Wednesday, November 30, 2011

God's Mind Under the Hood

Universals and similar mind objects are thoughts in the divine intellect.

--Redacted from Edward Feser, The Last Superstition, page 90, characterizing a statement by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Mental Reality Detectors Behind the Curtain



"The problem is turning mental being into real being. Because scientists use concepts that exist in mind but can't have independent existence in reality they start to attribute real existence to these mental entities."
---Aquinas3000 over at Edward Feser's blog.

But it's no problem if you're not assuming that the mental can arbitrate that initial difference between "mental" and "real" to begin with in the analysis itself.


Also, why should mind objects need to exist beyond the factors they are in thought? In fact, that is even more real than the unstable "reality", since mind objects adjudicate and pass constant judgment on what is "real" and what is mental just to use them as distinct terms in the discussion.


I don't know how anyone could decide what is "independent" existence in "reality" without criteria that is itself already independently existing as a necessary operating system of evaluative thought that we necessarily use universally in analysis.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Reasons Decide The Conclusions

The criteria for evaluating the issue of the existence of God is already God level. It has to be, in order to have the authority as sole systemic instrument for analysis---the ultimate epistemic court of last resort---to decide this universal ultimate question. Those criterial assumptions not only imply the existence of God---they are a proper subset of the divine mind. That's guaranteed by their universality, necessity, and ultimacy, even _prior_ to a successful argument.

To give reasons is to appeal to a higher authority than the conclusion for precisely the purpose of judging that conclusion's truth value. But in the case of arguing for God on the basis of criterial and other background assumptions, those ultimate reasons end up being necessary aspects of the ultimate mind whose existence those reasons necessarily imply.

Monday, November 21, 2011

Autobahn To Damascus

Yet another change of philosophy because of arguments for the existence of God.

Oh, the -threat- to the vested interests of anti-intellectualism!
The following Facebook post was written by Darrin Rasberry on Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 9:05pm.
[The fb link is iffy, goodbye to them eventually anyway, but here's the post from there:]

"There has been some confusion and more than a few requests for explanation about what is going on with my core beliefs. Some time last week, I realized that I could no longer call myself a skeptic. After fifteen years away from Christianity, most of which was spent as an atheist with an active, busy intent on destroying the faith, I returned to a church (with a real intention of going for worship) last Sunday. Although I know I may struggle with doubt for the rest of my life, my life as an atheist is over.


The primary motivator in my change of heart from a Christ-hater to a card-carrying Disciples of Christ member was apologetic arguments for God's existence. Those interested in these arguments may pursue them in the comments section, but I don't want to muddle this explanation up with formal philosophical proofs. Briefly, I grew tired of the lack of explanation for: the existence of the universe, moral values and duties, objective human worth, consciousness and will, and many other topics. The only valid foundation for many of those ideas is a personal, immaterial, unchanging and unchangeable entity. As I fought so desperately  to come up with refutations of these arguments - even going out of my way to personally meet many of their originators, defenders, and opponents  - I realized that I could not answer them no matter how many long nights I spent hitting the books. The months of study rolled on to years, and eventually I found an increasing comfort around my God-believing enemies and a growing discontent and even anger at my atheist friends' inability to kill off these fleas in debate and in writing, an anger that gave birth to my first feeling of separateness from skepticism after reading comments related to a definitively refuted version of the Christ Myth theory, the idea that Jesus Christ never even existed as a person at all. Line after line after line of people hating Christianity and laughing at its "lie," when solid scholarship refuting their idea was ignored completely. It showed that the motive of bashing and hating Christianity for some skeptics wasn't based in reason and "free thinking" at all, although it would be unfair to lump many of my more intellectually rigorous and mentally cool skeptic friends in this way.


As time went on, I reverted the path I traced after giving up Christianity so long ago: I went from atheist to agnostic to … gulp … *leaning* in the direction of God, to finally accepting that he very well could exist, and then to coming out and admitting (quietly) He did exist. After considering Deism (the belief in a God who abandons His creation), Islam, Hinduism (yes, Krishna, don't laugh), Baha'i, and even Jainism briefly, I have decided to select Christianity due to its superior model for human evil and its reconciliation, coupled with the belief that God interacted with man directly and face-to-face and had *the* crucial role in this reconciliation. This, of course, doesn't prove that Christianity is absolutely true (although I can prove that God exists), but rather reflects my recognition that Christianity is exactly what I would expect to be the case given that God exists.


There are problems that I have with adopting any specific layout of Christianity, which explains my current attendance at what many of you may consider to be a very liberal denomination in the Disciples of Christ. Their aim is to unify all believers in the essentials, while leaving nonessential beliefs (however important) up to the member to decide. The essentials are about all I can honestly grasp at this moment. At its philosophical core, I prefer the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition, perhaps by a long shot, but there are many very serious practical issues I can't resolve. Conversely, Catholicism is a practical Godsend (pardon the term) but I have problems with their philosophy. And I don't agree with many political issues of either of those branches or the majority of Christian branches in general. I have a long way to go and I know the many problems religion has in general and that Christianity has in specific, but they do not exceed the fatal problems in skepticism.


I understand that this may confuse and even upset many of the friends I've had for a long time, both in my personal life and in the years-long journey I've made as a skeptic-to-believer. Christianity is not without its critics, and given the absolutely shameful way many "Christians" have treated homosexuals, drug addicts, people of other faiths (and of no faith) and races, and even people of different Christian denomination, and given the often intellectually embarrassing way we've handled science and philosophy, I would not blame you for a second if you did not want to associate with me based on the track record of those who claim to believe similarly to what I believe now. I am the same Darrin as I was before, a math teacher, a storm chaser, D&D gamer, drunk philosopher, a lover of beer that's too strong and spice that's too hot,  and all the rest of it. I just hope to be a little cleaner, more honest, more Christ-like. I won't throw the Bible at you and I won't preach to you with wild eyes and a million mile stare about how you shouldn't be gay or how you should focus on what Hitch calls the "eternal theme park." This is all the evangelism you'll get from me (unless you ask after I've had too much Guinness) and I do hope it's quite enough to motivate you to study the evidence for God's existence yourself and to read the Bible without the predetermined idea of tearing it apart. Come over to the dark side; we have tea and cookies.


-Darrin


P.S. Although I am loath to bring it up because I hate to take the focus off of my brother and niece, I would be dishonest to not acknowledge the fact that I have lost my wonderful mother and my brother's beautiful young wife in the span of ten months. I've also managed to settle down and get married in the midst of all of that, meaning I've commenced a family life on my own, an idea that probably seems ludicrous for those of you who've known me for any length of time. Many of you would, understandably, wonder if such things have upset me to the point of dropping all I knew and following some guy who two thousand years ago said "follow me." I've reflected deeply about this very thing and wondered if this is all reactionary, but all of my study of God's existence and all of my existential woe predates even my mom's heart attack two years ago. The events of the past year served only to highlight the pressing need to address my changing ideas, rather than being the cause of them."

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

The Zeno Trick: Prior-Inclusion Conditional Equivocation

‎"Consider All of Reality. All of Reality includes our universe, any gods that might exist, any other universes that might exist, and all abstracta. If it exists, then it's part of All of Reality. Does All of Reality have a sustaining cause?"

But does this mean a cause included already as a prior condition of the scenario in your definition of "All of Reality"? Or something separate from that defined "All of Reality"?

Something separate would contradict the prior definition of "All of Reality", unless you're questioning something that you've already included in that totality merely to claim an implied contradiction in any claim alleging a sustaining cause in -addition- to the already-defined "All".

There is one entity in that All, God, which is uncaused, and sustains all other existing reals. So there's no "sustaining" cause needed for the total due to God's unique causal necessity, and in God's sustaining the rest of the "All".

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Self-Exempting Reductionism Rides Again

‎"After comparing more than two thousand DNA samples, an American molecular geneticist, Dean Hamer, concluded that a person's capacity to believe in God is linked to his brain chemicals. . . . , and if he has refrained from arguing that a person's capacity to believe in molecular genetics is linked to a brain chemical, it is, no doubt, owing to a prudent sense that once -that- door is open, God knows how and when anyone will ever slam it shut again."


 --David Berlinski, The Devil's Delusion


http://tinyurl.com/77ve7m8

Monday, November 07, 2011

Secret Reductionist Suicide Pact Revealed!


"And where is the objectivity of physical science when knowledge of any object is no more than a change in the brain-state of the observer-subject?"
--jack bodie, from Ed Feser's blog combox.

An excellent and challenging question. In some senses baffling, in fact.

The implications of such reductions for both objectivity and knowledge, seem to reduce those reductions themselves to nothing more than their own alleged universal explanatory factors.

Sort of a built-in cognitive death wish. Three cheers, I say.

Two Analysts Walk into a Method


"The major task of logic has been to establish a systematic way of deducing the logical consequences of a set of sentences." (First line of the 2007 Britannica "Knowledge In Depth" article, "Logic", Macropaedia Volume 23, page 225.)

True enough. But only minds or mind-based objects have tasks.