Classical Theism

[sayak83]

A more careful reading of the blog might help. "Cause" isn't quite the right word because most people would interpret that to mean God woke up one morning and decided to create a universe in a way that implies change in the immutable God:

"...the core of classical theism is the notion of God as cause of the world. But it seems to me that this is not quite right. Anselm is, after all, a classical theist, and he conceives of God (in his best-known argument, anyway) primarily as That Than Which No Greater Can Be Conceived, rather than as cause of the world. So, it seems to me that what is more fundamental to classical theism is the notion of God as that which is absolutely metaphysically ultimate – a notion that encompasses both Anselm’s conception of God and the God-as-cause-of-the-world approach of Aquinas, Maimonides, and all the others, and which accounts for the centrality of divine simplicity to classical theism. ...As Aquinas says, to say that God makes the world is not like saying that a blacksmith made a horseshoe – where the horseshoe might persist even if the blacksmith died – but rather like saying that a musician makes music, where the music would stop if the musician stopped playing."

According to Wiki, "In theology, the common phrase creatio ex nihilo ("creation out of nothing"), contrasts with creatio ex materia (creation out of some pre-existent, eternal matter) and with creatio ex deo (creation out of the being of God)." I favor sort of a combination of the second and last.

There is no evidence that the existence of the material realm is dependent on anything else "below" or "beyond" it. Nature could be self-sufficiently existing. The claim that it is not is based on what exactly?

 

[Agondonter]

There is no evidence that the existence of the material realm is dependent on anything else "below" or "beyond" it. Nature could be self-sufficiently existing. The claim that it is not is based on what exactly?

"Atheists display an almost aggressive lack of curiosity when it comes to the facts about belief." from The one theology book all atheists really should read.


In Defense of Classical Theism covers it if you care to read it. Personally, I simply ask, "Why intelligibility?" Hanging it all on thin air makes the scientific endeavor incoherent. It's like a toddler saying, "Just because." Even physicist Paul Davies thinks that's a crock.

 

[Agondonter]

FYI, I just started reading A Different Universe by physicist Robert B. Laughlin. In it, he writes," I am increasingly persuaded that all physical all we know about has collective origins, not just some of it. In other words, the distinction between fundamental laws and the laws descending from them is a myth, as is the idea of mastery of the universe do mathematics alone." That is consistent with the doctrine of divine simplicity.

 

[sayak83]

"Atheists display an almost aggressive lack of curiosity when it comes to the facts about belief." from The one theology book all atheists really should read.


In Defense of Classical Theism covers it if you care to read it. Personally, I simply ask, "Why intelligibility?" Hanging it all on thin air makes the scientific endeavor incoherent. It's like a toddler saying, "Just because." Even physicist Paul Davies thinks that's a crock.

You display an aggressive lack of understanding of Paul Davies whose lectures I have personally attended and read a few of his books. His ideas have nothing to do with what I am talking about. There is absolutely nothing to back up the claim that the existence of natural substances (matter-energy-space-time or whatever more basic way one would eventually conceive of it) is dependent on something else. Why would even the question arise that they are somehow dependent on something else for it to exist? Nature happily continues to behave as if it is dependent on nothing else, so naturalists are perfectly satisfied in our claim that nature is the ultimate reality that exists in and of itself till someone can bring to us some evidence that
a) There is something else that is apart from nature
b) That it is more basic in some way
c) The existence of nature is dependent on it.

Please feel free to cite the evidence, or even an argument, because the blog you cite sure as hell does not provide it. Nor the news article. Stop posting links and make an argument (which you can support with links).

 

[Agondonter]

Why did Davies coin the term "chance in the gaps"?

Why intelligibility?

Why didn’t you read the article?

What makes you think I'm talking about nature existing independently of the organizing principle or vice versa?

 

[sayak83]

Why did Davies coin the term "chance in the gaps"?

Enlighten me with the quotes.

Why intelligibility?

What are you talking about?

Why didn’t you read the article?

I read both articles. Nothing new or interesting in it. Feel free to quote things and change my mind.

What makes you think I'm talking about nature existing independently of the organizing principle or vice versa?

You so far has talked about nothing at all. So I have no thoughts about what you think.

 

[Sapiens]

Nice failure at shifting the burden. What is the argument against? ... why the absence of a good argument for, of course.

 

[Agondonter]

Enlighten me with the quotes.


What are you talking about?


I read both articles. Nothing new or interesting in it. Feel free to quote things and change my mind.


You so far has talked about nothing at all. So I have no thoughts about what you think.

Why the red herring? Just answer to question in the OP. However, since you don't even know what "intelligibility" means, I don't think it's possible.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

he conceives of God (in his best-known argument, anyway) primarily as That Than Which No Greater Can Be Conceived, rather than as cause of the world.

Yes, and that "That" is what I always define as God, Truth--whether the reality/manifestations of that Truth is conscious and self-aware or not. Either way, It is God.

 

[sayak83]

Why the red herring? Just answer to question in the OP. However, since you don't even know what "intelligibility" means, I don't think it's possible.

Intelligibility of what?

 

[sayak83]

Why the red herring? Just answer to question in the OP. However, since you don't even know what "intelligibility" means, I don't think it's possible.

I have read about classical theism. Its a big subject with lots of different works with further analysis done by modern theologians and skeptics. So you have to pick an argument you want to discuss and talk about it. You were suggesting that one such thing is God is the priori unconditioned ground of existence. I refuted that. Now what?

 

[Riverwolf]

:::sigh::: Equivocation: the last refuge of willful ignorance.

Interesting how you respond to my request for clarification by claiming I'm doing something, while doing that very same thing yourself.

Especially given how I wasn't ambiguous at all. I even gave the three primary usages for "classical", any one of which you could be using, so you could understand where I'm coming from better.

Thankfully,

In Defense of Classical Theism

This article, at the very least, lets me know. You are using "classical" in the sense of "Greco-Roman."

Now, there's something to work with. As it stands, however, I'm not that familiar with Greco-Roman monotheism except by proxy.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The wikipedia article gives a reasonable description of Classical Theism as the term is normally used
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism
It's not perfect, for I think most would take Swinburne as Classical. But it does make the point that it's a Western, Christian, monotheist position.

Graeco-Roman theism, formalised by Plotinus, differs in taking a deist view of the Supreme Being and accepting polytheism. Most post-Aristotelian thinkers also rejected the idea of creation, considering that God was responsible only for the continued existence of the cosmos.

 

[Agondonter]

I have read about classical theism. Its a big subject with lots of different works with further analysis done by modern theologians and skeptics. So you have to pick an argument you want to discuss and talk about it. You were suggesting that one such thing is God is the priori unconditioned ground of existence. I refuted that. Now what?

Yes, it is a big subject that is at once simple and complex. In classical theism, the usual arguments against God — the problem of evil, lack of evidence, etc. — are simply incoherent. Evidence by its nature has to establish boundaries in order to define, but at the heart of heart classical theism is the doctrine of divine simplicity which makes that impossible. Your response is identical the same as Gram Oppy's in the article I linked to. From the article:

Graham Oppy's recently published The Best Argument Against God represents something like this strategy: maybe we do need to posit an ultimate First Cause of sorts. But whether we do or not, there's nothing to be gained by saying it's a supernatural entity with intellect and will. No hitherto unexplained facts get explained, and no currently explained facts get explained any better. All we end up doing is making explanatorily superfluous claims. This is what LaPlace had in mind when he said, in reference to God, “I have no need of that hypothesis.”

This response would have considerable force against modern conceptions of God, under which God might be viewed as a sort of conjunction of essential properties: God is necessary and omnipotent and the source of all value, etc. Here one is entitled to reject the entire conjunction simply by virtue of rejecting one of its conjuncts. So while a non-theist might not think that anything has all of these properties, she might think that something has a couple or more of them.

But, this way of thinking is incoherent on classical theism, since the First Cause is considered to be utterly simple. In other words, the First Cause isn't thought of as having essential properties, or any sort of parts at all: the First Cause and its power, goodness, and even knowledge all refer to the same thing, just in different senses (much like "Clark Kent" and "Superman" do).​

The article concludes:

But, whether classical theists have good reasons for affirming Divine Simplicity or not, this way of responding to classical theism commits the fallacy of begging the question, since it assumes that the First Cause could be composite, which entails that Divine Simplicity (a central tenant of classical theism) is false.​

The problem for the critic is that there is nothing in classical theism to disseminate, nothing to argue against. God does not exist like a car or Mt. Everest, but is the ground of existence itself. God sustains and vitalizes the universe from below, within and from above, creating like a musician creates music rather than a blacksmith making a horseshoe. To argue that a God so understood is not necessary is to hang everything, including science, on thin air and talk like a toddler whose answer to everything is, “Just because.”

Albert Einstein famously said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that is comprehensible." We have come full circle. The notion of God doesn't do away with mystery or diminish science in any way. It's optional, but the denial of God so understood is to remain is a toddler. For the early modern scientists, doing science and mathematics was to commune with God and a way to know the mind of God.

You didn't refute anything, so I'll ask again: What, if any, are your arguments against classical theism? Only this time, don't lost in circularity.

 

[Agondonter]

The wikipedia article gives a reasonable description of Classical Theism as the term is normally used
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism
It's not perfect, for I think most would take Swinburne as Classical. But it does make the point that it's a Western, Christian, monotheist position.

Graeco-Roman theism, formalised by Plotinus, differs in taking a deist view of the Supreme Being and accepting polytheism. Most post-Aristotelian thinkers also rejected the idea of creation, considering that God was responsible only for the continued existence of the cosmos.

Plotinus was NOT a deist. A good book on his philosophy is Return to the One by Brian Hines.

The article you linked to says: "Since classical theistic ideas are influenced by Greek philosophy and focus on God in the abstract and metaphysical sense, they can be difficult to reconcile with the "near, caring, and compassionate" view of God presented in the religious texts of the main monotheistic religions, particularly the Bible." That is absurd.

 

[idav]

Yes, it is a big subject that is at once simple and complex. In classical theism, the usual arguments against God — the problem of evil, lack of evidence, etc. — are simply incoherent.

Nope, god doesn't get off the hook that easy. The argument amounts to saying that evil is just beyond our comprehension. Beyond comprehension and beyond reality just means non-existent.

 

[sayak83]

Yes, it is a big subject that is at once simple and complex. In classical theism, the usual arguments against God — the problem of evil, lack of evidence, etc. — are simply incoherent. Evidence by its nature has to establish boundaries in order to define, but at the heart of heart classical theism is the doctrine of divine simplicity which makes that impossible. Your response is identical the same as Gram Oppy's in the article I linked to. From the article:

Graham Oppy's recently published The Best Argument Against God represents something like this strategy: maybe we do need to posit an ultimate First Cause of sorts. But whether we do or not, there's nothing to be gained by saying it's a supernatural entity with intellect and will. No hitherto unexplained facts get explained, and no currently explained facts get explained any better. All we end up doing is making explanatorily superfluous claims. This is what LaPlace had in mind when he said, in reference to God, “I have no need of that hypothesis.”

This response would have considerable force against modern conceptions of God, under which God might be viewed as a sort of conjunction of essential properties: God is necessary and omnipotent and the source of all value, etc. Here one is entitled to reject the entire conjunction simply by virtue of rejecting one of its conjuncts. So while a non-theist might not think that anything has all of these properties, she might think that something has a couple or more of them.

But, this way of thinking is incoherent on classical theism, since the First Cause is considered to be utterly simple. In other words, the First Cause isn't thought of as having essential properties, or any sort of parts at all: the First Cause and its power, goodness, and even knowledge all refer to the same thing, just in different senses (much like "Clark Kent" and "Superman" do).​

The article concludes:

But, whether classical theists have good reasons for affirming Divine Simplicity or not, this way of responding to classical theism commits the fallacy of begging the question, since it assumes that the First Cause could be composite, which entails that Divine Simplicity (a central tenant of classical theism) is false.​

The problem for the critic is that there is nothing in classical theism to disseminate, nothing to argue against. God does not exist like a car or Mt. Everest, but is the ground of existence itself. God sustains and vitalizes the universe from below, within and from above, creating like a musician creates music rather than a blacksmith making a horseshoe. To argue that a God so understood is not necessary is to hang everything, including science, on thin air and talk like a toddler whose answer to everything is, “Just because.”

Albert Einstein famously said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that is comprehensible." We have come full circle. The notion of God doesn't do away with mystery or diminish science in any way. It's optional, but the denial of God so understood is to remain is a toddler. For the early modern scientists, doing science and mathematics was to commune with God and a way to know the mind of God.

You didn't refute anything, so I'll ask again: What, if any, are your arguments against classical theism? Only this time, don't lost in circularity.

It should be quite clear what I am refuting. I am refuting the proposition that nature require something more fundamental for it to exist. It is self-contained and self-existent. The blog you cited is defining God as that "whatever" on which existence of everything else, like the natural world, is dependent on. Here is the direct quote

On classical theism, God is the most fundamental reality, and just is subsistent being itself. Thus, he does not instantiate properties, or participate in forms of being, as if there were anything independent of and prior to him: everything apart from God is subsequent to and dependent upon him. Everything else derives from the fount of being. Is there room to rationally think that derivative being ultimately doesn't derive from anything?

I am claiming that nature itself is the ultimate self-existent entity. There is nothing independent or prior to nature. There is nothing else apart from nature, whose various properties and structural forms constitute ALL REALITY. The blog presumes that atheists or naturalists somehow share his mistaken notion that nature is somehow dependent on something. We don't. There is not a single iota of evidence or rational justification for claiming that this natural world exists as a derivative of something else. As Sean Carroll put it,
"We will ultimately understand the world as a single unified reality, not caused or sustained or influenced by anything outside of itself."
Nature requires no ground of existence as nature is the ultimate ground.

And obviously we reject the idea of a First Cause in any philosophically interesting sense. If it turns out that time and causality are only approximate models and are not fundamental features of the universe (as is being hinted at by some theories in physics), then there will be regions of nature where the approximate description of phenomena in terms of causality and temporal sequence will have to be replaced by more robust concepts of a general theory (similar to a quantum-classical transition). But that does not mean that causality suddenly came into existence, it simply means that physics have become simple enough that the approximations like time and causality become accurate enough to describe phenomena. But in an ultimate sense first cause does not exist.

I am not seeing a single argument for classical theism either in your posts or in the blog. What reason is there to believe that nature requires to exist dependently on something else? What reason is there to propose some ultimate first cause? What is there for me to refute?

And Einstein could not comprehend quantum physics! He wanted to reject it because he found it incomprehensible. It is incomprehensible but it is TRUE. Reality does not appear to be comprehensible, its just mathematically and logically tractable. And any reality that could ever exist will always be mathematically and logically tractable (as they span all possible worlds). So we find the correct math and logic for a certain level of phenomena and get accustomed to it.

 

[Agondonter]

Nope, god doesn't get off the hook that easy. The argument amounts to saying that evil is just beyond our comprehension. Beyond comprehension and beyond reality just means non-existent.

It's easier.

First, the POE presupposes an external agent like superman or the Easter Bunny, which classical theism emphatically denies.

Second, the POE refutes itself by presupposing the Good it aims to disprove. If it succeeds, it also fails because evil, being measured against the Good, would not exist and the argument invalidated thereby.

The utter nonsense of the so-called POE is the reason I avoid any thread that treats it as a problem.

 

[McBell]

Is anyone here familiar with classical theism? What, if any, are your arguments against it?

No need for an "argument" against an argument from incredulity.

 

[Agondonter]

It should be quite clear what I am refuting. I am refuting the proposition that nature require something more fundamental for it to exist. It is self-contained and self-existent. The blog you cited is defining God as that "whatever" on which existence of everything else, like the natural world, is dependent on. Here is the direct quote

Why do you insist that God is something outside nature?

"We will ultimately understand the world as a single unified reality, not caused or sustained or influenced by anything outside of itself."

There's that superman hypothesis again

Nature requires no ground of existence as nature is the ultimate ground.

And I'm asking why is it comprehensible. So far, all I've seen is a toddler's response.

I am not seeing a single argument for classical theism either in your posts or in the blog. What reason is there to believe that nature requires to exist dependently on something else? What reason is there to propose some ultimate first cause? What is there for me to refute?

That's kinda the point: there is nothing for you to refute. Classical theism doesn't need an argument. Like my signature says, "if one understands what the actual philosophical definition of 'God' is in most of the great religious traditions, and if consequently one understands what is logically entailed in denying that there is any God so defined, then one cannot reject the reality of God tout court without embracing an ultimate absurdity." The OP was aimed not at atheists or atheism, which are totally incongruent with the subject at hand. I was looks for a response from theists.

And Einstein could not comprehend quantum physics! He wanted to reject it because he found it incomprehensible. It is incomprehensible but it is TRUE. Reality does not appear to be comprehensible, its just mathematically and logically tractable. And any reality that could ever exist will always be mathematically and logically tractable (as they span all possible worlds). So we find the correct math and logic for a certain level of phenomena and get accustomed to it.

ROFLMAO!!! WHY? No toddler's response, please.