tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post4912036184164892416..comments2024-01-07T05:17:58.943-05:00Comments on Orthoprax: A Charging Metaphor for MetaphysicsOrthopraxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-74591734454709037662007-10-24T15:27:00.000-04:002007-10-24T15:27:00.000-04:00>God of Spinoza (and Einstein?) which, if I unders...>God of Spinoza (and Einstein?) which, if I understand his concept correctly, does not involve a being separate from the universe/reality but rather some organizing/animating force or characteristic within it. <BR/><BR/>>Yes and no. I conceive of God as the ultimate reality and therefore would not be a "part" of a larger existence. It's a matter of contingency.<BR/><BR/>As I understand Spinoza, his understanding of God was not " some organizing/animating force or characteristic within" existence. Rather it was Existence itself. And according to Spinoza existence/God/Narure is not contingent. God/Nature is eternal and absolute.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-27300224912268847952007-10-21T18:01:00.000-04:002007-10-21T18:01:00.000-04:00AW,"It's your position that humans know (even if t...AW,<BR/><BR/>"It's your position that humans know (even if the issue isn't "perfectly resolved") what if any energy source or material (for lack of a better term) may have existed before the Big Bang?"<BR/><BR/>Hum? No, but we can surmise that it must - at the very least - hold the power to create a universe.<BR/><BR/>"And isn't a "leap" by definition rather unparsimonious?"<BR/><BR/>Not if it is in accordance with the facts as we know them. Any other conclusion would be a bigger leap.<BR/><BR/>"Perhaps we are talking about the same thing; I don't know. The parsimonious position--if our best attempts at reason led us to conclude there must be a "God"--it seems to me, is to stick with the God of Spinoza (and Einstein?) which, if I understand his concept correctly, does not involve a being separate from the universe/reality but rather some organizing/animating force or characteristic within it. Is your conception of God the God of Spinoza?"<BR/><BR/>Yes and no. I conceive of God as the ultimate reality and therefore would not be a "part" of a larger existence. It's a matter of contingency. Beyond that, panentheismn vs pantheism, is of no significant difference.<BR/><BR/>"And beyond the matter of First Mover and notions of parsimony, I wonder this--and I ask this in a spirit of friendly inquiry--how would even hypothetical solid knowledge of a Creator's existence lead us to belief in any particular religion, including Judaism?"<BR/><BR/>It wouldn't - as a matter of theology. For that I look at Judaism as a cultural and religious heritage, a well of ideas and a way of thinking, that while a flawed human construct it still maintains value and meaning. I remain loyal to Judaism because I am a Jew, not because I am convinced of its theological assertions.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-89211720788810141262007-10-21T17:12:00.000-04:002007-10-21T17:12:00.000-04:00Orthoprax writes: "True, that remains to be perfec...Orthoprax writes: "True, that remains to be perfectly resolved. But as far as we know, it is correct and I'm willing to make that leap."<BR/><BR/>It's your position that humans know (even if the issue isn't "perfectly resolved") what if any energy source or material (for lack of a better term) may have existed before the Big Bang? If so, please elaborate. And isn't a "leap" by definition rather unparsimonious?<BR/><BR/>Later, you write: <BR/>"Ok, then in that case, I don't think we'd be describing different things at all. If you are describing some superior level of reality that eternally exists and has the capacity for the ordered creation of our universe as we know it - then that is God. We can quibble over the characteristics of that superior reality, but fundamentally we'd be talking about the same thing."<BR/><BR/>Perhaps we are talking about the same thing; I don't know. The parsimonious position--if our best attempts at reason led us to conclude there must be a "God"--it seems to me, is to stick with the God of Spinoza (and Einstein?) which, if I understand his concept correctly, does not involve a being separate from the universe/reality but rather some organizing/animating force or characteristic within it. Is your conception of God the God of Spinoza? <BR/><BR/>And beyond the matter of First Mover and notions of parsimony, I wonder this--and I ask this in a spirit of friendly inquiry--how would even hypothetical solid knowledge of a Creator's existence lead us to belief in any particular religion, including Judaism? <BR/><BR/>(And forgive me if you've already clarified in earlier posts that you don't believe in Judaism, or explicated your arguments in support of Judaism. I have only recently encountered your blog.)AgnosticWriterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03904614932394962946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-67633011105186973622007-10-21T13:10:00.000-04:002007-10-21T13:10:00.000-04:00AW,"This is not the same, it seems to me, as sayin...AW,<BR/><BR/>"This is not the same, it seems to me, as saying that there was not some form of pre-matter or pre-universe out of which all this derived, and in an enternal cycle or set of evolutions."<BR/><BR/>True, that remains to be perfectly resolved. But as far as we know, it is correct and I'm willing to make that leap.<BR/><BR/>"why not ascribe eternal qualities, as well as qualities of inherent organization and complexity, to the universe (I mean overall reality/matter/energy, etc.; again, I don't mean that term in the limited sense of the current form of our universe) thus omitting the need for an additional being called God, and allowing us to collect, as you say, "parsimonious profit"?"<BR/><BR/>Ok, then in that case, I don't think we'd be describing different things at all. If you are describing some superior level of reality that eternally exists and has the capacity for the ordered creation of our universe as we know it - then that is God. We can quibble over the characteristics of that superior reality, but fundamentally we'd be talking about the same thing.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-41090991574696288622007-10-21T12:33:00.000-04:002007-10-21T12:33:00.000-04:00Orthoprax,Thanks for addressing my comment. You wr...Orthoprax,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for addressing my comment. <BR/><BR/>You write: <BR/>"God, being an uncaused existence, is different from the universe as an uncaused existence in terms of the permanence of existence. The universe not existing forever begs the question of where it came from. God, as a theorized eternal existence, does not provoke that same issue. Hence parsimonious profit."<BR/><BR/>To me it seems that it's far premature to say that we know the universe had a beginning--except in the sense that the universe as we now know it had a beginning. True, as best current science can tell (at least to my amateur knowledge of it) the laws of time and space with which we're now familiar had their beginning at a certain point. This is not the same, it seems to me, as saying that there was not some form of pre-matter or pre-universe out of which all this derived, and in an enternal cycle or set of evolutions. <BR/><BR/>I don't mean to suggest that this is a simple concept, or that I can explain how this would work; but, of course, postulating God doesn't pretend to be able to figure out how He could be eternal and uncaused, either. And simply to include that in His definition is dangerously close to "solution by semantics." And if we're willing to ascribe eternal qualities, and qualities of unimagined intelligence and omnipotence, etc., to something we don't even know exists--God--why not ascribe eternal qualities, as well as qualities of inherent organization and complexity, to the universe (I mean overall reality/matter/energy, etc.; again, I don't mean that term in the limited sense of the current form of our universe) thus omitting the need for an additional being called God, and allowing us to collect, as you say, "parsimonious profit"?AgnosticWriterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03904614932394962946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-20968450865260833592007-10-21T04:12:00.000-04:002007-10-21T04:12:00.000-04:00AW,"Why not postulate that the universe is in some...AW,<BR/><BR/>"Why not postulate that the universe is in some way uncaused, and holds within it the potential for all that is?"<BR/><BR/>That's a fair point, but it doesn't do it for me. For one, we know that the universe did not exist eternally so you get into a logical cul de sac. It caused itself before it existed? Or if not that then you must have some conception of a superior reality from which the universe springs from and which has - at the very least - the power to spontaneously create a universe. And that gets you back to square one.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, an uncaused, accidental thing in my mind suggests a disordered, non-constructive mess - i.e. not the orderly, constructive world with which we are familiar. Unless you are also willing to postulate the existence of innumerous other universes, the very orderliness of our existence suggests that the odds of it being some cosmic accident are very long.<BR/><BR/>As I see it, the accident theory of creation is a non-theory and doesn't even rate in parsimonious evaluations. It's like coming across some amazing, incredible sight and saying that it "just happened." That's not an explanation!<BR/><BR/>God, being an uncaused existence, is different from the universe as an uncaused existence in terms of the permanence of existence. The universe not existing forever begs the question of where it came from. God, as a theorized eternal existence, does not provoke that same issue. Hence parsimonious profit.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-22348671751552915332007-10-21T01:34:00.000-04:002007-10-21T01:34:00.000-04:00Orthoprax,Though I have taken a different path fro...Orthoprax,<BR/><BR/>Though I have taken a different path from yours, I respect your intelligence and knowledge base.<BR/><BR/>I have a basic question relating to the First Mover or First Cause referred to earlier in the thread--especially as it relates to parsimony. <BR/><BR/>Presumably we've all heard the following basic challenge to the First Cause: "If everything must have a cause, and we are thus puzzled about the earliest cause of the universe, postulating a God without a cause doesn't answer the question, but only moves it back one step, introducing a Creator without a cause." <BR/><BR/>Especially bearing in mind the concept of parsimony, why postulate a God at all? Why not postulate that the universe is in some way uncaused, and holds within it the potential for all that is? This would save us the additional ingredient of a God. And if one protests that we cannot understand how a universe could originate without a God, have we done much better by postulating a God, whose uncaused existence we cannot either understand?AgnosticWriterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03904614932394962946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-85224215760786197612007-10-18T16:45:00.000-04:002007-10-18T16:45:00.000-04:00Rachel,What coincidences?http://orthoprax.blogspot...Rachel,<BR/><BR/>What coincidences?<BR/><BR/>http://orthoprax.blogspot.com/2006/08/ninth-of-av.htmlOrthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-45301059053815413922007-10-18T15:26:00.000-04:002007-10-18T15:26:00.000-04:00Hi there Ortho,I have a question. How do you expla...Hi there Ortho,<BR/>I have a question. How do you explain all the 'coincidences' of the 9th of Av and still question the existence of the Hebrew God? Its just a bit more than I can deny. It cannot be mere coincidence.<BR/>Look forward to hearing your reply.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/>RachelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1980443338887746792007-10-14T21:21:00.000-04:002007-10-14T21:21:00.000-04:00>If you want to accept or reject something as True...>If you want to accept or reject something as True you need to learn about it!<BR/><BR/><BR/>Firstly, I've learnt plenty. <BR/>Secondly, I still do.<BR/><BR/>And more importantly:<BR/><BR/>Do you accept the science of Alchemy as opposed to Chemistry? Why not how much of either have you studied? How much Astrology have you studied?<BR/><BR/>And how much Christianity have you studied. Christianity makes a specific claim, not that Judaism has no basis, but that there is a Bris Chaddasha; how much do you no about that so that you reject it out of hand?Baal Haboshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12861222390091673835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-41278512426437892112007-10-14T05:29:00.000-04:002007-10-14T05:29:00.000-04:00If you want to accept or reject something as True ...If you want to accept or reject something as True you need to learn about it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-34819850571199905122007-10-11T20:49:00.000-04:002007-10-11T20:49:00.000-04:00>So I'm saying "orthoprax" has issues with the Tor...>So I'm saying "orthoprax" has issues with the Torah. How much Talmud have you studied? How much time have you spent with the Jewish sages of our generation trying to work out your questions?<BR/><BR/>UGH. There's no amount of Torah learning that one could do that would satisfy objections like that. <BR/><BR/>It's like saying I can't think Alchemy is middleaged superstition because I haven't devoted my life to studying it. <BR/><BR/>>Again emotion and no content.<BR/>well readers... what do you say?<BR/><BR/>It is ironic that you charge Orthoprax as being emotion laden. This is one of the "straightest" skeptic blogs around.Baal Haboshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12861222390091673835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-52469683819215687252007-10-11T14:46:00.000-04:002007-10-11T14:46:00.000-04:00"Discourse on my blog has never gotten as low and ..."Discourse on my blog has never gotten as low and annoying as it has with you (and I'm including debate I've had with Jewish Philosopher!). So, yeah, you're a troll. My main emotion with you: annoyance.<BR/><BR/>As my readers know, I have hundreds of posts of purely emotional content. Well done, young Skywalker."<BR/><BR/>Troll? That is academic lol<BR/>Again emotion and no content.<BR/><BR/>well readers... what do you say?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-72829525360556257752007-10-11T14:34:00.000-04:002007-10-11T14:34:00.000-04:00Anon,Flew is not a scientist. And atheism is not a...Anon,<BR/><BR/>Flew is not a scientist. And atheism is not a matter of science.<BR/><BR/>It is valid to refer to experts in the field, say biologists, when referring to issues of biology - like evolution.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-48111933112451100762007-10-11T10:16:00.000-04:002007-10-11T10:16:00.000-04:00Skeptics often use the appeal to authority as a cl...Skeptics often use the appeal to authority as a club to beat believers with. "How can you reject evolution when so many scientists believe it?" So the defection of a scientist from atheism to belief is significant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-88685464351654078762007-10-11T09:43:00.000-04:002007-10-11T09:43:00.000-04:00Anon,Discourse on my blog has never gotten as low ...Anon,<BR/><BR/>Discourse on my blog has never gotten as low and annoying as it has with you (and I'm including debate I've had with Jewish Philosopher!). So, yeah, you're a troll. My main emotion with you: annoyance.<BR/><BR/>As my readers know, I have hundreds of posts of purely emotional content. Well done, young Skywalker.<BR/><BR/><BR/>BR,<BR/><BR/>For the record, I only thought you were being annoying because you were being redundant. At least you're not a jerk.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-21949856584193448852007-10-11T06:15:00.000-04:002007-10-11T06:15:00.000-04:00resh lakish,"The religious conversion of a former ...resh lakish,<BR/><BR/>"The religious conversion of a former atheist is only big news according to religious/scholastic rules of argument."<BR/><BR/>Correct, which is why we were speaking about the argument that he was swayed by. My comments about it being big news were only in response to OP attempting to belittle the news. The news is big because of his being persuaded by new scientific findings that did not exist when he first presented his arguments. Watch this video for the argument:<BR/>http://tinyurl.com/2jz93e<BR/><BR/>"Hell, Crick had a weird belief in panspermia, and despite his brilliance in discovering the structure of DNA, it didn't manage to convert masses of scientists to belief in extra-terrestrial origins."<BR/><BR/>Crick confided to Professor Robert Shapiro that he personally wasn't really sold on the theory, and his real purpose in espousing this new theory was to get people to drop all previous theories that they held as true (such as the chemical soup theory, and the mutation theory, etc., all of them built on the idea that live matter can evolve from dead matter, which he held can't be true) and give them an idea which they can relate to, such as unmanned rockets with live bacteria in them, to hold on to. Not that he really believed this story, but it was to help people understand that this world could only have developed form live matter. So even though in public Crick says that he still believes his theory to be "reasonable," in private he told Shapiro otherwise.<BR/><BR/>"Nothing illustrates more clearly just how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact that world authorities can seriously toy with the idea of panspermia."<BR/><BR/>from:<BR/>R. Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on earth, New York: Bantam Books, 1986, pp. 227-228. and Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 271.<BR/><BR/>op,<BR/><BR/>"Jeez, how old are you?"<BR/>"Thank you for being a reflective light in this annoying molasses of obstinacy."<BR/><BR/>You are a pretty emotional guy. Lots of emotion... no content.<BR/><BR/>Lets do some review<BR/><BR/>"This is tedious... My point was that philosophically his conversion is not meaningful. He's just a guy and most atheists are not bothered by it.<BR/><BR/>He is interesting, sure, and that's why people talk about it - even atheists - but it's not of any lasting significance.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, your whole debating style of quoting people instead of making actual arguments is tedious in itself."<BR/><BR/>It is of lasting significance since this happened in 2004 and people have been talking about it everyday since!<BR/>http://technorati.com/posts/tag/antony+flewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-33350895212760806142007-10-11T01:05:00.000-04:002007-10-11T01:05:00.000-04:00Thank you for being a reflective light in this ann...Thank you for being a reflective light in this annoying molasses of obstinacy."<BR/><BR/>I tried my best to present and argue my point. If this is somehow annoying to you, dear blogger, I am sorry. Enjoy your blog. I am out.badrabbihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05200354745208266706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-1501752461803367492007-10-11T01:04:00.000-04:002007-10-11T01:04:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.badrabbihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05200354745208266706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-64968457438967531902007-10-10T14:51:00.000-04:002007-10-10T14:51:00.000-04:00Anon,"I'm sorry that this is "tedious"... but thin...Anon,<BR/><BR/>"I'm sorry that this is "tedious"... but things tend to get a bit tedious when someone makes remarks that are not sound, they are proven wrong and then attempt to redeem themselves."<BR/><BR/>Jeez, how old are you?<BR/><BR/><BR/>RL,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for being a reflective light in this annoying molasses of obstinacy.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-44706590626042145072007-10-10T11:29:00.000-04:002007-10-10T11:29:00.000-04:00Hi, hope you had a good yontif;OP,You seem to be s...Hi, hope you had a good yontif;<BR/><BR/>OP,<BR/><BR/>You seem to be stuck in a rather annoying thread from two directions. <BR/><BR/>I think BR is being intentionally obtuse. The first cause argument has to collapse to a single uncaused cause, even if that single cause causes multiple other causes which are themselves the causes of subsequent creation (a la gnosticism).<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, Anonymous doesn't seem to understand that in secular/empirical debate, argument from authority has no particular value. The religious conversion of a former atheist is only big news according to religious/scholastic rules of argument. Hell, Crick had a weird belief in panspermia, and despite his brilliance in discovering the structure of DNA, it didn't manage to convert masses of scientists to belief in extra-terrestrial origins.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-42677377263394762672007-10-10T06:19:00.000-04:002007-10-10T06:19:00.000-04:00"This is tedious... My point was that philosophica..."This is tedious... My point was that philosophically his conversion is not meaningful. He's just a guy and most atheists are not bothered by it.<BR/><BR/>He is interesting, sure, and that's why people talk about it - even atheists - but it's not of any lasting significance.<BR/><BR/>Frankly, your whole debating style of quoting people instead of making actual arguments is tedious in itself."<BR/><BR/>It is of lasting significance since this happened in 2004 and people have been talking about it everyday since!<BR/>http://technorati.com/posts/tag/antony+flew<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry that this is "tedious"... but things tend to get a bit tedious when someone makes remarks that are not sound, they are proven wrong and then attempt to redeem themselves.<BR/><BR/>Your debating style is quite similar.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-35039007042910813182007-10-10T02:43:00.000-04:002007-10-10T02:43:00.000-04:00BR,"The analogy to your argument is Equation #3."N...BR,<BR/><BR/>"The analogy to your argument is Equation #3."<BR/><BR/>No it's not. My theory is workable and accurate as far as observable phenomena are concerned.<BR/><BR/>I defined what I meant by God in a philosophical sense pretty clearly - a non-contingent existence responsible for the universe as we know it.<BR/><BR/>Competing theories are a) none of these things, b) one of these things or c) multiple of these things.<BR/><BR/>A is unworkable and therefore invalid since the universe didn't exist forever. C, besides not making sense, adds useless entities to the equation. B is the one left standing.<BR/><BR/>"Why so?"<BR/><BR/>Because they are contingent creations.Orthopraxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11649055168953784384noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-10742248846601350252007-10-10T01:42:00.000-04:002007-10-10T01:42:00.000-04:00"In any case, these other entities would only be l..."In any case, these other entities would only be lesser creations of God, not gods in themselves."<BR/><BR/>Why so?badrabbihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05200354745208266706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10333247.post-84961670396739765722007-10-10T01:25:00.000-04:002007-10-10T01:25:00.000-04:00Read the following on Parsimony(http://stardestroy...Read the following on Parsimony(http://stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Occam.html). The analogy to your argument is Equation #3.badrabbihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05200354745208266706noreply@blogger.com