Tuesday, July 15, 2008

• God Almighty.

  Multitudes of people around the world have a strong belief that there exist a superior and perfect being to which we must all answer to, known as God, and many people have gone as far as to attempt to give rational arguments to prove his existence. Though according to the eighteenth century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, and the teleological argument are the only arguments that can be used to prove the existence of God. Yet can it be proven beyond any doubt that God does in fact exist? No, even with these three arguments the existence of God cannot be proven from the fact that none of them state any rational proof of his existence. The ontological argument is based on God being conceived and understood and therefore to exist, but this argument shows no factual evidence and only of assumptions which could be applied to anything and be proven not to exist. The cosmological argument would only apply if the universe was finite since it argues against infinity of causes and we have yet to pinpoint the first cause to the creation of time. The teleological argument is flawed in that we have failed to be perfect and therefore couldn't possibly be God's design nor do we have any idea of our purpose in life which we would have had we been created by God.

  St. Anselm’s main point in his ontological argument is that if any person can conceive God to be and have him in their understanding then there stands the proof that is needed to show God exists, and since we have also conceived him to be perfect then it would be imperfect for him to not exist. Though it that were to hold true then in that sense we could conceive of an infinity of objects to be perfect and if we were to have them in our understanding then they would all have to exist according to the ontological argument. We have conceived something as perfect and have actually arrived at understanding it such as the perfect government. It was said that Communism would be the one true perfect government since it was conceived to be so and was made to be perfect as well as understood, yet as it has been shown by the attempts of many countries, it did not turn out to be perfect. If then the idea that the ontological argument states were to be true, communism must be and should have been perfect, but it came out to be that it is only perfect in thought and in writing. Therefore, we could assume that the same could be said and held true for God. It may be in that God is only true to be perfect in thought and in the writings which are said to be his. He may then be imperfect as the communistic type of government was and it would be possible for him no to exist. In assuming this, from the fact that something we conceived as perfect was flawed, the ontological argument could be assumed to be flawed as well and not be used as evidence of God’s existence. The ontological argument has been shown to be flawed, so can we still prove God’s existence with the second?

  The cosmological argument is argued by St. Thomas Aquinas. To prove God’s existence he uses five arguments. In his first argument he states that there must always be a mover and a moved. The example he states is one of wood not being able to be in the state of being hot and having the potential to be in that state. It makes sense that something can’t be in a state and have a potential at the same time of being in that state, and in that sense the mover cannot be the moved. Yet we could take for instance a wolf hunting and test the idea of the cosmological argument. The wolf is the moved as it is the one hunting, but in this example there is no other being acting as a mover that makes the wolf hunt. Although the wolf is in the state of hunting which means it is the moved, it can also be thought of the mover since it is the wolf’s instinct for survival that moves it to hunt. The wolf has then acted as both the mover and the moved. Therefore the argument that nothing can act as both the mover and the moved on its self has some exceptions and can’t be used to prove without a doubt that God does exist. According to Aquinas’ second and third arguments it is impossible for there to be infinity of things such as causes. There is substantial evidence to suggest evolution which would mean that we didn’t just suddenly come to be. There is also the “Big Bang” theory from which the entire universe was created, and the prediction of gravitational singularity which was before the creation of the universe. There are then no actual facts that suggest a single cause that could have made not only the universe but ourselves at the same time nor can we pinpoint a the creation of time just as we can count numerically to infinity in both the positive and negative. This would mean that there could be infinity of causes that lead to what we see around us today, and rule out Aquinas’ arguments against infinity of causes. His third argument states that there has to be a being of the highest goodness, and perfection, but as the previous argument was shown to be flawed in that nothing can be perfect, God can’t be the highest perfection nor highest goodness if he allows pain and suffering that is rampant in our societies. In his final argument he states that anything that lacks knowledge cannot move toward and end. Though we have both knowledge and intelligence, so can we therefore say that we are possible to move to an end without being directed by another being or in this case, God. The cosmological argument has also been found flawed, but is there still hope that the last argument give rational proof of God’s existence?

  In arguing for the proof of the existence of God, William Paley uses the teleological argument. His arguing example is that of a watch, the complexity of its components, and its main function to ourselves. The watch has many components that all work together to allow it to function just as we have components as well that allow us to function. The watch serves the purpose of telling time, yet we are all uncertain for our purpose which could have lead to us conceiving God so we would then have a reason to function. Though it is more obvious that the watch has a maker, since it is not naturally formed and the precision of many of its components not being seen in nature happening constantly or at all would then suggest that the watch is artificial. So to try to compare a watch to us, who have components abundantly seen in nature, would be absurd. Even if we had known nothing about the watch it would have been irrational to assume that it had been made naturally, so therefore we must assume that it had to have a creator. Although we could assume it did have a creator, we can’t say the same about ourselves since we have evidence of our evolution from ancestors which struggled to survive. We could have hence not have been made to perfection at any given time if we have changed so much to be more fit in surviving. Hence, being imperfect even today, we could not have possibly have been made to a perfect standard by any perfect being such as God, and the teleological argument has been found to be flawed.

  None of the three arguments have been found to be unflawed and to give any factual proof of the existence of God nor can we, by any means with either argument, say that we can proof beyond a doubt that can prove God exists, is our creator, or our mover. The “evidence” given by all three men was found to be irrational thought they hoped would have prove God’s existence, and believe there was no possible way to prove otherwise. Though these arguments are flawed and can’t prove God’s existence, we can’t also say the arguments against any of these three could be used to prove he doesn’t exist, but we can say that they are more rational and have more solid evidence of his non-existence.

  • 2:18 AM
  • add eprops
  • add comments
  • email

• What others may like...

  Ducasse had a strong belief that the disputes over tastes are futile since no one is really disputing as they are just plainly stating their personal opinions on what gave them aesthetic pleasure. It is then true that his idea of tastes not being disputable since what is aesthetically pleasing to one person may not be the same for others and that what they find to be good or bad taste is only within their perception. We are then lead to the thought that any authoritative rules or canons cannot be proven nor disproved from the fact that it all lays in the opinion of individuals.

  “There is, of course, such a thing as good taste, and bad taste. But good taste, I submit, means either my taste, or the taste of people who are to my taste, or the taste of people to whose taste I want to be.”

  Ducasse’s statement lays the foundation on the whole idea of tastes not being disputable, as the latter part of the statement indicates that taste, or good taste for that matter, is only what each individual perceives it to be. It therefore would hold true that we are not able to dispute tastes as good or bad since it lays wholly upon the eye of the beholder. Hence, there can be no dispute between two persons over whether Picasso or Van Gogh is the better artist since that would only rest upon who each person perceives to be the better of the two. So then good and bad tastes would lay solely on our individual perceptions and are not disputable by set standards.

  “All rules and canons and theories concerning what a painting or other work of art should or should not be, derive such authority as they have over you or me or anyone else, solely from the capacity of such canons to predict to us that we shall feel aesthetic pleasure here and aesthetic pain there.”

  The authoritative comments given of certain subjects are then no more than opinions of everyday people who have in some way been placed up on high stools, given the power to preside over a population, and then allowed to make their opinion sound as a rule or canon by which everything must be followed. These are allowed to become rules by a majority or minority for whom “the rule was a valid one” since it did predict what they felt; yet for others it may not be as valid. So as far as for every subject, there are no set rules, or shouldn’t be, but plenty of opinions on what each individual or group of individuals found aesthetically pleasing. We then shouldn’t follow all that is set as standards but judges these set standards on our own preferences.

  It has been shown and argued that there can be no dispute in tastes as everyone has different opinions of what they find aesthetically pleasing to them. There can also be no set standard to the whole population except to certain groups in which people with the same tastes reside in. Hence, we should not dispute why Picasso or Van Gogh is better, but admit that we each have our preference in the matter and allow each and everyone of us express our opinion and tastes without disputing about them. Therefore each person should be allowed to perceive as they wish and have their own tastes, but should not impose their tastes onto others.

  • 2:17 AM
  • add eprops
  • add comments
  • email

• Do we really have a choice?

  Holbach’s ideas of man’s nature and the causes to it has helped in enforcing the belief of determinism while at the same time helping in refuting the belief of indeterminism. Though he had in fact shown quite some thoughts that hold true and help the belief of determinism there still are some thoughts or ideas that are flawed.

  "Man believes he acts as a free agent, every time he does not see anything that places obstacles to his actions; he does not perceive that the motive which causes him to will, is always necessary and independent of himself."

  According to Holbach, the idea man has of being a free agent or acting as a free agent is false in that no idea is born in his brain by his own free agency to act upon, but that an idea is brought upon from the past and he then is given the choice of whether he wishes to or actually acts upon it or not and how he goes about doing so. Take for example a poor man, he does not wish to act upon being poor to become rich because he is a free agent nor because the idea is born in his brain, but because of his current status of being poor or the necessity of having a better chance of survival by coming out of poverty. The poverty stricken man has therefore acted upon an obstacle, whether he perceives it as an obstacle or not, which has been placed by something such as a past choice he acted upon which may have directly or indirectly led him to poverty. This statement therefore holds true that man is not a free agent.

  “There is, in point of fact, no difference between the man that is cast out of the window by another, and the man who throws himself out of it…”

  As Holbach stated, there is in actuality no difference between a man thrown out of a window and one who jumps out. That is because while there is no external or visible force throwing the man in the latter situation, there is in fact an invisible force internally that drives him to that action. Although many might perceive him to be a free agent because it seems he so chooses to jump out instead of staying put, he did not in reality have a choice as he allowed his passion to turn him into an irrational man which then forced him to the act of jumping out in an attempt to defend the idea that he is a free agent. In both instances the man is picked up from his seat by the same thing, irrationality. In one he is picked up by an irrational man wishing to throw him out while he rationally fights to survive, whereas in the second he is picked up by his irrational passion that blinds him of his rational thought and only allows him to see his pride being brought down which he then tries to protect by proving his point. There is then no difference between either situation as the man thrown out had in fact no direct choice, and therefore the idea of man not being a free agent is enforced.

  Although these ideas may be true and proven true by Holbach, it is not true that man would not be responsible for the consequences caused by his action. Though he may not be responsible for certain situations in which he may be involved, he is responsible for his choice on how he chooses to act in the situation whether they directly or indirectly affect the outcome of such situation, be it a wanted or unwanted outcome.

  The belief then of determinism is then proven, though not completely, by Holbach. Though most may hold true, there are still many flaws in this believe, as man may not be a free agent but he is always responsible for the actions he chooses.

  • 2:16 AM
  • add eprops
  • add comments
  • email

• Cave of Ignorance

  Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave” gives great metaphor on the life of man, how he perceives reality, and what he perceives it to be based on the experiences in his life. The dialect between Socrates and Glaucon also touches upon the nature of man’s intellect and the effects of what great knowledge as well as that of great ignorance has upon his life and his perception of reality.

  “… A sensible man will remember that the eye may be confused in two ways- by a change from light to darkness or from darkness to light…”

  Plato’s statement refers to the every day life of most of the world’s population. The sensible man standing for those who are neither fully wise nor who are fully ignorant. They can therefore be referred to as the “capturer” of the prisoners in “The Allegory of the Cave” in that they are neither chained up and kept in darkness nor forced to go up into the light and contemplate “the Sun and… its nature.” The “eye” which Plato writes about belonging to the sensible man refers to the intellect of man, and the confusion in which state the “eye” can be in is the increase or decrease of the sensible man’s intellect.

  One way in which this “eye” can be confused as stated is from a change from light to darkness. This referring to someone such as Plato who has approached everything in a rational way, leading then to their greater intellect because of it. Those then who contemplate and reach a higher way of thought and then "[return] from divine contemplations to the petty miseries of men" are going through a change from light to darkness, the darkness standing to the ignorance of the fellow man. Whereas the change from darkness to light refers to when the ignorant man, who wishes not to contemplate further than that which is portrayed within his sight, is forced or voluntarily moves up into the light, or wisdom. Such a man would at first have his sight blurred or would have as little understanding of what he perceives before him as he has never seen or contemplated about such things. He would then therefore begin to contemplate what he perceives and question whether such things are real or not. This man would hence be going from “the petty miseries of men” to “divine contemplations.”

  Such changes would greatly affect the life of the sensible man both in intellect and in his public affairs. If a man would go from darkness to light he would see those who have remained in darkness as starved from reality and feel pity for them, and that man which goes from light to darkness would then be ridiculed and thought a fool and at this he would then envy those who remained in darkness. To a sensible man such a change would be a horrible one hence he would be wise as to choose to remain the “capturer” or in terms of light and dark the one to remain neither in complete darkness nor to ascend into complete light, and therefore keep his status quo in both his “reality” and social life.

  Man in general will therefore struggle to be released of darkness and reach a certain “reality” which will then not affect his life in any great way. He will wish to perceive things in a certain light and angle to where he knows more about its reality, but not contemplate too much to where he then questions whether an object is real or not. The change in confusion which the sensible man’s “eye” goes through is not one that is wanted but one that is rather tried to avoid at the cost of being out-casted by his fellow man and then thought a fool for his ascension to useless “divine contemplations.”

  • 2:15 AM
  • add eprops
  • add comments
  • email

• Through my bleeding eyes.

  Let's recap a bit. I am Agnostic, though I do not advocate it. I will speak of my beliefs, though not force them upon anyone else. I will criticize others, though never (maybe) judge them. I understand that there are those who have become Atheists or Agnostics as well, but I do not go around trying to make others like myself. I actually would advocate a belief in a higher being. Why? Because I do find it somewhat hard to live life while thinking this is all there is, nothing is waiting at the end of it. It is somewhat mind boggling. It makes life seem so much shorter and so much more depressing. But, here I am.
  
  Now there will be some out there that I am just close-minded about religion, or any they might belong to. But one of my goals in life is attaining as much knowledge about everything as I can and reducing my ignorance. I do own the Bible, I own the Book of Mormon, I haven't yet obtained the Qur'an, I don't have anything on the teachings of Buddha, and there are many others I need, I would even get something on Scientology (even though I do find this one quite ridiculous).
  
  I love knowledge, I hate ignorance.
  
  This was a somewhat short entry with nothing new. Though the next one will be more of me venting about something. I will also post 4 essays I wrote 2 years ago. One is about the Allegory of the Cave (which I seem to reference back to quite often), one is about God's existence (the proof or otherwise of his existence), one is about choices, and the last one is about tastes. For those of you who may be interested, I hope you enjoy them. For those of you who don't want to waste their time... I guess. Though do not copy any of them, otherwise I will have to find you, cut you open with a sharp stone, reach into your chest, and pull out your still-beating heart. And a great soup that will make for homeless people.
  
  

  • 2:06 AM
  • add eprops
  • add comments
  • email