Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 11:36 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 10:33 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 10:29 pm
No.

That's a shame.

Yes. Anyway, I am not sure that one can take a photo of such an experience.

You may be sure that photos, works of art and great literature, and some stumbled-upon experiences include epiphanies . JC is not the only epiphany.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 4:55 am

Nothing to something is possible.

No, nothing can be "causeless" that is not eternal.

Did you read my argument against the act of creation of everything?

Point 3 is your problem: "act" and "time" are assumed to be within a universe. But the universe has not yet been created, in that case, since you're trying to explain the origin of the universe. You can't use the terms of a physical universe to explain how the universe has those terms.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 6:25 pm

There is a Supreme Being among them.

No, I don't mean there's just a "bigger one." I mean "supreme," in the sense that it is the essence of being itself. It is, to use the Hebrew idoim, "The I AM."

Any being has a mind which is not contingent. Even you have a mind.

Thank you...I think.

But no, rocks, basic elements, fire and trees don't have "minds." Beyond that, it's highly doubtful how far we can make an analogy between lower-animal "minds" and anything humans have.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 6:25 pm

No, mind is a fundamental substance.

"Mind "and "substance" are not the same.

A "mind" is, by definition, not a "substance."

To me, a substance is something that exists and has a set of properties.

Too vague. A "substance" also has mass, occupies space, has a density, etc. Minds don't do that.

Does God know a moral fact?

"Moral fact" is actually a synonym for "action or attitude consonant with the character of God." So God doesn't "know" them in the way you and I do, because when you and I come to "know" something, we merely discover things that already exist and we did not know. God doesn't make discoveries. He doesn't get surprised. And there was no time at which morality and God's essential nature were two different things.

God IS the factuality of morality, one might say...although that will never be more than a very partial definition. What it means is that He constitutes and is the basis of what we humans discover and "come to know" as "morality."

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:36 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 11:36 pm

Harbal wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 10:33 pm

That's a shame.

Yes. Anyway, I am not sure that one can take a photo of such an experience.

You may be sure that photos, works of art and great literature, and some stumbled-upon experiences include epiphanies . JC is not the only epiphany.

True.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 4:55 am
No, nothing can be "causeless" that is not eternal.

Did you read my argument against the act of creation of everything?

Point 3 is your problem: "act" and "time" are assumed to be within a universe. But the universe has not yet been created, in that case, since you're trying to explain the origin of the universe. You can't use the terms of a physical universe to explain how the universe has those terms.

No, any act has a before and after hence you need time for it. That includes the act of creation.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 6:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 6:25 pm
No, I don't mean there's just a "bigger one." I mean "supreme," in the sense that it is the essence of being itself. It is, to use the Hebrew idoim, "The I AM."

Any being has a mind which is not contingent. Even you have a mind.

Thank you...I think.

But no, rocks, basic elements, fire and trees don't have "minds." Beyond that, it's highly doubtful how far we can make an analogy between lower-animal "minds" and anything humans have.

Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause qualia. So animal to me has a mind.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 6:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 6:25 pm
"Mind "and "substance" are not the same.

A "mind" is, by definition, not a "substance."

To me, a substance is something that exists and has a set of properties.

Too vague. A "substance" also has mass, occupies space, has a density, etc. Minds don't do that.

A substance does not necessarily have mass given my definition.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 6:25 pm

Does God know a moral fact?

"Moral fact" is actually a synonym for "action or attitude consonant with the character of God." So God doesn't "know" them in the way you and I do, because when you and I come to "know" something, we merely discover things that already exist and we did not know. God doesn't make discoveries. He doesn't get surprised. And there was no time at which morality and God's essential nature were two different things.

God IS the factuality of morality, one might say...although that will never be more than a very partial definition. What it means is that He constitutes and is the basis of what we humans discover and "come to know" as "morality."

No, the moral fact is not a synonym for action or attitude consonant with God's character. What if God was Evil?

"I had forgotten just how fruitful the discourse here could be."

oh it's so much fun. take this recent exchange in another thread between IC and bahman and consider this possibility. They believe one or the other is wrong - hence the argument - while really each of them is just thinking about and using the terms 'fact' and 'troof' differently in their own understanding of the argument in progress. it's all a delightfully derridean exercise in Wittgensteinian langauge games. both IC and bahman have their own worked out and consistent understanding and use of the terms... but this shouldn't be possible if at least one of them is wrong. ah. they're both right, but being 'right' means only this; that you observe consistency in your own understanding and use of the terms you are thinking and talking about and that your statements produce no deductive contradictions. and that is veeery easy to do in philosophy. you can talk all day about what a 'troof' and a 'fact' is and never be able to test if any particular theory you had wuz wrong.

it's werds man... well i mean these words have become 'philosophical' words and are now skating on frictionless ice as your boy Wittgenstein put it.

So if the text is inductive and presents a falsifiable theory, it belongs to the natural sciences and not philosophy. if not, it's just linguistics, and there are no real logical or metaphysical problems... only linguistical problems. ergo, the frustrating nature of the language game in talking about 'facts' and 'troofs'.

when wuz the last time you required a philosophically detailed definition of what the store clerk meant when he used the word 'fact' and 'troof' in order to understand and make use of what he said?

Now you guys are 'sposed to be smarter than your average store clerk, and yet y'all can't even agree on what a fact and a troof is.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 1:10 pm
Did you read my argument against the act of creation of everything?

Point 3 is your problem: "act" and "time" are assumed to be within a universe. But the universe has not yet been created, in that case, since you're trying to explain the origin of the universe. You can't use the terms of a physical universe to explain how the universe has those terms.

No, any act has a before and after hence you need time for it. That includes the act of creation.

Before there was a universe, there was no such thing as time or space. They are part of what had to be created. So they can’t be used as preconditions to define how creation was done…because if you do that, you haven’t accounted for time or space themselves.

Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause qualia. So animal to me has a mind.

That can’t be right. Gravity can “cause” things, and it has no mind. And “substance” has extension in space, which “mind” does not have (you can’t gives somebody a physical “piece of your mind” ). So that’s clearly not a good definition, no matter what it is “to you.”

No, the moral fact is not a synonym for action or attitude consonant with God's character. What if God was Evil?

No such possibility exists. The Supreme Being whose character defines morality cannot “be evil,” because no standard of good and evil pre-exists Him from which it would be possible to form such a judgment. Either God is “good,” or there is no such thing as “good.” But God cannot be “evil,” because no “good” exists without association with Him.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 7:11 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm
Point 3 is your problem: "act" and "time" are assumed to be within a universe. But the universe has not yet been created, in that case, since you're trying to explain the origin of the universe. You can't use the terms of a physical universe to explain how the universe has those terms.

No, any act has a before and after hence you need time for it. That includes the act of creation.

Before there was a universe, there was no such thing as time or space. They are part of what had to be created.

Yes, I agree. We just need to agree that any act has a before and an after therefore time is needed for any act. We have to discuss two things, there is a before and after in any act, and time is needed for any act.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm So they can’t be used as preconditions to define how creation was done…because if you do that, you haven’t accounted for time or space themselves.

The point that I am raising is that you need time for any act including the act of creation. Time is however part of creation and that leads to regress in the creation of time.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause qualia. So animal to me has a mind.

That can’t be right. Gravity can “cause” things, and it has no mind.

Gravity can affect another massive particle and it is caused by a massive particle. It is not right to say that gravity causes/creates.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm And “substance” has extension in space, which “mind” does not have (you can’t gives somebody a physical “piece of your mind” ). So that’s clearly not a good definition, no matter what it is “to you.”

Not if we stick to my definition of substance, something that exists and has properties. Not all substances necessary occupy space given this definition.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

No, the moral fact is not a synonym for action or attitude consonant with God's character. What if God was Evil?

No such possibility exists.

Why not?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm The Supreme Being whose character defines morality cannot “be evil,” because no standard of good and evil pre-exists Him from which it would be possible to form such a judgment.

Morality is still defined following your prescription as a result of moral fact that is the character of God. He judges us based on what we have done, evil. There is the possibility of a neutral God too which fits our reality well, He does not care what is going on on Earth since He/She does not intervene.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm Either God is “good,” or there is no such thing as “good.” But God cannot be “evil,” because no “good” exists without association with Him.

Of course, good could exist without association with evil God. We are simply free to choose and we can choose good.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 8:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 7:11 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:58 pm
No, any act has a before and after hence you need time for it. That includes the act of creation.

Before there was a universe, there was no such thing as time or space. They are part of what had to be created.

Yes, I agree.

Then your third point falls apart.

You can't indict something for "taking time" when there was no "time."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

Mind is an irreducible substance with the ability to experience and cause qualia. So animal to me has a mind.

That can’t be right. Gravity can “cause” things, and it has no mind.

Gravity can affect another massive particle and it is caused by a massive particle. It is not right to say that gravity causes/creates.

You're conflating terms. Gravity can indeed "cause" rockslides. But it doesn't thereby "create" anything, in the positive sense of "create."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm And “substance” has extension in space, which “mind” does not have (you can’t gives somebody a physical “piece of your mind” ). So that’s clearly not a good definition, no matter what it is “to you.”

Not if we stick to my definition of substance, something that exists and has properties.

"Properties"? Which "properties" does mind have?

It's certainly not the same "properties" as "substances" have...like extension in space, divisibility, and so on.

So whatever "properties" you specify, we can see very clearly that "mind" is not a "substance."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

No, the moral fact is not a synonym for action or attitude consonant with God's character. What if God was Evil?

No such possibility exists.

Why not?

Answer below.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm The Supreme Being whose character defines morality cannot “be evil,” because no standard of good and evil pre-exists Him from which it would be possible to form such a judgment.

Morality is still defined following your prescription as a result of moral fact that is the character of God.

I don't understand your sentence, there. I can't make it make sense.

Can you clear it up for me?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:26 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 8:57 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 7:11 pm
Before there was a universe, there was no such thing as time or space. They are part of what had to be created.

Yes, I agree.

Then your third point falls apart.

No.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:26 pm You can't indict something for "taking time" when there was no "time."

That is the problem. That is the regress in time that I am talking about. But to get there we have to accept that any act requires time since it has a before and an after. Could we please focus on that?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm
That can’t be right. Gravity can “cause” things, and it has no mind.

Gravity can affect another massive particle and it is caused by a massive particle. It is not right to say that gravity causes/creates.

You're conflating terms. Gravity can indeed "cause" rockslides. But it doesn't thereby "create" anything, in the positive sense of "create."

Here when I say that mind can cause I mean it creates and not affects.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm And “substance” has extension in space, which “mind” does not have (you can’t gives somebody a physical “piece of your mind” ). So that’s clearly not a good definition, no matter what it is “to you.”

Not if we stick to my definition of substance, something that exists and has properties.

"Properties"? Which "properties" does mind have?

It's certainly not the same "properties" as "substances" have...like extension in space, divisibility, and so on.

So whatever "properties" you specify, we can see very clearly that "mind" is not a "substance."

Mind has properties to experience qualia, freely decide and cause/create qualia.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm
No such possibility exists.

Why not?

Answer below.

Where?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm The Supreme Being whose character defines morality cannot “be evil,” because no standard of good and evil pre-exists Him from which it would be possible to form such a judgment.

Morality is still defined following your prescription as a result of moral fact that is the character of God.

I don't understand your sentence, there. I can't make it make sense.

Can you clear it up for me?

I mean if the character of God is a moral fact, which in my opinion it is not, then one can derive the rightness or wrongness of an act in the case that God is Evil or Neutral too.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:26 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 8:57 pm
Yes, I agree.

Then your third point falls apart.

No.

Sorry...yes.

...we have to accept that any act requires time

Apparently not. You're using a framework that assumes the existence of an essential feature of the universe ("time") to account for the origin of the universe (and thus, of time).

The explanation fails, because it's simply circular. Time cannot be a feature of the creation of time.

That's what a creation "ex nihilo" implies: it implies "from nothing." And "time" is a thing, and the product of a material universe existing.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

Gravity can affect another massive particle and it is caused by a massive particle. It is not right to say that gravity causes/creates.

You're conflating terms. Gravity can indeed "cause" rockslides. But it doesn't thereby "create" anything, in the positive sense of "create."

Here when I say that mind can cause I mean it creates and not affects.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

Not if we stick to my definition of substance, something that exists and has properties.

"Properties"? Which "properties" does mind have?

It's certainly not the same "properties" as "substances" have...like extension in space, divisibility, and so on.

So whatever "properties" you specify, we can see very clearly that "mind" is not a "substance."

Mind has properties to experience qualia, freely decide and cause/create qualia.

Mind does seem to "experience" qualia...I don't know what "freely decide qualia" would imply, and it doesn't "cause/create qualia," since they come from the external world.

I'm not sure what to conclude from that...except that qualia are products of substance, but are not themselves a substance.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

Morality is still defined following your prescription as a result of moral fact that is the character of God.

I don't understand your sentence, there. I can't make it make sense.

Can you clear it up for me?

I mean if the character of God is a moral fact, which in my opinion it is not, then one can derive the rightness or wrongness of an act in the case that God is Evil or Neutral too.

Now I don't know what you mean by "moral fact."

I said that God has a certain character, and that character defines or determines what a "moral fact" is for us. What you're saying, I don't understand. You can't use words like "evil" and "neutral" meaningfully, unless you've already imposed an objective moral grade or value on things. But where are you going to get an objective moral grade or value, since you don't believe God exists?

Watch out bahman IC is trying some shit Craig tried on Harris one time. He's tryna convince you that all talk of morals, relative or not, would be meaningless is 'god' didn't exist.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:29 pm Watch out bahman IC is trying some shit Craig tried on Harris one time. He's tryna convince you that all talk of morals, relative or not, would be meaningless is 'god' didn't exist.

Immanuel's God is past-oriented, everlasting and unchanging. Immanuel's God is not future-oriented so human hopes and intentions don't amount to God.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:17 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:42 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:26 pm
Then your third point falls apart.

No.

Sorry...yes.

...we have to accept that any act requires time

Apparently not. You're using a framework that assumes the existence of an essential feature of the universe ("time") to account for the origin of the universe (and thus, of time).

The explanation fails, because it's simply circular. Time cannot be a feature of the creation of time.

That's what a creation "ex nihilo" implies: it implies "from nothing." And "time" is a thing, and the product of a material universe existing.

Creation out of nothing means that there was a point when only God existed, let's call this point P1. God then created the universe immediately after P1, which let's call this P2. P1 is different from P2 and comes before P2. This means that we need time to reach from P1 to P2. This means that God needs time in order to create anything including time. This leads to a regress.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm
You're conflating terms. Gravity can indeed "cause" rockslides. But it doesn't thereby "create" anything, in the positive sense of "create."

Here when I say that mind can cause I mean it creates and not affects.

What?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm
"Properties"? Which "properties" does mind have?

It's certainly not the same "properties" as "substances" have...like extension in space, divisibility, and so on.

So whatever "properties" you specify, we can see very clearly that "mind" is not a "substance."

Mind has properties to experience qualia, freely decide and cause/create qualia.

Mind does seem to "experience" qualia...I don't know what "freely decide qualia" would imply, and it doesn't "cause/create qualia," since they come from the external world.

I'm not sure what to conclude from that...except that qualia are products of substance, but are not themselves a substance.

If your mind does not experience qualia then what does that? The same for free decisions and the creation of qualia. That is your mind that creates thoughts.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm I don't understand your sentence, there. I can't make it make sense.

Can you clear it up for me?

I mean if the character of God is a moral fact, which in my opinion it is not, then one can derive the rightness or wrongness of an act in the case that God is Evil or Neutral too.

Now I don't know what you mean by "moral fact."

I said that God has a certain character, and that character defines or determines what a "moral fact" is for us.

Ok, as you said. How do you determine moral fact from the character of God?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm What you're saying, I don't understand. You can't use words like "evil" and "neutral" meaningfully, unless you've already imposed an objective moral grade or value on things. But where are you going to get an objective moral grade or value, since you don't believe God exists?

How do you get moral facts or value if there is a God? What if God is evil or neutral?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:29 pm Watch out bahman IC is trying some shit Craig tried on Harris one time. He's tryna convince you that all talk of morals, relative or not, would be meaningless is 'god' didn't exist.

Ok, dude.

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jul 22, 2022 2:58 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 11:17 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 9:42 pm
No.

Sorry...yes.

...we have to accept that any act requires time

Apparently not. You're using a framework that assumes the existence of an essential feature of the universe ("time") to account for the origin of the universe (and thus, of time).

The explanation fails, because it's simply circular. Time cannot be a feature of the creation of time.

That's what a creation "ex nihilo" implies: it implies "from nothing." And "time" is a thing, and the product of a material universe existing.

Creation out of nothing means that there was a point…

There’s the first error.

“Creation out of nothing” means there was no “point,” because a “point” marks the existence of substance. You can’t use the concept “point” when there is no “thing” for the “point” to be in or to refer to. And you certainly can’t use it of time, since time actually is not composed of points, but of an unpunctuated continuum.

The term “point in time” is a metaphor for “this particular segment of the continuum.” It isn’t actually a “point.”

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

Here when I say that mind can cause I mean it creates and not affects.

What?

It means, “I don’t have a clue what you just said.”

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

Mind has properties to experience qualia, freely decide and cause/create qualia.

Mind does seem to "experience" qualia...I don't know what "freely decide qualia" would imply, and it doesn't "cause/create qualia," since they come from the external world.

I'm not sure what to conclude from that...except that qualia are products of substance, but are not themselves a substance.

If your mind does not experience qualia then what does that? [/quote]
Easy. External reality.

If there’s an apple on the table, then the “qualia” I experience is that of there being an apple on the table. Now, of course I can also experience such a qualia if I am stoned, or dreaming, or in some other state of mental disorder; but ordinarily, normally, the qualia of there being an apple on the table is generated by there being one there.

Call the apple “the stimulus” and the qualia of an apple being on the table the “response,” if you like. It’s a product of me being a perceiving creature, and of there being something there to cause the perception.

That is your mind that creates thoughts.

No, my mind responds to the apple’s being there. It does not create the apple, nor even dictate the perception of there being on there.

If it does, then by definition, what I am having is a hallucination, an imagining, a dream, a delusion, or some other such state. When the products of the mind are untethered from the realities outside it, then the person is deluded.

So any account of “mind”’s creative powers that does not pay any attention at all to what the external world is doing in its interactions with the mind is incomplete, at best.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm

I mean if the character of God is a moral fact, which in my opinion it is not, then one can derive the rightness or wrongness of an act in the case that God is Evil or Neutral too.

Now I don't know what you mean by "moral fact."

I said that God has a certain character, and that character defines or determines what a "moral fact" is for us.

Ok, as you said. How do you determine moral fact from the character of God?

Well, obviously you have to know the character of God. And for that, God would have to tell us what He’s like, because we have nowhere enough information to form a full account of morality without that.

But Christians think God has done just that.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:05 pm What you're saying, I don't understand. You can't use words like "evil" and "neutral" meaningfully, unless you've already imposed an objective moral grade or value on things. But where are you going to get an objective moral grade or value, since you don't believe God exists?

How do you get moral facts or value if there is a God? What if God is evil or neutral?

You can’t ask the “evil or neutral” question, because without reference to God, you have no criteria for either. Nothing is “evil” and nothing is “neutral” if “evilness” and “neutrality” are not objective facts. So that question’s a question-begging one. It assumes the existence-already of what it purports to ask the recipient to explain.

Again: one gets moral facts from two sources: God’s Word and God’s character. One knows God’s character because He has revealed it propositionally, in the Bible, and existentially, in the Person of Jesus Christ.