News:

Are you in the IGI Yearbook?

Main Menu

kevin and francis discuss something

Started by kevin, June 21, 2021, 08:51:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kevin

dare to know.

AgnosticDamien


kevin

dare to know.

Kiahanie

One of the first postulates gives me pause: "Nothing exists prior to itself" depends on a particular atomistic ontological perspective.

I look at it different. Things are processes, and in interacting with other processes become something else. Becoming is the natural state of being.

To speak of "prior to itself" is to speak of the history of this thing becoming whatever it is, of endless processes culminating in this moment which is surpassed again by becoming. The point at which a thing is said to "exist" becomes very arbitrary.




"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

8livesleft

Quote from: Kiahanie on June 22, 2021, 01:27:15 AM
One of the first postulates gives me pause: "Nothing exists prior to itself" depends on a particular atomistic ontological perspective.

I look at it different. Things are processes, and in interacting with other processes become something else. Becoming is the natural state of being.

To speak of "prior to itself" is to speak of the history of this thing becoming whatever it is, of endless processes culminating in this moment which is surpassed again by becoming. The point at which a thing is said to "exist" becomes very arbitrary.

Yeah this is how I see it too. Endless cycles of becoming.

You can't create or destroy matter. You can only change it's form.

GratefulApe

God is self existent. That's what makes Him God.

8livesleft

Actually that should be the 4th law of physics:

4. Matter is always changing

Therefore an unchanging entity can't exist.

Kiahanie

^^^^^ Awwwww, that's not fair, defining god out of existence. What's to discuss?

OTOH, since theists keep trying to define god into existence, maybe you have the right idea.
"If there were a little more silence, if we all kept quiet ... maybe we could understand something." --Federico Fellini....."Silence is the language of God, all else is poor translation" -Jellaludin Rumi,

ak.yonathan



Quote from: Kiahanie on June 22, 2021, 04:08:15 AM

OTOH, since theists keep trying to define god into existence, maybe you have the right idea.
No, two wrongs don't make a right.



Sent from my M2003J15SC using Tapatalk


kevin

#9
Quote from: Kiahanie on June 22, 2021, 01:27:15 AM
One of the first postulates gives me pause: "Nothing exists prior to itself" depends on a particular atomistic ontological perspective.

I look at it different. Things are processes, and in interacting with other processes become something else. Becoming is the natural state of being.

To speak of "prior to itself" is to speak of the history of this thing becoming whatever it is, of endless processes culminating in this moment which is surpassed again by becoming. The point at which a thing is said to "exist" becomes very arbitrary.

this is a good point.  it is explicit in aquinas's first three ways that an object consists both of a physical thing and of an associated process. in his first way, the un-moved mover argument, an object consists of something called a mover, which is always engaged in a process called moving (of something else). the uncaused cause argument proposes things called causes that exist and and of a process that causes the next cause to exist. the contingency argument has an object whose existence is necessary for the next object to exist. in all of them, the object is both a tangible thing and a process that affects a subsequent object.

but there's no reason to think of an object in only that way. you can group the two components differently, by assigning a process as being received rather than by being imposed. so taking the first way, instead of an object being an imposer that possesses the process of moving something, you can think of it as a receiver that possesses the process of having been moved. when you zip them up into a sequence, the two different types of chains are identical. yet one theoretically requires an unmoved mover to start the chain, while the other doesn't. the next two ways can be refuted in the same manner.

this is a complicated way to do it, though. there are two simpler ones that dispense with them in a few sentences.

his fourth and fifth ways are different. i haven't thought about them.
dare to know.