Originally posted by legochessmaniac
Let us go from one extreme to the other, from the aforementioned gnosticism, to agnosticism.

[b]I am a non-dualist. I remain unconvinced of the necessity (or the epistemic warrant) for assuming a second, supernatural category.

The word you are looking for is agnostic. You are an agnostic. You seem to remain unconvinced of the necessity (or ...[text shortened]... nd about 31 different named Rites, primarily in the East.[/b]

The word you are looking for is agnostic. You are an agnostic.

I am not looking for a word. I gave you a word: non-dualist.

You seem to remain unconvinced of the necessity (or the epistemic warrant) for assuming a second, supernatural category. (my italics)

I am unconvinced of the necessity, or the epistemic warrant, for assuming a supernatural category. If you want to call that “remaining unconvinced” agnosticism—or something else—so be it; but I do not use the word “agnostic” in that manner. I remain unconvinced that there is an orange unicorn in my refrigerator that is only visible when the door is closed; I am hardly agnostic on the subject.

You are likely unconvinced that any of the attributes of your God-concept require a further being, prior to “your” God in order to explain that God’s existence. And yet, I would hardly describe you as being agnostic about the existence of such a prior God.

____________________________________________

Note: There is a brand of atheism sometimes called “agnostic atheism” (or “weak atheism” ), which claims that (a) belief—any belief—must be withheld absent some epistemic justification; (b) the burden of proof for an extraordinary claim such as that of a supernatural being rests with the one making the claim; and (c) until such burden is met, epistemic responsibility requires withholding of belief. Weak atheists generally point out that all of our God-concepts are learned, just as our particular names for things are learned, as part of our cultural development—no one is born with a formed God-concept of any kind, therefore a-theism is the default.

I think that (a) is irrefutable.

On the other hand, one might be a weak atheist with regard to supernatural God-concepts generally, but a strong atheist with regard to God-concepts that s/he finds incoherent, for example.

____________________________________________

So let me get this straight, you stop where you want to stop, while you think myself and other theists are spinning their wheels trying to show atheists the necessity of a deity?

No, I simply stop where I see no epistemic justification for going further, until I see some such justification for going further. That’s all. I do not accuse you of simply stopping where you “want” to stop. You are—via Aquinas here—arguing an epistemic justification for your stopping-place. I am offering counter-arguments.

I don’t think theists are “spinning their wheels.” I put this all under the heading of honest inquiry and argument.

If a deity of some kind is a logical necessity, then a logical contradiction should result from the premise: “There is no deity.” Nomological necessity is empirical. The former is deductive, the latter inductive. Although his arguments are a posteriori (taken from evidence in the physical world), I think Aquinas is trying to establish logical necessity therefrom. I might be wrong; some have said that he was really doing apologetics here.

First of all, it is human nature to seek as much knowledge/intel as possible.
Secondly, it is human nature to stop doing things (in this case seeking knowledge) when it becomes a hassle.
Thirdly, if you stop because you don't want to find answers anymore, and it proves too difficult, you're caving in to weakness.

I am unwilling to make such broad statements about human nature, which I think is far more complex than that (I think it is far more complex than Starrman’s statements about the survival urge as well). I’ll simply say that some people find it uncomfortable to stop at an answer that implies, for example, their ultimate death/dissolution. If someone stops—or continues—because of simple discomfort, they may be either way caving in to weakness. Theists are not exempt from this. I am not saying that is why you are a theist, or a Christian. I try to be pretty careful about not assigning motivations to people when they have not declared them.

Frankly, you seem to be under the impression that no matter how far you pursue a personal inquiry into the existence of the universe, you're always going to run into some sort of infinite something.

I hold no such impression. I’m not sure that it’s correct. I am under the impression that an infinite causal series (or an infinite causal complex, to step away from linearity) is not a logical contradiction.

There are only two choices: Either the succession of causes is infinite, or there is an Infinite Being who is.

Or I could be incredibly stupidly vernacular, put the two together, and say, "If there is an infinite multitude of causes, that would be a God."

I actually like your “stupidly vernacular” version. 🙂 However—

(1) Why is not a finite—but necessary—being a logical possibility?

(2) Your vernacular version can be taken as a statement of non-dualism (absent the “a” in “a God” )—e.g., Spinoza’s pantheism, or Taoism. Surely there are other attributes that you would say are required for using the word “God”?

—It is doubtless my non-dualism that liked your vernacular version. 🙂

I'll just say, for simplicity's sake, that any entity absolutely infinite is a God. Any entity with no beginning and no end is a God, a Creator from which science tells us, there can only be one thing infinite.

Just for the sake of precision: a physical sphere is an entity; it has no beginning or end. If one speaks, metaphysically, of the Whole, it is meaningless to talk of beginning and end. I find it difficult to talk about the Whole because language breaks down: for example, there is no proper analogy for the Whole; all analogies come from within the Whole, and are hence limited. I gather from my more mathematical friends that it is easier with mathematics to understand the universe as the totality-that-has-no-edge, and is yet expanding.

Infinity entails absolute goodness if it abides by a simple law. This the universe does, and it's Creator must've abided by a binary law to create the creation.

Are you defining “absolute goodness” as being “abid[ing] by a simple law”? Or are you suggesting an argument along the lines of—

1. Absolute goodness requires a simple law [because?];

2. A simple law that satisfies that requirement is ...

3. Infinity entails such a law;

etc., etc.?

What exactly do you mean by “absolute goodness”? What is the simple law that satisfies the entailment?

BTW: If “absolute goodness” requires/depends upon abiding by a simple law, then “absolute goodness” would seem to be contingent. That appears to be in contradiction to Aquinas’ fourth way, as stated anyway.

If the Creator is beyond our comprehension, He must be simple and complex simultaneously. Simple because order in the universe exists. Complex because that's what the universe is, and we know our Creator through His creation.

If the creator is beyond our comprehension, the creator is beyond our comprehension. I suspect that there are (possibly quite extensive) aspects of the natural universe that are incomprehensible to the “grammar of our consciousness.” Incomprehensibility is not of itself a justification for metaphysical speculation—well, aesthetically, perhaps it is. I have no problem with religious expression(s) as aesthetic attempts to express our existential confrontation with the ineffable.

Question: why should order imply simplicity? (I am thinking here of so-called “chaos theory”—non-linear dynamics—in which order/coherence and complexity seem to go hand-in-hand.)

Where do I stop when it comes to the nonsense of creation? I stop at "GOD."

And I stop before the assumption of a supernatural (extra-natural) category. All of my arguments in this thread are vis-à-vis the necessity of the deity posited by supernatural-dualist-theism (that may be redundant, since “theism” without a modifier generally implies dualism). I do not argue that such a category is impossible (logically or nomologically), in the same way, I suspect, that you would not argue that polytheism of some sort is (logically or nomologically) impossible. In a sense, I suppose we are applying Ockham’s razor at different points.

All of Aquinas’ ways seem to me to be aimed at that—to turn what he terms “God” at the end of each of the ways into the God of Christianity requires arguing for further attributes for that God; which he knew and proceeded to argue. But that is another step up the ladder of theological discourse.

Now, after my patchwork attempt at a refutation on the preceding page, I am taking a critical eye to reviewing the various refutations of Aquinas. Intellectual honesty requires that. It will take some time. Here is one site that I found that offers more comprehensive refutations than my attempt. As I say, I have it under review, so to speak.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/aquinas.html

Here is also a site that presents argument for Aquinas, with discussion/argument following, that I thought you might find interesting:

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2006/10/aquinas-argument-from-contingency.html

_______________________________________

NOTE: Thanks for the references re East/West Christianity. I know there have been a lot of openings between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox churches. Both are concerned for real catholicity, but it will surely have to be a catholicity that nevertheless recognizes some differences—or perhaps, as historian of church doctrine Jaroslav Pelikan put it referring to the early post-apostolic church, a more “pluralistic orthodoxy”.