; "go ahead, open the gates of hell."

The samurai puts his sword back in its sheath.

The master then raises his head, looks the warrior in the eyes, and says, "Go ahead, open the gates of heaven."